Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

it's actually attributable to Supreme Court decisions:

DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales

---

Enlil said:

Those have nothing to do with pensions.  Those are about the point made before that where I said that you can't sue the cops for not doing their jobs.

---

Enlil said:

Lol, the arbitration process is the product of collective bargaining

Falcon, being sued for civil rights violations has nothing to do with collective bargaining

---

Enlil said:

Funny, if I made that same argument that a worker should have made a better deal with his boss, you'd give me rhetoric about unequal bargaining power.

---

Enlil said:

When it's equally uneven the other way, you're fine with it.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I'm pretty sure Enlil's now agreeing collectivization helps the worker greatly.  He's arguing it hurts people outside the collective.  Though I'm with you that the benefit to the worker generally outweighs the harm to others.

---

Enlil said:

Funny, if I made that same argument that a worker should have made a better deal with his boss, you'd give me rhetoric about unequal bargaining power.  When it's equally uneven the other way, you're fine with it.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

It benefits more than the worker. It benefits every business that worker patronizes. It benefits their children. It contributes to the fluidity of finances within our economy.

If everyone took part in collective bargaining, our economy would be better, our education would be better (because parents would have more time to spend with their children). Hell, a case could be made that our democracy would be better, both due to better education, and the fact that as people exercise democracy in the workplace (via bargaining), they might better understand how to participate in the political process which governs their country.

---

Enlil said:

If only that's how it really worked.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Enlil said:

Bigbadwooof said:

It benefits more than the worker. It benefits every business that worker patronizes. It benefits their children. It contributes to the fluidity of finances within our economy.

If everyone took part in collective bargaining, our economy would be better, our education would be better (because parents would have more time to spend with their children). Hell, a case could be made that our democracy would be better, both due to better education, and the fact that as people exercise democracy in the workplace (via bargaining), they might better understand how to participate in the political process which governs their country.

---

If only that's how it really worked.

---

Enlighten me.

---

Allow me:


Back when workers had more power, EVERYONE got more money.  After the decline of the union in the 80's NOT everyone got more money. 


Edit:  Enlil informed me I quoted the wrong post.  Here is what he was responding to:

Enlil said:

Bigbadwooof said:

I prefer the power to be in the hands of the many, rather than the few.

The workers, rather than the boss.

Decentralized power is always preferable.

---

If only that's how it really worked.

---

Enlil said:

I don't think that collective bargaining helps the nation in the same way it did before the world got smaller.  There was a time when it did, but that time is gone and most likely never to return.  That is not what I was referring to with "if only that's how it really worked" though. 

He argues that collective bargaining puts the power in the hands of the many and not the few.  I think that is naïve as fuck and doesn't represent the reality on the ground.  That is what I meant by "If only that's how it really worked."

---