Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... sfeed=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Voters in Ohio have overwhelmingly rejected a law curbing union bargaining rights for public employees, dealing a blow to the Republican establishment in a state that could prove pivotal in deciding the outcome of next year's presidential election.

The vote buoyed Democrats, who are hoping to rebound from their sweeping losses in 2010, though experts agree the economy is still the biggest issue. "If the economy were to turn around in the next year, that's going to matter a lot more than what happens in ballot issues," said one political analyst, Justin Buchler.

Ohio's bill went further than a similar one in Wisconsin by including police officers and firefighters, and was considered by many observers to be a barometer of the national mood on the political conundrum of the day: what is the appropriate size and role of government, and who should pay for it.

dbackjon wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... sfeed=true

Voters in Ohio have overwhelmingly rejected a law curbing union bargaining rights for public employees, dealing a blow to the Republican establishment in a state that could prove pivotal in deciding the outcome of next year's presidential election.

The vote buoyed Democrats, who are hoping to rebound from their sweeping losses in 2010, though experts agree the economy is still the biggest issue. "If the economy were to turn around in the next year, that's going to matter a lot more than what happens in ballot issues," said one political analyst, Justin Buchler.

Ohio's bill went further than a similar one in Wisconsin by including police officers and firefighters, and was considered by many observers to be a barometer of the national mood on the political conundrum of the day: what is the appropriate size and role of government, and who should pay for it.

There Ohions, fuck em.

http://www.scgbto.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dbackjon wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... sfeed=true

Voters in Ohio have overwhelmingly rejected a law curbing union bargaining rights for public employees, dealing a blow to the Republican establishment in a state that could prove pivotal in deciding the outcome of next year's presidential election.

The vote buoyed Democrats, who are hoping to rebound from their sweeping losses in 2010, though experts agree the economy is still the biggest issue. "If the economy were to turn around in the next year, that's going to matter a lot more than what happens in ballot issues," said one political analyst, Justin Buchler.

Ohio's bill went further than a similar one in Wisconsin by including police officers and firefighters, and was considered by many observers to be a barometer of the national mood on the political conundrum of the day: what is the appropriate size and role of government, and who should pay for it.

As was the Obamacare health care mandate.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... sfeed=true

Voters in Ohio have overwhelmingly rejected a law curbing union bargaining rights for public employees, dealing a blow to the Republican establishment in a state that could prove pivotal in deciding the outcome of next year's presidential election.

The vote buoyed Democrats, who are hoping to rebound from their sweeping losses in 2010, though experts agree the economy is still the biggest issue. "If the economy were to turn around in the next year, that's going to matter a lot more than what happens in ballot issues," said one political analyst, Justin Buchler.

Ohio's bill went further than a similar one in Wisconsin by including police officers and firefighters, and was considered by many observers to be a barometer of the national mood on the political conundrum of the day: what is the appropriate size and role of government, and who should pay for it.

As was the Obamacare health care mandate.

wtf are you talking about? the ultra-conservative 4th circuit UPHELD that mandate yesterday.

Thank God CA isn’t the only state completely clueless when it comes to public employee benefits.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: wtf are you talking about? the ultra-conservative 4th circuit UPHELD that mandate yesterday.

...for being some sort of self-proclaimed 'political operative', you're not very dialed in to the current political news and commentary.

Ohio Voters Choose to Opt Out of Health Care Mandate


"COLUMBUS, Ohio – Voters in Ohio have approved a ballot measure intended to keep government from requiring Ohioans to participate in any health care system.

The constitutional amendment passed is largely symbolic, coming in response to the 2009 federal health care overhaul, a provision of which mandates that most Americans purchase health care.

Supporters hope it will prompt a challenge of the overhaul before the U.S. Supreme Court."

Baldy wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: wtf are you talking about? the ultra-conservative 4th circuit UPHELD that mandate yesterday.

...for being some sort of self-proclaimed 'political operative', you're not very dialed in to the current political news and commentary.

Ohio Voters Choose to Opt Out of Health Care Mandate


"COLUMBUS, Ohio – Voters in Ohio have approved a ballot measure intended to keep government from requiring Ohioans to participate in any health care system.

The constitutional amendment passed is largely symbolic, coming in response to the 2009 federal health care overhaul, a provision of which mandates that most Americans purchase health care.

Supporters hope it will prompt a challenge of the overhaul before the U.S. Supreme Court."

EDIT:
You might need to explain what your definition of "ultra-conservative" is because nine of the 14 judges on that court were nominated by either Clinton or Obama.

And Ohioans are going to suffer for it. They just made their bed. Let them lie in it.

Of course they won't. They'll blame somebody else. But they just voted against any chance they had for financial stability.

JohnStOnge wrote:And Ohioans are going to suffer for it. They just made their bed. Let them lie in it.

Of course they won't. They'll blame somebody else. But they just voted against any chance they had for financial stability.

I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:And Ohioans are going to suffer for it. They just made their bed. Let them lie in it.

Of course they won't. They'll blame somebody else. But they just voted against any chance they had for financial stability.

I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

They should be able too...just like businesses have the liberty (now) to choose to not deal with them and relocate to a Right To Work state. Liberty goes both ways.

Ohio is limiting themselves competitively by doing this.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:And Ohioans are going to suffer for it. They just made their bed. Let them lie in it.

Of course they won't. They'll blame somebody else. But they just voted against any chance they had for financial stability.

I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

Yes, people should be able to form unions, but they shouldn't be able to form symbiotic relationships with the state government. Governments don't make money by competing in a marketplace and selling goods and services, so a lot of privileges the unions have don't make sense and are really just hurting the budget and education.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:And Ohioans are going to suffer for it. They just made their bed. Let them lie in it.

Of course they won't. They'll blame somebody else. But they just voted against any chance they had for financial stability.

I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

This. BH86, don't put too much into Flash, He just doesn't get it.


Unions have a right to exist, but I'm of the opinion that they do alot of harm these days. WIth the increase in safety regulations, minimum wage and other labor laws, the Union isn't a necessity and cause many problems and work stoppages (Boeing is a great example).

Ibanez wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

This. BH86, don't put too much into Flash, He just doesn't get it.


Unions have a right to exist, but I'm of the opinion that they do alot of harm these days. WIth the increase in safety regulations, minimum wage and other labor laws, the Union isn't a necessity and cause many problems and work stoppages (Boeing is a great example).

The relationship between unions and management is like a pendulum. The power used to be heavily on the side of management, now I think it's on the side of unions. The solution is somewhere in the middle.

Pwns wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

Yes, people should be able to form unions, but they shouldn't be able to form symbiotic relationships with the state government. Governments don't make money by competing in a marketplace and selling goods and services, so a lot of privileges the unions have don't make sense and are really just hurting the budget and education.

And if we take away the right for state workers to form unions, what prevents state governments from becoming just as bad as big business was when unions first became prominent?

I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

I'm gald you asked that question. Yes, people have a right to get together and try to bargain. But the other side should have the right to opt NOT to bargain.

The problem with unions in this country is that government takes sides and gets behind the unions. It won't allow the employers liberty.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Yes, workers for a particular institution have a right to get together and say "none of us will work unless you give us what we want."

But what's missing is that the institution doesn't have an unfettered right to say, "Fine. We'll just fire you and get someone else to do the job."

Remember: Liberty means either party can simply end its association with the other if it wants to. Right now, employees are completey free to end their association with their employers at any time for any reason. The reverse is not true. Make the reverese true and Liberty will be in place.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

I'm gald you asked that question. Yes, people have a right to get together and try to bargain. But the other side should have the right to opt NOT to bargain.

The problem with unions in this country is that government takes sides and gets behind the unions. It won't allow the employers liberty.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Yes, workers for a particular institution have a right to get together and say "none of us will work unless you give us what we want."

But what's missing is that the institution doesn't have an unfettered right to say, "Fine. We'll just fire you and get someone else to do the job."

Remember: Liberty means either party can simply end its association with the other if it wants to. Right now, employees are completey free to end their association with their employers at any time for any reason. The reverse is not true. Make the reverese true and Liberty will be in place.

In the real world, John, very few workers want a union. What they want is good management; when they don't get that they sometimes turn to unions.

Baldy wrote:

Baldy wrote:
...for being some sort of self-proclaimed 'political operative', you're not very dialed in to the current political news and commentary.

Ohio Voters Choose to Opt Out of Health Care Mandate


"COLUMBUS, Ohio – Voters in Ohio have approved a ballot measure intended to keep government from requiring Ohioans to participate in any health care system.

The constitutional amendment passed is largely symbolic, coming in response to the 2009 federal health care overhaul, a provision of which mandates that most Americans purchase health care.

Supporters hope it will prompt a challenge of the overhaul before the U.S. Supreme Court."

EDIT:
You might need to explain what your definition of "ultra-conservative" is because nine of the 14 judges on that court were nominated by either Clinton or Obama.

Come on Baldy.....the decision was issued by a 3 judge panel and written by an uber conservative Reagan appointee whose numerous clerks have gone on to clerk for the most conservative SCOTUS justices around.

Spin it however you want, but you really should read the decision. You might agree. The basic premise is that the Court should offer some judicial deference to Congress on interstate commerce matters. Anti judicial activism. Something far right conservatives have been asking for for years. Bet they didn't realize it was going to bite them in the ass like this huh?

JohnStOnge wrote:

I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

I'm gald you asked that question. Yes, people have a right to get together and try to bargain. But the other side should have the right to opt NOT to bargain.

The problem with unions in this country is that government takes sides and gets behind the unions. It won't allow the employers liberty.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Yes, workers for a particular institution have a right to get together and say "none of us will work unless you give us what we want."

But what's missing is that the institution doesn't have an unfettered right to say, "Fine. We'll just fire you and get someone else to do the job."

Remember: Liberty means either party can simply end its association with the other if it wants to. Right now, employees are completey free to end their association with their employers at any time for any reason. The reverse is not true. Make the reverese true and Liberty will be in place.

Perhaps, but you came out in favor of denying liberty to union workers. Odd for someone who claims to be pro-liberty.
Seems like you are saying that if your side can't have it, nobody can.

I'm not a big fan of unions by the way (I think they have too much power), but I find your stance to be odd.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I thought you were for liberty? Shouldn't people be able to form unions and bargain collectively?

Or is it like I've been saying about you all along, you're only for liberty when it suits you.

I'm gald you asked that question. Yes, people have a right to get together and try to bargain. But the other side should have the right to opt NOT to bargain.

The problem with unions in this country is that government takes sides and gets behind the unions. It won't allow the employers liberty.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Yes, workers for a particular institution have a right to get together and say "none of us will work unless you give us what we want."

But what's missing is that the institution doesn't have an unfettered right to say, "Fine. We'll just fire you and get someone else to do the job."

Remember: Liberty means either party can simply end its association with the other if it wants to. Right now, employees are completey free to end their association with their employers at any time for any reason. The reverse is not true. Make the reverese true and Liberty will be in place.

SPOT ON!

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I'm gald you asked that question. Yes, people have a right to get together and try to bargain. But the other side should have the right to opt NOT to bargain.

The problem with unions in this country is that government takes sides and gets behind the unions. It won't allow the employers liberty.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Yes, workers for a particular institution have a right to get together and say "none of us will work unless you give us what we want."

But what's missing is that the institution doesn't have an unfettered right to say, "Fine. We'll just fire you and get someone else to do the job."

Remember: Liberty means either party can simply end its association with the other if it wants to. Right now, employees are completey free to end their association with their employers at any time for any reason. The reverse is not true. Make the reverese true and Liberty will be in place.

SPOT ON!

No it's not.

They don't have to bargain. They can - and do - send their jobs overseas.

Then quit supporting a government-union relationship that makes the cost of doing business in the United States too high for companies to reasonably sustain.

JayBilasBitesPillows wrote:Then quit supporting a government-union relationship that makes the cost of doing business in the United States too high for companies to reasonably sustain.

Where did I say I supported it? In fact, I said I think unions have too much power. But it's not as if management is completely without options.

BlueHen86 wrote:
And if we take away the right for state workers to form unions, what prevents state governments from becoming just as bad as big business was when unions first became prominent?

Won't happen. There are states where teachers unions don't have a stranglehold on the government and the teachers don't live in cardboard boxes and in fact have pretty good salaries.

Perhaps, but you came out in favor of denying liberty to union workers. Odd for someone who claims to be pro-liberty.
Seems like you are saying that if your side can't have it, nobody can.

I'm not a big fan of unions by the way (I think they have too much power), but I find your stance to be odd.

What we call "collective bargaining" is not liberty because one side is constrained. Any group is always free to get together as a group and bargain collectively. But suppose the other side wants to bargain with individuals? Does the first group have a "right" to force the second group to bargain with the group as a whole?

My stance is not odd at all. We don't have a legitimate right to form a group and force someone else to bargain with it. Nothing wrong with saying that's what we want to do. But if the other side says "no" their liberty is being taken away if they're forced to do it anyway.

Saying that union workers shouldn't be able to force employers to negotiate with them as a group is not taking any liberty away from union workers.

Perhaps, but you came out in favor of denying liberty to union workers. Odd for someone who claims to be pro-liberty.
Seems like you are saying that if your side can't have it, nobody can.

I'm not a big fan of unions by the way (I think they have too much power), but I find your stance to be odd.

What we call "collective bargaining" is not liberty because one side is constrained. Any group is always free to get together as a group and bargain collectively. But suppose the other side wants to bargain with individuals? Or suppose the other side doesn't want to bargain (negotiate) at all? Suppose it just wants to say, "Here's the deal if you want to work for me and if you don't like that you don't have to work for me?"

Does the first group have a "right" to force the second group to bargain with the group as a whole? Does it have a "right" to force it to bargain at all?

My stance is not odd at all. We don't have a legitimate right to form a group and force someone else to bargain with it. Nothing wrong with saying that's what we want to do. But if the other side says "no" their liberty is being taken away if they're forced to do it anyway.

Saying that union workers shouldn't be able to force employers to negotiate with them as a group is not taking any liberty away from union workers.