reread the article. Teacher's jobs were saved because of the law (in fact that was the point of the article). The cities that did massive layoffs are the ones that still have collective bargaining contracts (Milwaukee, Kanosha) .
lololol First of all, cap and balance! It works so well for the states, let's tack it onto the Constitution! Second...hilarious. oh, no, that's not going to affect the children, those wealthy-ass teachers are just going to have to suck it up and teach more, and live less! We really want the best and brightest here. For too long, PUBLIC SCHOOL teachers have been the scrounge of our society. They suck up all the resources! They own all the wealth! Oh, we can't increase taxes on them EVER, but make them work harder! And contribute more! And not have a health care plan! Wall Street denizens being put to these same standards, or those who inherit their wealth! WHY I NEVER. Tax increases are always bad, which is why I always vote for slashing people's pensions instead. Double if they're the evil folk who teach my children and are WAY TOO WEALTHY! Remember when I wanted to tack an amendment up to the Constitution, I also want to remove one! Because, holy Christ, we can't have this, collective bargaining be a part of the Constitution. Scott Walker violating the Constitution? CANNOT HAPPEN. THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE WRONG. those marxist founding fathers...grr.
Milwaukee has collective bargaining rights. Their contract has not expired yet. So the law has no effect on Milwaukee. They could of chosen to balance their budgets like every other school district did by making teachers pay more into their pensions, but the union would not let them. So they had to fire a bunch of teachers instead. Reread the article.
Reread your whole assertion about Walker the Unconstitutional. Please, may I ask you, why is Scott Walker aiming to deprive the people of Wisconsin of the right to freedom of association? It doesn't matter if they still have them now, it's what Walker wants to do with them and has already started doing with in this law. Flagrantly unconstitutional, no? Furthermore, do you support cap and balance as a Federal amendment? Letting the country default on "no new taxes?" It seems you don't care one whit about the Constitution, but do you care about the fact that American teachers are seeing their pensions and salaries reduced, while America spends more on one F-35 than it probably does on 2000 schoolchildren?
you're wasting your time Northside. This freakazoid will come back with some stupid, "they have the right to assemble, just not be recognized by the state" nonsense.
Teachers are free to collectively tell Governor Walker 'either give us all these minimum benefits or we will quit'. A person can quit for whatever reason they want. Wisconsin has every right to tell them to **** off as well (all employers do). Freedom of association has not been violated unless you are using some really obscure version of freedom of association.
Er, no, freedom of association is not vaguely associated with collective bargaining rights. http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/fr...t-to-collective-bargaining/lang--en/index.htm An attack on that is an attack on what was recently enshrined in the Wisconsin Constitution--- And a direct attack on the Constitution.
my god. The First Amendment does not just carry the right to free speech. I might kindly suggest, as you do so often to me and others on other topics, to reread the Constitution that defines your nation.
That's not even close to what that means. Think about what your saying. You are claiming an employer is legally bound to negotiate with a labor union.
oh maaaan. take a class in labour laws. f*** it, i'm your professor. The only reason why Walker is getting away with this is that the right in Wisconsin was deemed a "privilege" even though it was in the damn State constitution, and collective bargaining with the public sector has always had more loose laws than private sector. However, it is unquestionably an attack on the spirit and principles of this nation. Labour unions and the right to collectively bargain are enshrined in the Constitution, and always will be. Deal with it.
The state hasn't refused to negotiate with anyone because they are in some union. They have refused to accept some of the demands of a union. You don't understand a single law you've posted.
No, they are limiting collective bargaining rights for non-wage issues. It's in your own damn article. That's how they're able to get these "concessions", which are in reality not concessions, since no one negotiated them. I mean, Walker could have went that negotiating way, and gotten those cuts with both parties consenting, but instead he took the easy way out and slashed collective bargaining rights so administrators could ram in whatever they pleased. Saving money in the short term, and denying rights in the long term, why not? Way to get an administrator's viewpoint too, it's like asking a cannibal their opinion on human meat. As for my understanding of these laws, seeing as how I work for organizations primed for human rights advocacy, including labor law, and am currently minoring in these kind of things, I'd say my understanding, once again, is good enough for the purposes of this argument.
