A war on teachers' rights is a war on teachers.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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.

[Plane]

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?

[BT]

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.
 

[sirs]

Glad we finally got to the point of joining as being the crux of any right, be it to a Union, NRA, or whatever.

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

Why are unions treated differently than churches or boy scout troops in your viewpoint?

[sirs]

Asked and answered already.  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

[BT]

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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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?

[sirs]

It's exactly what Bt is arguing C.  It's what he does....it's who he is     

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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