DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on March 09, 2013, 01:35:09 PM
-
If the government comes and takes away all your damn guns, I bet you'd call it a"war on gunowners".
Denying teachers the right to organize and collectively bargain is a war on teachers in just the same way.
And teachers' unions are not the cause of students not being prepared for college, as I have exhaustively explained.
If you are too damned stupid to recognize that, then stay ignorant. It seems to suit you, anyway.
-
No, its not. There is no right to a teacher's union. So, no its not in the same way, in any way. I realize this effort to change the nomenclature, to try and make it about teachers vs what it really is, unions. An effort to illicit more public support, since who would be "anti-teacher". It's like how the left is trying to make abortion being anti-choice, or a war on women, when its really all about abortion
Keep trying......spin that wheel Professor Hamster
-
There is no right to a teacher's union.
I think there is a right to unionize, and to join a union. See the first amendment.
I don't think that it is or should be a requirement.
-
I have actually no problem with Unions. I do have a BIG problem with Public Unions, since its our tax dollars that pay for the employees, and when you have this egregious effort to bank roll politicians, who then push pensions and salaries in quid pro quo fashion, again its our tax dollars that have to pay for the Greece-like overreach.
And to be honest, this isn't a 1st amendment issue, since no one is claiming they can't speak up against Government or can't advocate certain government policies and/or politicians. Not sure why you'd think it was
-
Why do unions not have a reputation for constructiveness?
Is the day that a Union could be a positive thing done?
What keeps a school board from telling a union "no" now and then if the unions demands are too costly?
It is rediculous to not set a place at the table for a teachers representative when planning and budgeting are being considered.
I also think it rediculous for Government to legislate a monopoly on education for itself.
-
governmentn don`t have a monopoly on education. they do have control on affordable education.
i`m pretty sure the power of teachers union is not as powerful as perceived. I`ve never once hear any complaint about teachers course material caused by unions. but I often hear complaints about whats taught in schools.
-
Government has a monopoly on -subsidised- education.
Untill you get past the middle of the middle class most of us can't afford most private schools.
If there were a Voucher system which was redeemable by any school , the bottom of the barrell schools would expire with the same regularity as substandard reastraunts.
-
here student are asigned by location . making families trying to live near desired schools unfortunately the one top school only accept students with a 4.0 GPA until some crazy law was made to allow non-asian students to get in with a much lower GPA.
at least private schools is not based on race but on income ensuring very few asian students attending those schools.
-
I also think it rediculous for Government to legislate a monopoly on education for itself.
]
It does not do this. No one is compelled to send their children to public schools. There are parochial schools, private schools and home schooling. The only requirement is that children be educated.
-
I also think it rediculous for Government to legislate a monopoly on education for itself.
]
It does not do this. No one is compelled to send their children to public schools. There are parochial schools, private schools and home schooling. The only requirement is that children be educated.
Reguardless your choice , they make you pay for the monopoly school , and the monopoly school has no reason to ever change or improve.
-
The government supported schools are NOT a monopoly. I know a lot of public school teachers and have taught for years in public high schools, and I assure you that I have always given the best effort that I could, and so did the other teachers I worked with.
-
The government supported schools are NOT a monopoly. I know a lot of public school teachers and have taught for years in public high schools, and I assure you that I have always given the best effort that I could, and so did the other teachers I worked with.
I have been an unhappy customer in such schools.
Whenever I failed it was assumed that I had failed.
I can take your word for your level of effort.
But my experience was as a person stuck on a conveyor belt which was usually too slow , but whenever it was not too slow it was too fast.
As a student I was certainly forced to waste 80% of my time I was so bored I wasted the other 20% volentarily.
I had teachers who tried to do well by me , but how far apart from the standard could they go just for me?
Once a teacher gave me a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" and questioned me closely the next day. I told him I thought the protagonist was extremely stupid. I understood years later that he was trying to make contact with me through my alienation, but the protagonist in the book was alienated in a way entirely diffrent from me, I didn't know what the point of the book was even a little bit. I was not looking for a place to fit in. I was looking for a shape to take and I was resentfull of all the shapes I was being offered to take.
-
And to be honest, this isn't a 1st amendment issue, since no one is claiming they can't speak up against Government or can't advocate certain government policies and/or politicians. Not sure why you'd think it was
I didn't bring up the speech clause of the first amendment, so feel free to burn that strawman down.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm pretty sure you can figure which clause affirmed by Scotus Precedent i am basing my argument upon.
-
Actually, no I can't. Please highlight the specific reference if it wasn't free speech or peacefully assemble, since that too is not being argued against
-
Bingo.
The right to peacefully assemble.
-
Union rights are defined in the Wagner Act.
-
Bingo.
The right to peacefully assemble.
And who's advocating that they not be allowed to "peacefully assemble", which has nothing to do with any of the points I'm making??
-
Union rights are defined in the Wagner Act.
Which has squat to do with Constitutional rights as defined by our Constitution
-
Like I give a shit.
The obligation to stop at red lights and stop signs are also not in the constitution. So what? Does that give anyone the right to run stop signs and red lights?
Unions and the enforcement of collective bargaining contracts are LEGAL. That is all that matters. Thye do not have to be guaranteed by the Constitution.
-
There is no right to a teacher's union.
Your words. That seem to be at odds with the 1st amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The Wagner Act was also upheld by SCOTUS as Constitutional.
-
No there is no right to a Teacher's Union. That's not the same as folks peacefully assembling. Now, at least, I can see how you got confused
-
No there is no right to a Teacher's Union. That's not the same as folks peacefully assembling. Now, at least, I can see how you got confused
Sure there is. Teachers can assemble just as peacefully as teamsters or auto workers or corporations.
While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
Intimate association
A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family. Depending on the jurisdiction it may also extend to abortion, birth control and private, adult, non-commercial and consensual sexual relationships.
Expressive association
Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment – speech, assembly, press, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in the subsequent decisions of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.
Organized labour
The organization of labor was commonly resisted during the 19th century, with even relatively liberal countries such as the United Kingdom banning it for various periods (in the UK's case, between 1820 and 1824).[4]
In the international labour movement, the freedom of association is a right identified under international labour standards as the right of workers to organize and collectively bargain. Freedom of association, in this sense, is recognized as a fundamental human right by a number of documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Labor Organization Convention C87 and Convention C98 – two of the eight fundamental, core international labour standards. 'Freedom of association' can also refer to legal bans on private contracts negotiated between a private employer and their employees requiring workers at a particular workplace to join a union as a term and condition of employment. Supporters of this sort of private freedom of association claim that the right to join a union incorporates a right not to join a union. In the United States, the term 'right to work' is more common for this type of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution)
-
Sure there isn't, but cudos on the effort to blurr the 2...unionizing vs peaceably assembling
-
The courts have decided that Americans have the right to unionize and demand that they be given the right to bargain collectively. It is the law.
-
Sure there isn't, but cudos on the effort to blurr the 2...unionizing vs peaceably assembling
What is a union but a peaceful assembly of folks with a common purpose?
Like the NRA! or a church! or the Boy Scouts of America!
-
Again, trying to blurr an organization with an action. Not gonna work, I'am afraid
-
No blurring at all. Just proving that you misspoke concerning the constitutional rights to assemble, whether it be a union or a jamboree.
Sure the constitution did not explicitly state the right to form a union, but then it never explicitly states that money is a protected right under the speech clause, which you have argued many a time.
Yet you cite case law to back your claim and ignore case law when it concerns unions.
You can't have it both ways. Any further discussion of your claims is just scrambling and dancing, shucking and jiving and otherwise backing away from your original claim, that there is no right to a teachers union.
-
Yes, Blurring, and no, I didn't misspeak. There is no right to a union. There is a 1st amendment right to peacefully assemble, which is an action. In that action, folks, may, if they so wish, attempt to unionize, but it's not a right. Apples Oranges. Not sure why you're having such a difficult time with the concept
-
Do you have the right to donate to political causes? Yes or No?
-
Wow, now getting demanding. I recall the ire that was sent my way, when I merely inferred a request for an answer, when one was not forthcoming. The answer of course, is of course. However, I'm not assembling with anyone, but myself, but sure, once can donate to a political cause or party. Nor does my donation provide me a quid pro quo of legislative action, that directly effects the obligation in tax dollar salary & pensions. And there in lies the difference between "peacefully assembling" and unionizing, including your efforts to inject the NRA, or Church, or BSA.
I think we're done here, since I'm not in much of a mood to be ordered
-
The courts have decided that Americans have the right to unionize and demand that they be given the right to bargain collectively. It is the law.
Even if sirs does not believe there is such a right, there is indeed such a right.
sirs will never admit that he is wrong
-
LOL....oh the irony
-
ironic is you say this AFTER you say "we're done here".
prick.
-
XO SOP 8)
-
sirs dodges the question, because sirs knows the answer he gives will show how wrong he is about teachers unions.
Nothing new here. It is what he does, it is who he is.
-
Only in Bt's mind does sirs dodge questions by actually answering them. Go figure. It appears that if Bt doesn't like the answer, or doesn't conform to the answer that's supposed to be provided, that's "dodging".
Misrepresenting? Well, I guess that's what Bt does. And here I thought we had evolved from that tactic. Bummers
-
I asked if one has a right to donate to political causes. You did not answer that question.
However, I'm not assembling with anyone, but myself, but sure, once can donate to a political cause or party.
Deflect. No addressing the right to donate to political causes.
Typical. It is what you do, it is who you are.
-
God gravy, you're getting as dense as Xo. I didn't deflect at all. You asked it it was a right to donate to political causes, I said, "of course". How the hell is that clear answer to a clear question, a deflection?? :o
That was a rhetorical question, since I'm not going to play your game of semantics are us. Just hilighting for all to see how your question was answered, you just didn't like it, so you had to erroneously claim it a dodge, thus misrpresenting what I had said.
It's sadly what you choose to do...it's apparently who you are. Bummers
-
The courts have decided that Americans have the right to unionize and demand that they be given the right to bargain collectively. It is the law.
But assholes like you want to make it mandatory for Americans to be in Union if their shop is Union.
I agree Americans have the right to join a Union if they so choose,
but control freaks like you want to compel people to not be able to
choose individually if they want to be in a Union.
It's called control freakism vs freedom
(ya know Freedom that's not allowed on a license plate)
-
Where in the constitution is the right to donate to political causes enumerated?
-
The courts have decided that Americans have the right to unionize and demand that they be given the right to bargain collectively. It is the law.
But assholes like you want to make it mandatory for Americans to be in Union if their shop is Union.
I agree Americans have the right to join a Union if they so choose,
but control freaks like you want to compel people to not be able to
choose individually if they want to be in a Union.
It's called control freakism vs freedom
(ya know Freedom that's not allowed on a license plate)
BINGO. Having a right to join a union, is not the same as a "right to a Union" Couldn't have said it better, C 8)
-
error/computer glitch
-
Yeah, like someone is gonna force you to join Masseurs Local 4567.
-
BINGO. Having a right to join a union, is not the same as a "right to a Union" Couldn't have said it better, C 8)
That makes absolutely no sense at all. How can one have the right to join an organization that in and of itself is not protected by that same right?
That's like saying you have the right to own a firearm, but firearms in and of themselves are illegal and unconstitutional.
You have the right to join a church but community worship is illegal and unconstitutional.
Your logic is suspect to say the least.
-
Because the right to do something (join) does not equate to a right for for something to exist (a supposed right to a union). It's an apples/oranges kinda thing. Not to mention something legal also doesn't automatically equate to "a right", which debunks the nonsense about some supposed illegal community worship ::) See what I mean about misrepresenting
-
Yeah, like someone is gonna force you to join Masseurs Local 4567.
Yes moron that's exactly why states have right-to-work laws. Because control freaks like you want to force people if they work some place to join a union. It always goes back to control. Always goes back to "we know better". Right-To-Work statutes prohibit union agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.
-
How much is it properly an individual right to decide whether or not to join a union?
In some circumstances workers get hired a lot easyer if there is no Union.
Some companys will spend more on preventing unionization than they would ever have to give up in collective barganing.
The right to assemble protects a Union right to exist such that the Government may not disband it, but what protects a Union from employers bad faith?
-
If you have the right to join then the result of that joining would also seem to be protected.
But that is neither here nor there.
The right to join a union is protected, the union formed by the many who choose to join it is protected, not as enumerated in the constitution but by the interpretation of the constitution by the highest court in the land.
Just like the highest court in the land protects the right to donate money to political causes because money is speech and speech is protected.
And until those decisions are overturned by a succeeding court those rights are enshrined.
Rule of law.
-
Glad we finally got to the point of joining as being the crux of any right, be it to a Union, NRA, or whatever.
-
Glad we finally got to the point of joining as being the crux of any right, be it to a Union, NRA, or whatever.
Again you miss the point. And again you fail to realize why there is a right to a teachers union. Which, i believe, way back when, you emphatically declared there was no such right.
-
No Bt, you continually blurr my point. You have every right to join a union. There is no right to a union. Simple as that
-
Why are unions treated differently than churches or boy scout troops in your viewpoint?
-
Asked and answered already (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/a-war-on-teachers'-rights-is-a-war-on-teachers/msg152217/#msg152217). I can't help if you don't like the answers, or that they don't fit what you think the answer should be, or even what you've convinced yourself, what I must be thinking. So, in those regards, we're done here
-
Oh it's not that i don't like your answers it is just that i simply want to verify that in your viewpoint Sally and Sue are perfectly within their protected rights to join together but the end result of that joining together is not also protected. That is some twisted wrongheaded logic.
-
i simply want to verify that in your viewpoint Sally and Sue are perfectly within their protected rights to join together but the end result of that joining together is not also protected. That is some twisted wrongheaded logic.
I'm not sure if you guys are not arguing over semantics,
but wouldn't one "have the right" to say the US Gvt should be overthrown,
but at the same time not have the right to actually do it?
So can't we sometimes have the right to something, but not the right for the end result?
-
It's exactly what Bt is arguing C. It's what he does....it's who he is :-\
-
i simply want to verify that in your viewpoint Sally and Sue are perfectly within their protected rights to join together but the end result of that joining together is not also protected. That is some twisted wrongheaded logic.
I'm not sure if you guys are not arguing over semantics,
but wouldn't one "have the right" to say the US Gvt should be overthrown,
but at the same time not have the right to actually do it?
So can't we sometimes have the right to something, but not the right for the end result?
CU you have the right to join a softball team, but according to Sirs the softball team, which is nothing more than a collection of softball players, does not have the right to exist.
Yet if team collectively decided to incorporate that corporation would have nearly all the rights that a sovereign citizen has. Also settled constitutional law.
Does that make a lick of sense to you?
So no, we aren't arguing semantics. Sirs is just being stubborn, when he isn't declaring threads done. because that is what he does , because that is who he is.
-
i simply want to verify that in your viewpoint Sally and Sue are perfectly within their protected rights to join together but the end result of that joining together is not also protected. That is some twisted wrongheaded logic.
I'm not sure if you guys are not arguing over semantics,
but wouldn't one "have the right" to say the US Gvt should be overthrown,
but at the same time not have the right to actually do it?
So can't we sometimes have the right to something, but not the right for the end result?
CU you have the right to join a softball team, but according to Sirs the softball team, which is nothing more than a collection of softball players, does not have the right to exist.
And the misrepresentations just keep right on rolling. It's what you do...it's who you are apparently. Bummers. Would you like a little help? You have every right to join a softball team, but you don't have a right to a softball team, not that it can't exist. I'd appreciate if you'd stop lying about what you think I'm saying, and instead focus on what I am saying. I thank you in advance
-
a teachers union has a right to exist.
a teacher has a right to join a teachers union.
Sirs says there is no right to a teachers union.
where have i misrepresented what you say.
-
No right to a teachers union is NOT the same as they can't exist.
THAT's the lie you keep pushing that I've supposedly layed claim to, yet have claimed no such thing. That's what you've extrapalated that I must have meant to say, vs what I actually said
So, PLEASE, stop it
-
So a teachers union has a right to exist, and a teacher has a right to join a teachers union.
But a teacher does not have a right to a teachers union, if one does not exist, the government is not required to provide one?
Was that the intent of your statement?
-
No right to a teachers union is NOT the same as they can't exist.
SIRS...if I follow you.
you are saying for example....double bubble chewing gum can exist,
but double bubble chewing gum is not "a constitutional right".
is that correct?
-
Pretty simple concept, isn't it 8)
-
Apparently the clause about the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to free speech as a group, as well as the right to join that group, has been stricken from Sirs copy of the constitution.
I guess Feinstein is on the right path towards outlawing firearms.
Guns are a material object much like double bubble chewing gum. So the trick is limiting the flavors of either the gum or the guns.
And i doubt the NRA will be able to help because they have no constitutional right to exist.
Simple concept i guess if your aim is to limit liberty.
-
The Constitution says that all things not banned are allowed as a right.
-
Apparently the clause about the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to free speech as a group, as well as the right to join that group, has been stricken from Sirs copy of the constitution.
I guess Feinstein is on the right path towards outlawing firearms.
Guns are a material object much like double bubble chewing gum. So the trick is limiting the flavors of either the gum or the guns.
And i doubt the NRA will be able to help because they have no constitutional right to exist.
Simple concept i guess if your aim is to limit liberty.
And the misrepresentations just flow like water. It's apparently what you do....its who you are. Sad
-
What evs.
Hide your guns.