A Liberal's View of Collective Bargaining for Government Employees

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445
 
"What until then seemed impossible to achieve has become a fact of life. We have won the right to association in trade unions independent from the authorities, founded and shaped by the working people themselves."

Can you tell me which left wing commie said that Yurt? Can you even tell me what that means?
 
"What until then seemed impossible to achieve has become a fact of life. We have won the right to association in trade unions independent from the authorities, founded and shaped by the working people themselves."

Can you tell me which left wing commie said that Yurt? Can you even tell me what that means?

what does that have to do with this thread?
 
"What until then seemed impossible to achieve has become a fact of life. We have won the right to association in trade unions independent from the authorities, founded and shaped by the working people themselves."

Can you tell me which left wing commie said that Yurt? Can you even tell me what that means?

interesting....a right to association.....yet in Wisconsin they demonstrate against a law permitting someone to NOT be a union member....seems to me that Lech would have been cheering for the people who didn't want to be a member of a group that wasn't shaped by themselves......
 
interesting....a right to association.....yet in Wisconsin they demonstrate against a law permitting someone to NOT be a union member....seems to me that Lech would have been cheering for the people who didn't want to be a member of a group that wasn't shaped by themselves......
I'm impressed and giving you a thumbs up for having an acumen and intelligence far above Yurts. Yes, Lech Walesa was the author of the quote and the man who did as much as Reagan did to play out the end game for Soviet communism.

Despite ramblings to the contrary his point is, is that people and worker organizing to negotiate the conditions of their employment is a human right and cannot be abrogated by some politician (the authorities) as Walker is attempting to do. This is the point that sailed right over Yurts head. You may not agree with that point but at least you got it. Good job.

I wanted to make that point to demonstrate that unions played a huge role in bringing about the end of the Soviet Empire and they did it through the right to freedom of association and that what Walker is doing is a strike at the heart of freedom itself.
 
Last edited:
true, but I didn't want to make union members appear petty by accusing them of leaving their students in the classroom just to protest having to pay an extra $600 towards their own pension benefits....


The unions already agree to the financial concessions. The issue is whether they may collectively bargain in the future for anything other than wages (and to the extent they are permitted to bargain for wages, any wage increase above CPI, not the wage index, must be approved by referendum) and whether the unions must hold votes every single year to remain the representative of their respective bargaining units.

You can pretend that what Walker is proposing is run-of-the-mill, but it isn't.
 
Geez...all you had to say was you didn't know the answer.

No need to get all pissy about it.

i do know the answer and it has nothing to do with this thread. thanks for opening your mouth and proving you're a fool. instead of even trying to explain what it has to do with this thread, you make a childish rant. you're the one who is pissy. why don't you man up and explain how it relates to thsi thread....i doubt you will though, you're all about the instults
 
I'm impressed and giving you a thumbs up for having an acumen and intelligence far above Yurts. Yes, Lech Walesa was the author of the quote and the man who did as much as Reagan did to play out the end game for Soviet communism.

Despite ramblings to the contrary his point is, is that people and worker organizing to negotiate the conditions of their employment is a human right and cannot be abrogated by some politician (the authorities) as Walker is attempting to do. This is the point that sailed right over Yurts head. You may not agree with that point but at least you got it. Good job.

I wanted to make that point to demonstrate that unions played a huge role in bringing about the end of the Soviet Empire and they did it through the right to freedom of association and that what Walker is doing is a strike at the heart of freedom itself.

what does that have to do with the opinion in the OP? it doesn't change anything about roosevelt's opinion regarding unions in the PUBLIC sector. your quote has nothing to do with his opinion about the public sector.

your logic is nonsense, you're trying to say the opinion isn't valid because of what some guy did in russia....it doesn't alter roosevelt's opinion at all.
 
i do know the answer and it has nothing to do with this thread. thanks for opening your mouth and proving you're a fool. instead of even trying to explain what it has to do with this thread, you make a childish rant. you're the one who is pissy. why don't you man up and explain how it relates to thsi thread....i doubt you will though, you're all about the instults

If you knew the answer then why not just toss it out there?

Instead and AS USUAL you got your panties in a bunch...
 
If you knew the answer then why not just toss it out there?

Instead and AS USUAL you got your panties in a bunch...

and yet here you are not tossing the answer out. here you are getting your panties in a bunch. your anger comes through quite clearly.

instead of explaining why you think the quote has anything to do with the thread, you simply spout off insults. its hilarious, i even bet you wouldn't explain it and instead you would stick to insults. thanks for proving me right zappa.

and if you can't see the irony of your post, then there is no help for you. one more chance zappa....can you explain how the quote has anything to do with roosevelt's opinion regarding GOVERNMENT employees?
 
and yet here you are not tossing the answer out. here you are getting your panties in a bunch. your anger comes through quite clearly.

instead of explaining why you think the quote has anything to do with the thread, you simply spout off insults. its hilarious, i even bet you wouldn't explain it and instead you would stick to insults. thanks for proving me right zappa.

and if you can't see the irony of your post, then there is no help for you. one more chance zappa....can you explain how the quote has anything to do with roosevelt's opinion regarding GOVERNMENT employees?

You choose to ignore questions you don't want to answer...I'm simply exercising the same prerogative.

Ohhhh..too bad...if only you'd answered Mott's question.

:doh:
 
You choose to ignore questions you don't want to answer...I'm simply exercising the same prerogative.

Ohhhh..too bad...if only you'd answered Mott's question.

:doh:

its already been answered, so what purpose would it serve if i answered it again? oh thats right, it would not serve any purpose. and once again, you can't actually have a rational discussion. you're just here to attack, bitch and moan. you do it every single time you post here.

you obviously cannot explain what that quote and the person have to do with roosevelt's opinion because in reality, it has zero to do with roosevelt's opinion. you and mott are idiots regarding this. you're basically saying that roosevelt's opinion doesn't count because this other guy has this opinion.
 
Back
Top