Bill Passed to prevent us striking!!!!!

Ohio's Senate passes bill that would curb public workers' collective bargaining rights and strip away power to strike.

I swear they are tearing down this countries 'democracy' one column at a time. If workers feel that they aren't being treated fairly and strike to demand better treatment, they may be punished? This kind of thing only happened in the USSR.

everyone should just strike until they repeal the bill

Who the hell would vote to pass this? I mean, seriously, what politician can read a bill that takes away citizens rights to protest, which is in the CONSTITUTION last time I checked, and agree with it and vote yes? This country is going down the toilet one step at a time, and one day I hope we'll wake up as a whole and it'll hit us hard: Our government is filled with idiots.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I don't understand. You seem to be saying that union workers will lose their Constitutional right to protest. I don't see that anywhere in any bill. Protest all day long, if you want, but no striking. I can see the difference.

Besides, who do public sector workers strike against? The citizens of the state. I can also see the difference between public sector labor relations and private sector labor relations. Those differences are very important.

reply to post by TupacShakur


You're all in favor of allowing disagreements to scuttle the operations of your government?
You're okay with the idea that all your fire fighters can take a week off because they think they need a raise?
You're okay with people not getting their welfare checks and such, possibly starving and losing their homes, because social services workers want better healthcare benefits?

oh my.

[and you realize Tupac spelled backwards is "Caput", right?]

I see no issue with this bill, it prevents public workers from striking, not from protesting. There is quite a considerable difference between the two. Also I would like to note that even the Socialist President Franklin D. Roosevelt argued against public sector unions, add to that in 1919 then Governor Calvin Coolidge made a strong statement regarding public worker strikes:

"Your assertion that the Commissioner was wrong cannot justify the wrong of leaving the city unguarded. That furnished the opportunity; the criminal element furnished the action. There is no right to strike against the public safety by anyone, anywhere, any time. ... I am equally determined to defend the sovereignty of Massachusetts and to maintain the authority and jurisdiction over her public officers where it has been placed by the Constitution and laws of her people." (emphasis added)

Public workers work for the state, the state does not work for them. It is their governing body and to strike against it seems illogical and a serious conflict of interest.

reply to post by Misoir


Interesting... I agree with you here.

Anyhow, when the possibility of a strike, also known as a "walk out" or "blue flu" amongst the many discriptive phrases, endangers the public safety, health and such, certain ideologies in line with "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" should come forefront.
When in 1981 FAA workers threatened a strike, Reagan issued an ultimatum because of the dangers that situation would create for travellers- to paraphrase, get back to work or lose your job. Coincidentally, or maybe not, many of those FAA workers lost their positions and new employees earned less than the people they replaced. Anyone see the pattern here?

Originally posted by Misoir
... Socialist President Franklin D. Roosevelt argued against public sector unions

a Democrat.

Originally posted by Misoir
... Governor Calvin Coolidge made a strong statement regarding public worker strikes....

a Republican.

Go figure. Sometimes politicians actually do have their heads screwed on straight.

reply to post by Misoir


There's also a considerable difference between private and public workers.

You work for the PEOPLE, the TAX PAYER, if you're a public worker. you don't have the right to steal tax payer money to strike for more tax payer money. The notion of this is simply ridiculous.

How do you protest without striking? Wear a T-shirt to work that says "I want a raise"? Make your facebook status "I hate my job"? I can't really think of many ways to protest without striking, either because I'm not creative or there aren't many.

reply to post by abecedarian


The safety issue with the FAA that Reagan used to force them to not go out on strike, wouldn't have been a safety issue if the aircraft were grounded.

Put another way, Reagan was saying the country would lose billions hand over fist, and the aircraft industry would grind to a halt....*not* a safety issue, just the same old economic issues.

But isn't that the entire point and reason of a workers strike? To create a profit loss situation for their corporate bosses and provide them the motivation and impetus to come back to the negotiating table?

That's what would have happened with the FAA and the then government simply used the 'safety card' as a means to an end..hoodwink the public into going against the strike, save $ billions in losses, (and negotiated wage/benefits deals that would have resulted from striking) pretty much like 'terrorism' does these days.

Same as the 'safety card' is being wheeled out yet again where public workers are concerned.

If firefighters strike here in the UK, the Army is called in to cover the slack. Although Public sector workers do strike, they always attend lifesaving or life-threatening situations...just wouldn't go and rescue many cats stuck in trees etc.

It's about saving money, and disallowing Public workers *any* recourse if they are being shat upon from a great height, unless we call the choice to leave the job being in a good bargaining position.

IMO, Everyone has the right to strike *and* protest, which incidentally, is exactly what striking is..a form of non violent protest, unless it places someone's life in danger or at risk of serious harm.

Not sweeping the streets isn't going to kill anyone. (etc.)

For Spikey and TupacShakur,

I'm glad you're posting. You've got some good questions (at least, I think they are). Mind if I offer a few thoughts?

You both seem to be saying that the right of public employees to strike is essential and fundamental. I question that. As examples, the state of Washington declared, in a 2006 attorney-general opinion, that there was no such right. In 2003, the Supreme Court of India ruled against public employees' right to strike. And in this country I don't believe there was even a public employees' union until the 1950's ( Not sure about that.)

All this leads me to conclude that it is perfectly possible to run a state or a country without allowing public employees a right to strike.

The decision to allow strikes in the public sector should be between employers and employees, that is between the public and the workers (who are also part of the public). Because we have elected officials, the question should be one for the representatives to decide, which is what Wisconsin and other states are trying to do.

reply to post by shikori


Please provide a link or source concerning the point of your thread.

Thanks!

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Misoir

 

There's also a considerable difference between private and public workers.

You work for the PEOPLE, the TAX PAYER, if you're a public worker. you don't have the right to steal tax payer money to strike for more tax payer money. The notion of this is simply ridiculous.

edit on 3-3-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

No, we wouldn't want a penny more than necessary to be paid to the men and women actually doing the graft, when we can just hand over all of your tax money to the banks and then take out loans to pay for it all, paying interest and principle using your tax money, for decades to come to..er..banks.

And people who work for a living, doing the jobs most of us would freak out at in one respect or another?
Or putting their lives at risk for the rest of you?

These people are not asking you all to hand over all of your tax money, they couldn't if they wanted to - it's all gone!
But don't they deserve the same rights and plain human fairness as private sector workers? The issues are the same. The exploitations are the same. The disparities and working guideline practices/employee law abuses are the same, whether the worker is employed privately or publicly.

The options available to both should rightfully (imo) be the same. The person is still a worker, they are still subject to the same stresses and liabilities as the private person is, facts of human life don't just change for the employee depending on who their paymaster ultimately is. Bottom line for me is, that employees of either group, if they are employees, they should share equal employee rights and lawful status.

There are obvious exceptions to this..e.g. A doctor wouldn't stand there and allow a patient to die because he was on strike..or a firefighter wouldn't allow people to perish in house fires and so on...critical services would be covered.