Deathwysh wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You honestly don't think that public perception of the conflict is at all influenced by continually calling what one side wants a right, and what the other side wants as "taking away that right"? Really? You can't be dumb enough not to see this, so I'm going to assume this is yet another case of liberal blindness to inconvenient things.
Quote:
The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right.[3] Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers.[4]
In June 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada extensively reviewed the rationale for regarding collective bargaining as a human right. In the case of Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association v. British Columbia, the Court made the following observations:
The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work... Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends…rather [it] is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government... Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace. Workers gain a voice to influence the establishment of rules that control a major aspect of their lives.[5]
In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act (1935) covers most collective agreements in the private sector. This act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate, spy on, harass, or terminate the employment of workers because of their union membership or to retaliate against them for engaging in organizing campaigns or other "concerted activities" to form "company unions", or to refuse to engage in collective bargaining with the union that represents their employees. Unions are also exempt from antitrust law in the hope that members may collectively fix a higher price for their labor.
In conclusion, STFU.
Still caught up on the label, aren't you? I'll give you a hint: What the union is calling "collective bargaining rights" include things that go well beyond the list of things you just quoted.
First off, collective bargaining is intended for private sector unions, not public sector. If you'd like, I could explain to you why it not only makes no sense, but is counterproductive when applied to the public sector. It has to do with the directionality of the law btw.
Do you know that the collective bargaining law in WI mandates that all public sector employees in the state working in a given field must pay dues to a single state authorized union organization? Even if they don't want to be in a union.
Do you know that it's the state that decides who those authorized union organizations are?
Do you know that it's the state that bargains with the people they put in that position?
Do you know that the law prohibits the formation of any other unions except the ones the state authorizes, even if the workers want them?
Do you know that the law prohibits local union organizations from negotiating their own contracts as well?
Do you know that those organizations collect more money from those public sector employees than they use to provide benefits and services to them?
Do you know that the excess (tens of millions of dollars each year) are spent by those state authorized union organizations to engage in both hard political donations and soft money campaign activities?
Do you know that if you are a public sector employee, you have no "right" to not have that portion of your dues used for political purposes even if you disagree with them?
Does any of this sound like something that protects the rights of the workers?
Do you know that the portions of collective bargaining that are removed in the new WI law don't affect the right to negotiate wages or benefits? It affects the requirement that all public sector workers must pay those dues even though they have no control over how they are spent. It gives the local unions the "right" to bargain on their own if they wish (it does not require this though).
Despite being labeled as anti-labor, the reality is that the changed law gives more power to the workers, and more power to the local union organizations. It gives them freedom to choose how they bargain. A freedom which is denied to them right now. Remember when I said that there's a problem with collective bargaining when applied to public sector unions? It's because of the incredible tendency for corruption between the state level organization authorized to bargain and the state representative they are bargaining with. There's a tendency to bargain in ways which benefits those two groups more and not so much the actual workers in the union. And since the law prohibits the workers from striking without the state union organization's permission, and prohibits them from forming new unions, or from working at all unless they agree to the whole thing, those workers are basically stuck.
If you bothered to understand what is actually being done instead of stopping at the three words "collective bargaining rights", you'd see that the view of this being presented to you is completely upside down.
