Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Stealing the rights of others
Author Message
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #1
Stealing the rights of others
This is terrifying.

People talk about their constitutional rights being stolen...well right here folks!

Your money and rights taken away by a few others who can't even hold their own jobs...and now they want to bargain for yours.


Persuading the confused
George F. Will, The Washington Post | georgewill@washpost.com - 06.20.2007

Democracy is rule by persuasion, but the unpersuasive often try to coerce the unpersuaded. Recent days have provided two illustrations of this tendency, both of them pertaining to labor unions, whose decades of declining membership testify to their waning power to persuade workers that unions add more value to workers’ lives than they subtract.

Failing unions, like failing industries, turn to government for protection in the form of coercion. Failing industries have traditionally sought corporate welfare in the form of tariffs (coercion of consumers). Unions seek laws to confer what their persuasiveness cannot convince people to consent to.

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the Washington Education Association, Washington state’s teachers union, which was claiming a perverse government-conferred entitlement. Five days later, organized labor and its political allies, including she who would be president, marched in Washington, D.C. They were asking Congress to deny to workers, whom unions are trying to organize, the right to a secret ballot. Both cases also illustrate the increasingly casual resort to abridgements of the rights of free speech and association.

Many states, including Washington, allow “agency shop” agreements whereby unions can levy fees on public employees who choose not to join a union but are represented by the union in collective bargaining. Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court held that nonmembers cannot be forced to pay the portion of union fees that are used not for collective bargaining but for political activities. Often states have “opt out” provisions, whereby nonmembers are required to request that the political portion of their fees be refunded.

About 3,500 of Washington state’s approximately 70,000 teachers choose not to join the Washington Education Association, which made opting out a tedious chore. To get their refund — about 25 percent of their fees — the nonmembers had to follow procedures detailed in six pages of arcane instructions.

In 1992, however, Washington voters approved by referendum an “opt in” rule. Unions were forbidden to use nonmembers’ fees “to influence an election or to operate a political committee, unless affirmatively authorized by the individual” (emphasis added).

Amazingly, the Washington Education Association persuaded the state Supreme Court that requiring it to ask permission before using other people’s money — for political speech that those people do not want to finance — was an unconstitutional burden on the Washington Education Association’s right of free speech. This novel, to be polite, theory did not persuade even one of the nine often fractious justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Speaking for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that. when government allows agency-shop arrangements, it creates a remarkable entitlement: It gives a private entity, a public employees union, “the power, in essence, to tax government employees.” The Washington Education Association’s complaint — a notably brazen example of the entitlement mentality — was against the supposedly burdensome “opt in” condition placed on its exercise of that power. With understandable asperity, Scalia said: “The notion that this modest limitation upon an extraordinary benefit violates the First Amendment is, to say the least, counterintuitive.”

The WEA’s whiney audacity was not more offensive than the aim organized labor tried to advance with Tuesday’s march and rally in the nation’s capital. Unions were demonstrating in support of legislation with the Orwellian title “Employee Free Choice Act.” It would deny employees the choice of a secret ballot when voting on unionization. Instead, union organizers would use the “card check” system, which allows them to pick the voters they want: Once a majority of workers — exposed one at a time to face-to-face pressure from union organizers — sign a union card, the union is automatically certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers.

The Supreme Court has said that the card-check system is “admittedly inferior to the election process.” Hillary Clinton, who has given herself a makeover as a moderate, and who was elected by secret ballots, and who hopes that next year voters will use their secret ballots to give to her the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, nevertheless toes labor’s line when she advocates abolishing workers’ right to a secret ballot. Abolition, she says, will “create a fair and level playing field between workers and employers.”

When in March the House passed card-check legislation for unpersuasive unions, a principal sponsor was George Miller, D-Calif., who in 2001 wrote, with 15 colleagues, to Mexican officials, on behalf of the rights of Mexican workers, insisting “that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.” Now, that is persuasive.

George F. Will’s e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.
06-20-2007 07:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Stealing the rights of others
luckily NC is a public-union free state, they have another orginization that substitutes for this though.

the protectionist/isolationist movement in this country scares me, we did this after WW1 and it lead to two things: Great Depression and WW2

since WW2 we moved away from that foolish thinking and have prospered greatly, avoided a full blown WW3 with Soviet Union through "interventionism" in small fry client states of theirs and a "cold War" with Soviets directly....and of course moved towards free trade on economic side...........Now the world is as globalized and dependent on each other as ever before and we have various protectionist movements sweeping accross the nation again. hopefully with the unions its just a last wimper as they die off.

i'm connecting foregin policy isolationism to economic 'protectionism' because I think they are linked...
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2007 09:28 AM by GGniner.)
06-20-2007 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.