Originally Posted by
newKnow
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
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
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?
Public sector unions have the exact same standing as private sector unions.
When their company, in this case the state, goes broke the unions become worthless, their contracts meaningless.
I don't blame this on the unions per se, but it is easy to see that mismanagement in either case results in utter destruction.
What you are talking about has nothing to do with unions, and everything to do with economic viability.
If you believe that unions offer some magic against economic reality, you haven't been paying attention over the last ten decades.
I would also like you to consider this thought:
The Church of Reason
The real University, he said, has no specific location. It owns no property, pays no salaries and receives no material dues. The real University is a state of mind. It is that great heritage of rational thought that has been brought down to us through the centuries and which does not exist at any specific location. It’s a state of mind which is regenerated throughout the centuries by a body of people who traditionally carry the title of professor, but even that title is not part of the real University. The real University is nothing less than the continuing body of reason itself.
In addition to this state of mind, “reason,” there’s a legal entity which is unfortunately called by the same name but which is quite another thing. This is a nonprofit corporation, a branch of the state with a specific address. It owns property, is capable of paying salaries, of receiving money and of responding to legislative pressures in the process.
But this second university, the legal corporation, cannot teach, does not generate new knowledge or evaluate ideas. It is not the real University at all. It is just a church building, the setting, the location at which conditions have been made favorable for the real church to exist.
Confusion continually occurs in people who fail to see this difference, he said, and think that control of the church buildings implies control of the church. They see professors as employees of the second university who should abandon reason when told to and take orders with no backtalk, the same way employees do in other corporations.
They see the second university, but fail to see the first. (Pirsig, 1999, p. 150).
RE Robert Pirsig: "This Classic/Romantic split is important today because it explains all of our contemporary socio-political schisms so well. Emotional thinking is always Romantic, while pragmatic or logical thinking is always Classical. Both sides see only one true way of looking at things and both overlook an important part of the puzzle of life.
It's why so many Leftists wear the "bleeding heart liberal" tag as a badge of honor. It feeds their emotionalism. Anything that sounds compassionate, feels good or "helps people," is, to their form based thinking, "good," and people who espouse self-reliance and individual responsibility are, in their view, "mean-spirited, Social Darwinists and well...evil" On the other hand, that's why economic Libertarians and social conservatives see "do-gooder liberals" as "grossly misguided dupes who care nothing for helping people help themselves and as well...evil."
It's why, Romantic thinkers rarely use facts. They support their positions on what "feels right," or "fair." It's also why, when emotional Leftists are confronted with facts they don't like, they interpret the data as "angry" or "argumentative." This also explains why Classical thinking Libertarians and Romantic thinking Leftists don't communicate. Classicists deal in pragmatics and facts, while Romantics deal in feelings and appearances.
What strict Libertarians fail to realize is that there are some burdens that we all must share. We do have a vested interest in maximizing opportunities for everyone. What Leftists fail to realize is that government assistance robs people, not only of their incentive to produce, but their dignity as well. The only real way to help people is to help them become more self-sufficient and free from those who seek to "help them." Government is NOT a tool of the people but an invention of the rich and powerful, designed to maintain order and to "keep everyone in his/her place." It has never been transformed from its original purpose, nor is there any evidence that it can be." Unknown reviewer