Posted on 06/10/2012 5:39:15 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Has the US Supreme Court ever ruled on the right of government unions to exist.
Key sentences - have been using something similar in every argument I have had. That "divvying up public funds" instead of "sharing private profits" are great terms to use.
`
At the time of the 50's and before, the NEA was an association of professionals, not a union. They were in a sense regulating themselves as medical doctors or lawyers or dentists did. The NEA was continually working with the states to improve the standards and quality of admission to, and conduct of, the profession.
In the village I lived, if a teacher was found in one of the local bars, or was found to be compromised morally or ethically, his/her employment was terminated, and employment in another district was improbable. Few people today can even begin to understand the civilizing effect that the teachers lent to the average town or small city then. Unionization of teachers wiped that effect out, IMHO.
You must realize that when someone has their hand in your pocket they don't care about your rights. Does a professional extortionist care about his victims' rights? All he cares about is his meal ticket.
It has always been a cornerstone of Western law that contracts signed under duress are unenforceable, but somehow unions, who always get their contracts through duress, are exempt from this just legal principle. It's only starting to end now because the victim is broke.
However, as we see in Wisconsin, unions are quite content to steal from the corpse. These people are vile, and deserve our utmost contempt.
I think the 10th Amendment answers that. If a power is not delegated to fedgov and is not otherwise repugnant to the Constitution, the states pretty much have a free hand.
Bookmark
They must have, because according to the links in the main article, FDR actually said... on August 16, 1937
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
Clearly, some time after 1937, there was a watershed change, either in the perception of political leadership, or in the laws prohibiting public employee unions.
The scariest scene after Walker's vindication by the taxpayers was the "public" employee (male) who, with tears in his eyes announced, "tonight we have seen the end of democracy... *sniff*".
This thug was literally displaying his insanity --- can't be called anything else. Actually believing that "although all animals are equal, some are more equal than others," and that the pillaging of the public wealth for decades, was their "right."
Actually, 'scary' does not begin to describe it.
Unions, the certain refuge for the thugs, the inept, the incompetent and the parasite, glimpsed the end of the gravy train ------ and lost it.
Only if they are obligated to fix the stupidity that they've created by themselves.
When all other states are expected to bail them out.....?
I don't think so!
“When it happens across the North East Ill believe it.”
Christie’s election in NJ showed it IS happening; peple were being forced into foreclosure by property tax bills that were ridiculously high at a time when good jobs were fleeing (partly as a result of said taxes), and they reacted through the ones avenue left to them: the ballot box.
NJ won’t be hiring teachers in any numbers for years to come; those “on the job” are laughing all the way to the bank (and know they have no value in any other field), so they stay on forever (closing the field to new young parasites).
“What really brought the danger of public unions home to me was when Jenny Granholm started importing prison inmates from other states so union guards wouldnt get laid off.”
I remember when that was proposed; I didn’t know it went through (I thought CA backed out from exporting its convicts). Since I figured Michigan was getting paid for it, I thought Granholm was simply trying to find a new niche for her state (since the auto thing had gone to the southeast).
I think the very existence of public sector unions will be a part of the 2012 campaign indeed. They really over played their hand in Madison, as I predicted they would. I am thrilled that well over 50% of the Wisconsin voters saw it that way.
I wasn’t sure Wisconsin would see it that way, but I thought the video’s of how those animals acted in Madison would make a huge impression in other states regardless. This is a cancer that needs to be radiated.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.