Originally Posted by
threeighteen
Ok, I'll bite.
Why should they be treated the same? Military servicemen are public sector employees and have many more commonalities with public sector employees than public sector employees do with private sector employees. Yet, for the military to unionize would be outrageous. Imagine the military saying, "oh, we won't defend you unless you pay us this much." It's almost the same as saying "we won't educate your children unless you pay us this much." Teachers in the public sector are not worth a penny more than what the tax paying populace thinks they are worth, why should a tax payer be forced to agree pay a higher than actual value price? They shouldn't.
.
So, your argument is that teachers and soldiers are along the same vein and since soldiers cant organize, teachers shouldn't either. Ok.
I welcome any military serviceman or servicewomen to chime in to help me out. But, the way I understand it, military servicemen are not public sector employees like you make them out to be. Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the armed forces.
Article I Sec. 8
The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."
In doing this, they created, or delegated an agency to create, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and all servicemen are covered by it once they enlist.
In the 1970's, there was an attempt to unionize the military, but DOD Directive 1354.1 was handed down which made it illegal.
Here are the stated policy reasons as to why the directive outlawing unionization for members of the military was passed: (Read 4.6 carefully)
DOD Directive 1354.1
4.1. Members of the Armed Forces of the United States must be prepared to fight and, if necessary, to die to protect the welfare, security, and liberty of the United States and of their fellow citizens.
4.2. Discipline and prompt obedience to lawful orders of superior officers are essential and time-honored elements of the American military tradition and have been reinforced from the earliest articles of war by laws and regulations prohibiting conduct detrimental to the military chain of command and lawful military authority.
4.3. The processes of conventional collective bargaining and labor-management negotiation cannot and should not be applied to the relationships between members of the Armed Forces and their military and civilian superiors.
4.4. Strikes, slowdowns, picketing, and other traditional forms of job action have no place in the Armed Forces.
4.5. Unionization of the Armed Forces would be incompatible with the military chain of command; would undermine the role, authority, and position of the commander; and would impair the morale and readiness of the Armed Forces.
4.6. The circumstances that could constitute a threat to the ability of the Armed Forces to perform their mission are not comparable to the circumstances that could constitute a threat to the ability of Federal civilian agencies to perform their functions and should be viewed in light of
the need for effective performance of duty by each member of the Armed Forces.
So, apparently, up until then they could have unionized. Also, it is telling that, seemingly the DoD specifically exempted civilian agencies. Finally, it doesn't appear that any of the stated policy reasons apply to teachers.
Or, is there another DOD directive, or Congressional law that outlaws teachers from unionizing that I am missing?
The rest of the stuff you wrote: 1.) made very little sense and; 2.) (as you pointed out) didn't address the topic of why public sector unions were different than private sector unions, and; 3.) shows me that you still haven't figured out the meaning behind the notion of taxpayer standing, so I'm going to ignore it.
But, what else ya got?
