Collective Bargaining for Wisconsin State employees
For this argument make sure that you stay in your roles that were assigned for this class. Scott Walker the Governor of Wisconsin helped create and pass a law that limited state employees collective bargaining rights and also asked them to contribute more to their health care plans and pensions. Read through the links below to get an idea of the bill and some of the points that were in it.
For
Side Score: 51
|
![]() |
Against
Side Score: 26
|
|
|
1
point
I believe that collective bargaining is not necessary. Employees have enough voice already. If employees didn't have enough voice they wouldn't be happy. I haven't noticed any un-hapiness in the teachers jobs that I have seen in my school I think the teacher at first were shocked but have gotten over it very quickly. I believe that even though the state employees don't have much of a voice the government will not be jerks and change up a bunch of things to make the employees un happy. Side: Against
I think that people need their rights but i dont think they should have as much say as their boss or owner. Without collective bargaining owners can make whatever rules they want which isnt right but the boss should still have a small say over the employees. He/she should be able to run their business however they want it. But also, the employees shouldnt be able to get fired for no reason. Side: For
1
point
1
point
If state employees get bargaining rights why don't all other people like lets say people working at a grocery store? Plus state employees have like all holidays off and they main people striking at the capital were the teachers and they get all summer off and almost all major holidays off. Side: Against
1
point
I disagree with you that without collective bargaining employees lose their rights. I believe that the government has so many restrictions to protect their employees. I think that they should be happy with the rights they have and should be greedy and ask for too much. I think that negotiations are not necessary for employees to get good rights because they already have good rights. Side: Against
I disagree that the rights of the state employees will be taken away. The government has way to many restriction and regulations to take away their rights. The employees have a lot of rights and should be happy with what they have. I think that with collective bargaining employees can be greedy with the demand of too many rights. Side: Against
1
point
Wisconsin's state employees need collective bargaining. Without it they can be fired or have their rights striped from them for no reason. Collective bargaining helps them be treated fairly by business owners and gives them their rights. Wisconsin needs collective bargaining for its employees. Side: For
1
point
1
point
0
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I think unions are still needed because I people might become like a robber baron. But yet the world has changed so I think we don’t need them (that’s my opinion of the normal Chad Benti, not the unionized worker). But as the unionized worker, I think we need them because people might think their money is more important then people. Side: For
1
point
1
point
I have to agree with the collective bargaining. Without collective bargaining workers could get fired for no reason even if they are doing their job well which isn't fair at all. Collective bargaining also gives business owers and workers an attempt to negotiate to try and agree on one thing, this can be used for hours, wages, and working conditions Side: For
I am for collective bargaining because it gives a voice to the state employees. Without these baragaining rights things from their retirement to the healthcare could be significantly changed without they getting to say anything about it. Take away collective bargaining and things could become violent like they already did at one point with protests and such. I think to keep both unions and state happy it would be in the best interest of everyone to keep collective bargaining Side: For
I think there should be Collective Bargaining for employees without any restrictions. So, I believe that Scott Walker's bill shouldn't be passed. It should be an employee's choice whether they want to put more of their paycheck into heath care and such. There shouldn't be a bill passed to make workers put more in. That's just less money in their paycheck to help them get through the week. Side: For
I disagree because without collective bargining should be passed with restrictions. If the employers could choose if they wanted to put more money into health care then they would most likely not put alot in health care. They wouldnt because everyone is out for their own and everyone wants more money. Side: Against
|
I think collective barganing is not needed because if the state employees get to bargin why dont other people that work in diffrent places like a store not get bargaining rights? It is time for some of these state employees to pay up like govorner walker said.Tthey have so many rights compaired to the other people to work in this state that we need to get our money back in some way to get the budget deficite lower so we arnt one of the most broke states. So we are going to get money from th bargining rights so we can get some money for more important thing like the roads and more things for the whole state. Side: Against
State employees need collective bargaining because they have different conditions then people who work at stores. People who work at stores have unions and can strike. It is illegal for state employees like teachers to strike, therefore they need collective bargaining so that they can have good conditions without disrupting things. The alternative to collective bargaining is state employees attempting to strike which will greatly disrupt things like education and law enforcement. Side: For
I agree with this becasue I think that if they should be able to bargain then everyone else should be able to. But at the same time, we shouldnt take away all of the money just from them. I also think that we should be taking it away from everyone so that everything is equal. Side: Against
I agree the state workers better start paying equal tax money that we do so that with all that money they earn the state can take it away and if they don't pay take them away and open up a new job for the people who need and are qualified, and if their train them instead of sending them to school to be qualified but when it comes time to work they are over qualified for the job. Side: Against
Store workers and non state employees don't have the same situation. The do not have anything to negotiate. Where state workers have things such as retirment benifits, taxes, and health care support that they need to have a say in. For example teachers and their bargaining rights if they had non what so ever they would have no say in class sizes. Imagine a kid going to school and trying to get a personalized education in a class of 30+ students. It benifits everyone in the long run for state employees to have their bargaining rights. Side: For
I think that wisconsin state employees should not have collective barganig because they have a job and then get paid a decent amount of money for only working half of a year. I don't think that they should be complaining about their salary or there benifits. I think they have it pretty well made. Side: Against
I think that the employees already have alot of rights and laws supporting them. I dont think that teachers need to to complain about there wages or there beinfits becasue they only work half of the year and they make decient money and they have pretty good benifts. Side: Against
I agree with this because teachers have a good salary and can make a fine living. They have plenty of benefeits because they get the whole summer off just like students. Some teachers even are coaches for sports and that will increase their salary. So they have plenty of benefits already and dont need to worry Side: Against
1
point
They shouldn't be complaining. It is exactly as what Walker has said. The economy is going down even further because we are not negotiationg. There is already laws giving you many benefits. At least you should take part in paying something. It would help the debt that we are in. Side: Against
1
point
1
point
workers should have a small say but the owner should be able to set his own rules for his business. If they dont want to work for the owner then they dont have to and he will go out of business. People will only work at businesses they like and the owners know this so they should treat their employees well if they want to keep them there. Side: Against
I agree with you because collective bargaining controls people and what they want, i don't think they should be able to take control over us just because they are the boss or the government, they can't control every little thing. And make up silly reasons for some things that don't make sense, that wouldn't be fair. Side: For
I do agree with you that there should be a little help with the current debt however there are other ways to do it. Walker has no right to say this he is taking away the voice of thousands of state employees. If he thinks that this will silence them by taking this away I'm sure he is going to be sadly mistaken. Side: For
I believe state employees should not have collective bargaining. They do not need to be complaining about their working conditions, pensions, and pay. I believe that they should be the last employees to be complaining about everything. There are so many laws and restrictions to benifit them. I think that the state employees are just being greedy and asking way more than they deserve. Also I think that teachers should not complain about their wages because they don't even work in the summer and still make a descent salary. Side: Against
It isn't just comlaining about working conditions. There are serious issues that involve collective bargaining. There are aslo some issues that don't directly involve current working conditions like retirement and health care. Without collective bargaining these things can be taken from employees. Side: For
But without collective bargaining businesses could fire us for no reason! It isn't fair, workers need their rights. If we don't have rights than how are you going to get people to work for you. You need to treat your workers fairly otherwise your business is going to fail. Also, you can't take our rights like free speech away from us. Side: For
To start with everything you disputed had nothing to do with the collective bargaining rights. collective barging is were the teachers like get certain holidays off and like get a reduced price on insurance so you might want to read the articles up there on the top. but they still have all there right and freedom of speech and cant be fired for no reason. Side: Against
No, the working conditions are not good and if we have to work under them we get a say in what they are. We should have a right to make the conditions better. I think it would be fair if we at least would get to negotiate them. We could come to a compromise. I think that collective bargaining should still be allowed. Side: For
Collective bargaining is so important for the protection of workers. Without collective bargaining people will have wage cuts and they could be fired for absolutely no reason. People need to be protected. There's honestly no good reason to get rid of collective bargaining. Side: For
|