Live Thread: Wis Assembly passes budget repair bill 53-42

Wisn.com ^

[Evil Slayer]

Does anyone know if Walker has signed it yet?

Good question. You would think he would have signed it by now. Every minute that passes means he is allowing the evil out there to do him harm. If (and I pray it won't happen) some evil person should do the unthinkable to him before he has a chance to sign the bill into law, who would step in to do it? Would it be the Lt. Gov.? And what are the state's constitutional requirements for this to get done?

Bty, this thread is about to go down from breaking. Hope someone out there can explain to us why he is taking so long.

[knittnmom]

http://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=7209 has some answers.

[AmericanExceptionalist]

Ever heard of "free association"? Collective bargaining IS an unalienable right for parties to enter contracts as groups, just as when anyone enters a contract with a corporation, the stockholders are appointing an agent in their collective interest.

I suppose one might argue that it is a natural right for a plurality of individuals to enter into a contractual agreement with any other party. No argument there.

But the term, "collective bargaining rights--as I understand it, anyway--refers to the view that the "right" to walk off the job, free of any fear of one's being replaced, is sacrosanct. And with that political-philosophy view, I thoroughly disagree.

Of course, the recent case in Wisconsin did not revolve around that precise issue, but around tangential matters.

However, to exclude any other individual who is not a member of the collective from acting as a sole party marketing his or her services in competition with that collective is an abridgment of their freedoms. Hence "right to work" laws should be unnecessary as anything else is an abridgment of unalienable rights to pursue happiness. Hence, it is state-enforced MONOPOLY collective bargaining and coerced union membership that is the real problem, for which the solution is to amend the National Labor Relations Act of 1933, ending the exemption unions enjoy from antitrust laws.

On this point, I agree with you...

[Carry_Okie]

I suppose one might argue that it is a natural right for a plurality of individuals to enter into a contractual agreement with any other party. No argument there.

Correct. We call them, "corporations."

"collective bargaining rights--as I understand it, anyway--refers to the view that the "right" to walk off the job, free of any fear of one's being replaced, is sacrosanct. And with that political-philosophy view, I thoroughly disagree.

Me too. It is a feature of being a government-sanctioned monopoly. The way I see it, unions could be profit making businesses marketing labor services, effectively outsourcing the personnel function for a company, with which I have no problem as long as there is competition, whether individual or collective.

Of course, the recent case in Wisconsin did not revolve around that precise issue, but around tangential matters.

All characteristic of the Hegelian dialectic. I've been screaming about this stupidity since the opportunity arose. The Republicans are allowing the left to frame the issue, forcing both sides to wrangle over the wrong questions. This mess was made by FedGov, Inc. It's time to redirect the public discussion by pointing to underlying historic causes.