Agreed, which is why I don't like laws or regulations that outlaw collective bargaining nor ones that require it. I feel like we should be far more free market in the labor bargaining realm in that we should just leave it up to the individual employees to see if they want to collectively bargain and up to the individual companies/schools/whatever to decide whether they want to accept their proposals or deal with collective bargaining at all. Seems like a stupid thing to force either way, no bargaining, or must bargain.

I Wear Pants;763204 wrote:Because it makes sense to be able to see what companies are donating to political parties?

Why does the federal government need to know this when it has nothing to do with a bid for a service or product? The only reason to know it is to skew the view of someone in the selection process.

And since this order does not include the same requirement for every grant recipient, it's even more one-sided (omitting unions, for example).

Private companies should not have to be accountable for every penny they spend simply because they bid on a contract. Only the issues related to that contract should be required to be available.

As I said before: there is only one purpose for this order and it's political; as noted, payback for the court ruling that now allows businesses to donate at-will to campaigns.

Actually, i believe that this is a white house response to off set the SCOTUS decision removing caps from corperate political donations.

When you do business with the Feds, you have to provide all sorts of information. While I do not necessarily agree with the order, I have no problem with it either.

Ok, you all got me on that one. Let's call it collective bargaining and leave it at that. I shouldn't have used the term "rights", as even I agree that it isn't a god-given right.

Semantics aside, if what Obama proposes is so political in nature, how can you not see the same kind of politics in play with restricting collective bargaining for public workers? All of you righties claim that public unions are a strong ally for Democratic candidates, delivering voters and money. Do you think for one minute that businesses who donate heavily for Republican candidates aren't engaged in the same kind of work? Given that the SCOTUS has opened the doors for unlimited corporate donations I feel it is pretty much tit for tat.

You're still comparing collective bargaining at the state level with a Presidential executive order.

I'm still failing how they are comparable at all. Please explain!

You can argue against SB5 and similar bills all you like, and say they're only to stop unions from having big bucks for Democrats, but the FACT is this: with no collective bargaining, local (and state) governments have a LOT more flexibility in negotiating contracts that (1) fit the community's economic profile and (2) allow the local entity (or state) to save a lot of money in both the short and long-term.

Like it or not, THIS IS ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE.

Take a good look at all the salaries in many of Ohio's suburban districts and tell me they are in-line with the economics of the area. Don't forget to add another 20 percent to the salary (the cost of health care and other benefits) when you do this.

Half of all Ohio teachers make more than $50,000 per year (now tack on another 20 percent for benefits). One web site that lists something called "salary comfort" level has Ohio in the top 6 nationally. It showed that salaries had gone up 33 percent ON AVERAGE over the last 10 years.

Seriously, how many companies do you know where the average salary has gone up 33 percent in the past 10 years?

So claim it's sole purpose is to break unions if you like, but the REAL motive is the bottom line -- which is usually the case on most thing.

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

tk421;762408 wrote:You honestly don't think the Dems or Repubs will pass on doing business with companies who contribute to the opposite party? You really don't see anything wrong with this, no possible way it could be used to hurt the other political party? So, if two companies bid for a federal job and one donates heavily to the GOP and one to the Dems, you don't think the Obama administration is going to take the democratic company?

Halliburton ring a bell?

Writerbuckeye;762095 wrote:Did you even read the column? This opens the door for a lot of corruption -- and it's totally unnecessary. Laws were put in place to prevent just this kind of power play, and now Obama is reversing the field so Democrats can have a huge advantage. This order will almost certainly be used to cull out companies that donate to Republicans. To think otherwise is naive.

It's the Chicago way, after all.

is that like the advantage the GOP tries to gain by busting unions in a attempt take away contribution to the democrats?

KnightRyder;763511 wrote:is that like the advantage the GOP tries to gain by busting unions in a attempt take away contribution to the democrats?

Government can give collective bargaining -- and government can take it away.

If I had my way, every state would be right to work and unions could only organize by people volunteering to join. Nobody would be required to pay dues, even if a union represents some employees. All dues would be voluntary.

Then nobody could argue that anyone is "busting" a union. The union would stand or fall on its own.

Writerbuckeye;763433 wrote:
Seriously, how many companies do you know where the average salary has gone up 33 percent in the past 10 years?

Not exactly on topic but since you asked... It looks like nurses as a profession have risen from about $50,000 per year in 2003 to around $65,000 in 2009. That would be around a 30% increase in well under 10 years. I recognize that nurses are not a company, as asked for, and I am not sure how solid the numbers are are but they are likely at least reasonably close.
http://www.jobsearchintelligence.com/salary-data-chart/index.php?occupation=29-1111

Writerbuckeye;763562 wrote:Government can give collective bargaining -- and government can take it away.

If I had my way, every state would be right to work and unions could only organize by people volunteering to join. Nobody would be required to pay dues, even if a union represents some employees. All dues would be voluntary.

Then nobody could argue that anyone is "busting" a union. The union would stand or fall on its own.

well guess you get your way. so are you gonna take your ball and go home?

Writerbuckeye;763562 wrote:Government can give collective bargaining -- and government can take it away.

If I had my way, every state would be right to work and unions could only organize by people volunteering to join. Nobody would be required to pay dues, even if a union represents some employees. All dues would be voluntary.

Then nobody could argue that anyone is "busting" a union. The union would stand or fall on its own.

you mean the GOP government can take it away

If I had my way, every state would be right to work and unions could only organize by people volunteering to join. Nobody would be required to pay dues, even if a union represents some employees. All dues would be voluntary.

This is the way it should be.The key word is voluntary.

KnightRyder;763707 wrote:you mean the GOP government can take it away

Oh...you're one of THOSE. If your guys aren't in power, it's not your government. Is it still your country, or are you like Michelle Obama and only proud of it when it's convenient?

Writerbuckeye;763779 wrote:Oh...you're one of THOSE. If your guys aren't in power, it's not your government. Is it still your country, or are you like Michelle Obama and only proud of it when it's convenient?

It's just an inconvenient truth.

KnightRyder;763511 wrote:is that like the advantage the GOP tries to gain by busting unions in a attempt take away contribution to the democrats?

Here's the thing: Democrats can donate whatever they want to politicians or organizations or parties. There's nothing to stop them. Nothing. Same with republicans or libertarians, constitutionalists, etc.

Collective bargaining and/or unions have NOTHING to do with how much money you want to give to anything political.

Writerbuckeye;763779 wrote:Oh...you're one of THOSE. If your guys aren't in power, it's not your government. Is it still your country, or are you like Michelle Obama and only proud of it when it's convenient?

How many times have you heard a conservative say "not my president", etc? The "not my government" thing isn't limited to Democrats or Republicans. It's limited to partisan idiots.

I Wear Pants;763983 wrote:... thing isn't limited to Democrats or Republicans. It's limited to partisan idiots.

Amen. Sing it.

No argument here.

CenterBHSFan;763869 wrote:Here's the thing: Democrats can donate whatever they want to politicians or organizations or parties. There's nothing to stop them. Nothing. Same with republicans or libertarians, constitutionalists, etc.

Collective bargaining and/or unions have NOTHING to do with how much money you want to give to anything political.

Yeah, but forcing people to give to Democrats (via union dues) is so much more fun . . .

jhay78;764065 wrote:Yeah, but forcing people to give to Democrats (via union dues) is so much more fun . . .

They're doing it for your own good. These folks know what's best for you. Just shut up and do as you're told.

Writerbuckeye;764207 wrote:They're doing it for your own good. These folks know what's best for you. Just shut up and do as you're told, comrade.

fixed it for you

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/11/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSTRE74A4UD20110511

^^^Totally meaningless until someone actually begins to campaign in earnest. Not to mention that the candidate who ends up getting the nomination may not even be in the race yet. Fact is, I'm betting he isn't.

It's totally meaningless when he is beating the two main candidates by atleast 12% each??