Hi All,

The Republican-dominated Wisconsin legislature unfortunately is trying to pass a bill that effectively prohibits public workers from establishing any further collective bargaining agreements. While I do not construe the Wisconsin Republican majority as "malefactors," their choice to quash the right of certain workers in Wisconsin to fight against labor practices they might deem unfair reflects their poor judgment with respect to this matter. It should be duly noted that pre-union jurisprudence favored the wealthy few who owned indurstries, such as Andrew Carnegie, and not the numerous of woefully underpaid individuals who could be fired as a consequence of receiving accidental job-related injuries that took a protracted amount of time to heal. To prevent these sort of practices from continuing, various edicts were established acknowledging the freedom of workers to belong to organizations which resist unscrupulous bosses who attempt to take advantage of them. Unfortunately, over the years, unions permitted people of various occupations to become lazy, and allowed them to use the most minute inconveniences as grounds for striking. Yet, despite certain individuals' propensity towards using unions as "escape hatches" to avoid tasks which necessitate demanding labor, deciding to eliminate unions will lead to situations whereby laborers are disposable once again. This will furthermore cause the CEOs in Wisconsin, who are of a Donald Trump mindset, to terminate the contract of any worker which fails to smile at them. QuotidianPerfection's prediction: the Wisconsin anti-labor proposal, if successfully instituted in that particular state, will be challenged, taken to the Supreme Court, then overturned, and rightfully so.

easier words, please?

_________________
This post was sponsored by my parents.

Okay Kubi,

I will be happy to simplify the diction of my initial post. What is happening is this: Wisconsin's government is trying to pass a law that will make it illegal for public workers (e.g., individuals who work for the Wisconsin government, such as letter carriers) to be fired if they strike over their working conditions, such as being poorly paid. Before unions, though, the wealthy and powerful could fire any of their employees for pretty much any reason. For example, if a worker gets hurt, and is out for an extended period of time, that means the company's labor will suffer, and the person in charge of the company will not make as much profit. The boss may, as a result, decide to fire the injured worker, and replace that individual with a healthier one. For these reasons, the United States recognized workers' right to organize a group--called a union--that had the right to refuse unfair working conditions. Our nation also passed laws that did not allow bosses to fire union members for striking against oppresive labor environments. Unfortunately, the trend today is to use unions as an excuse to put the minimal amount of effort into a job, and to get paid the same as those who "work hard and sweat all the time." However, if the Wisconsin government rejects the right of workers to belong to unions, they are simply allowing old, oppresive situations to return to companies. If the Wisconsin bill is passed, I feel that it will be challenged in our courts, and eventually overturned. Hope this helps.

easier words, please?

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi Kubi and RE Virus,

In simplest terms, if the Wisconsin bill is passed, public workers, such as mail carriers, can be fired for refusing to show up work if they are poorly paid. Right now, the government cannot fire public workers in Wisconsin if they refuse to show up for work over low wages, but, rather, decide to protest them until a compomise is reached between the public workers and the government. This is called striking. If the Wisconsin bill becomes law, any public workers who strike can be fired by the government. And, if the law is successful, my prediction is that lawyers will seek to overturn it in the United States court system.

I will have to disagree with you on that. If the worker strikes, then he doesn't work. If he doesn't work, then the government/council doesn't earn money. If they don't earn money, they will go bankrupt. It is a pretty good law but the injury thing is different.

If a worker gets injured then instead of firing him/her, they should just suspend him until he gets well, still paying him, just less; and hiring a different worker, maybe through some agency, to work for him through that period of time.

P.S. the second version was simple enough.

_________________
This post was sponsored by my parents.

Hi Kubi,

I agree that unions should adjust their policies to allow for the suspension or firing of workers who are lazy, and do poor work on the job. However, I disagree that unions should be eliminated. Let me address a concern you raised in your response to me. For clarity's sake, I will provide a specific illustration. Let us suppose that the Wisconsin government, to save money, permits mail workers to drive in cars that they know are unsafe. Now, let us further suppose that one of the workers suffers a serious accident, and will be out of the job for about a year. (We will assume that accident is the result of a car malfunction, and not at all the fault of the driver.) Should the government reduce or suspend his or her pay? Should the government fire the injured mail worker? I would say that doing so would be unfair, since it was the GOVERNMENT'S FAULT in the first place that the accident happened. So why should a worker be punished when he or she is the VICTIM, and the government is really to blame? If no unions existed, the government could fire the injured mail carrier to save face, and have a "scapegoat" ready so that they can avoid facing the consequences of their actions if sued. After all, it is far easier--and less expensive--to say that X or Y drove carelessly than to admit that they issued cars that could result in injuries and / or deaths. However, if that mail carrier is in a union, they union can strike until the government agrees to treat the victim with respect.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus,

While there are reports of Obama trying to stall Scott Walker's anti-union bill, I do not see it purely as a "Zionist conspiracy," as your YouTube video above suggests. The speaker in the video accuses George Soros and David Axelrod, both Jews, of using Obama as a pawn to disrupt Scott Walker's proposition to further their own agenda. Nevertheless, I say the previously alluded to conspiracy theory is a specious one. How do you account for, to cite an example, people who belong to a union, but are anti-Semetic in their beliefs? How can you make such a case against Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who despise unions? Throughout history, the tendency has been to "finger" unpopular religious groups--such as Jews, Muslims, and Catholics--and place the blame squarely on their shoulders for problems that contain far more complicated explanations. Fortunately, the root of Wisconsin's anti-union proposition is far more simplistic in nature than other historical events (e.g., wars), which contain many factors which eventually manifested in a violent outcome. The real issue of Scott Walker's bill is whether government employees, such as mail carriers and teachers, have the right to form a union, and be permitted to strike without fear of losing their jobs. And that is pretty much the bottom line.

What, Brother Nathaniel didn't impress you with his hyperactive gesturing?

Some people just don't understand comedy.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus,

If Brother Nathaniel's YouTube skit was supposed to be light-hearted and funny, I guess he did not come across that way. To be honest, I found the tone of the skit more accusative than comical. Simply put, it seemed to say that the Jews are responsible for Obama's attempts to thwart Scott Walker's anti-union bill in Wisconsin.

As an aside, here is a YouTube video of School Ties, a film in which "prep school boys" use all sorts of tactics, including anti-Semetic comments, to make star quarterback David Green feel unwelcome after they discover he is Jewish. Just take a look at zalenbehar's YouTube uploading of School Ties (1992) CD2 (i.e., from 12:54-14:47): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfTrqtm68s. Do you find any humor in the joke told in the locker room, RE Virus? I don't. Why? Because it is not designed to make people laugh. Rather, the joke is intended to make fun of the only Jewish student in the school, and make him feel subhuman.

Brother Nathaniel is trying to do the same thing that the people in School Ties do and produce comic material so old that it has become cliched. He does so by implying that Jews 1) are responsible for the world's problems, and 2) only care about money. The Wisconsin anti-union proposal, though, involves all public workers without regards to their race / ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. People ought to keep in this in mind before making themselves look foolish by posting prejudiced material on YouTube, and trying to pass it off as "comedy."

Do you really think I'm going to take the bait again?

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus:

Let me ask you a basic question: do you think that government workers have the right to form unions, and organize strikes, or not?

Hi QP:

Let me ask you a basic question: do you think that Internet trolls have the right to argue only in general terms, and waste people's times, or not?

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus,

I am no "internet troll," and have an advanced degree in Literature to prove it. However, for privacy's sake, I do not wish to give "specifics" over the internet.

Now, back to the topic. Kubi already opined that injured workers do not have the right to collect compensatory pay during recovery. Kubi seemed to take the "middle ground," though, and imply that firing laborers for a job-related injury is a bit too Draconian. The next question I am going to ask him concerns whether he pro-union, anti-union, or believes that unions should be sanctioned.

In defense of my topic of being "specific," rather than "overly broad," I have already answered the six important questions: Who? Scott Walker. What? Anti-Union Proposal. When? Today (i.e., current time). Where? (Wisconsin). Why? (When public servants strike, this could lead to economic famine for the government). How? (By making it illegal for public servants to form unions and strike, the government will have less of a chance of encountering economic hardships.)

Is this topic relevant? Yes. The reason why is because if Wisconsin's Anti-Union Proposal is ratified, then this state can set the precedent for other states seeking to do away with unions which protect public servants.

By the way, I am not trying to come across as abrasive, as I respect the viewpoints of others. To avoid the diatribes that come with political debates, let us just make this topic a matter of simply voting for one of the following choices: 1) keep unions for public workers, 2) do away with unions for public workers, or 3) keep unions, but place restrictions upon them. As of this point, I am simply tallying votes, so there is no further need to worry about this topic effectuating in any sort of negative discourse.

Yes, that proves it, you ain't no troll. You just troll in your spare time.

I find it humorous that, while claiming to not be a troll, you are attempting to discuss political non-issues with an 11-year-old, who -- smart as he may be -- could not possibly have a working understanding of these mainstream political distractions you insist on talking about on a videogame forum read by about 5 people.

Hmm, yeah, I guess you aren't a troll; just new to the Internet.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

Hi RE Virus:

1. Much of my time is filled with academic conferences which I have to attend. When I have "a break," though, I raise topics that are of interest to ALL people.

2. You argue that my information "is over Kubi's head." Let us suppose, though, that Kubi (currently 11 years old), when he matures, decides to accept a job in the United States for a given period of time. I am sure that he will want to understand what laws temper his working environment. This will help him make informed choices. Prior comprehension of the previous alluded issues will better prepare him for jobs situated in the US if and when he decides to accept them. Of course, this is all speculation. I only used the preceding illustration to "drive home" a point: that the argument over whether unions should exist--or if they ought to be modified--is a potentially divisive topic that tempers many US occupations today. In my opinion, it is never too early for people to investigate vocational-related organizations, such as unions, that could affect them in the future.

lol! I live in the United Kingdom so that won't really apply to me.

Also, when QP said it is never too late to let the young know what is on the way, I will also have to disagree with that. If the knowledge (much appreciated here) is spread to people that are just too young/not ready for it yet can practically ruin their life as all the serious thing could sort of make them TOO serious and TOO mature, that they will stand out of other children and could cause them to have a sad childhood and be a not-as-happy person like they could have been.

_________________
This post was sponsored by my parents.

Hi Kubi:

I was thinking around these lines: if you accept an "overseas" job in the United States in the future, you will have to understand how unions function in the U.S. This might not ever happen, but why take that chance?

However, you raised another good point--if children mature too fast, and set their sights on what they will do when they grow up, then they lose their childhood forever.

Let's just say we respectfully disagree on this point, since there are valid arguments to support both sides.

Hi All:

It is completely illogical that the state of Wisconsin chose to pass a bill prohibiting public unions into law, an issue which could have been dealt with simply by placing limitations and parameters on the organizations in question.

Many illogical things happen in the USA QP

_________________

Some of my Architectural renders

Hi crispncrunchy:

You are absolutely right. What is especially tragic about the Wisconsin ordeal is that it took years for individuals states within the US to understand why workers form unions. Basically, unions exist to protect the rights of employees. By banning unions, these liberties are being stripped again, allowing for the possibility of brilliant minds in the public sphere to be ordered around by tyrannical CEOs. When taken into context, this demarcates the regression of human rights in a country that is diametrically opposed to the oppression of individual liberties. I love my country, and will say that what transpired in Wisconsion is an embarrassment to America as a whole.

QP, you can't argue with REVIrus, he doesn't have any actual philosophical, political, economic, religious, or ethical views or really anything that has any semblance of a concrete worldview. He doesn't know how the world should be organized (not even in the sense that he thinks he knows but is wrong, like most politicians, but in the sense that he literally has no idea about how anything should be organized), he doesn't understand how capitalism, communism, socialism, or really any economic system works. He has the most tenuous grasp of international and domestic politics. Believe me, ask him any question about anything to do with our social experience and he won't have anything to add to the conversation except to scoff at what you say.

He just thinks that Jews are behind everything. This is not meant to be a refutation of his claims, I'm just saying, this is what he thinks, and this is all he knows. Arguing with him is like playing tennis with a brick wall. Brick walls are not tennis players, REVirus is not a person that you can engage in discussion with and expect any fruitful result. There is nothing he doesn't think is the result of a Zionist conspiracy. I can assure you that REVirus also thinks that Gov. Walker is supported by some sort of Zionist conspiracy as well. REVirus is just a guy that refuses to accept that we live in chaos and turns to belief to explain everything. Some believe in God, some believe in conspiracy. No amount of proof can disprove God, no amount of proof can disprove REVirus's belief. REVirus takes what he believes on pure faith --there is only implication and interpretation. Nothing will provoke a recalcitrant experience in REVirus. His beliefs are not up for revision, and not only that, but he will never establish any grounds for reversing his beliefs, which means everything he says is dogmatic. Don't worry about what he has to say, you will feel better about it.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com

Hi doyle:

I, for one, actually believe in God. Evolution accounts for how a given species can adapt to certain environments, but fails to explain ethical behavior. Moralism dictates that its practitioners think about the consequences of their behavioral actions. Evolution, by contrast, suggests that organisms survive by impulsivity. Consequently, modeling human development on an initial propensity to react without appreciating the effects of their conduct places them on the same behavioral plateau of animals. Unlike beasts, humans, throughout history, were made aware of oral and written laws which articulate their moral obligation to their community. If one of these laws was breached, the perpetrators were subject to punishment.

As far as RE Virus is concerned, I have read his posts, and am cognizant of his Zionist conspiracy thoughts. I have given RE Virus reasons why I think such reasoning is specious. However, our thinking on this matter will always be diametrically opposed. Since I feel that our views on the preceding matter are irreconciable, I informed RE Virus that I no longer wish to engage in any sort of conversation where the Jews are the focal point of the discussion.

Now, back to the topic: Wisconsin's anti-union bill was slated to go into legal effect in that particular state. Nevertheless, a judge is currently delaying the anti-union law from having any juristic power in Wisconsin until its constitutionality is reviewed. Although I disagree with theories which state that humans are derived from lower forms of being, I agree that communities can--and should--evolve ethically over time. A while ago, mail carriers in Wisconsin could lose their job if they succumbed to illness without being compensated for lost time. Now, if mail carriers are fired for that particular reason, their union can strike until the grievances of the victims whom they represent are addressed. If Wisconsin bans unions, sick workers' employment can be terminated once again, and without compensation. That is why the Wisconsin bill is farcical--instead of the bill "doing more" to move from an unjust to a just working enviroment, it espouses vocational regression by "making strides" to shift in the opposite direction.

Regardless of any philosophical differences we might have, I was thoroughly impressed with how lucidly you presented your point.

Keep writing--I enjoy reading your posts.

So is this topic about that bill or is it about commenting on RE Virus' views?
Seriously, everyone has a right to their own opinion and let's go back on topic.

_________________
This post was sponsored by my parents.