3 ms·

Ok. So you do think that being employed by 'the public' means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract? That is, if you sign a contract, and you are

by Afton 17y ago

Ok. So you do think that being employed by 'the public' means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract? That is, if you sign a contract, and you are a public employee, that contract should be worthless in asserting your rights under the contract? And this: > And, public employee unions can drive tax dollars into their members pockets. Makes no sense to me at all. Of course they can. That's kind of their purpose...

anamax 17y ago
> Ok. So you do think that being employed by 'the public' means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract? No, but thanks for raising a strawman. As I wrote, I think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't limited. > Makes no sense to me at all. Of course they can. That's kind of their purpose... I agree that that's their purpose. As a member of the public I object. Ford can't get my money without my agreement. Since govt can, I want different rules. And, if someone doesn't like those terms, they're free to find an employer that has the terms that they do like. As long as tax money isn't involved, I don't care.
- Afton 17y ago
  Hardly a strawman >> Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that contracts that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the other party. >Because "the public" can't take their money elsewhere if it doesn't like the decisions made by management. I also don't see where you are referring to when you say > As I wrote, I think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't limited. In any event I find it hard to grasp your position. You don't think that being employed by the government means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract, and you do think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > In any event I find it hard to grasp your position. You don't think that being employed by the government means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract, and you do think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't. It's quite easy to grasp. I think that public employee contracts shouldn't have certain provisions. The "right" to a contract does not imply the right to any possible contract. We already restrict private employee contracts - I'm just saying that there should be somewhat different restrictions on public employee contracts. Folks who object to the restrictions specific to public employee contracts are free to seek private employee contracts more to their liking.

by Afton 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> Ok. So you do think that being employed by 'the public' means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract? No, but thanks for raising a strawman. As I wrote, I think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't limited. > Makes no sense to me at all. Of course they can. That's kind of their purpose... I agree that that's their purpose. As a member of the public I object. Ford can't get my money without my agreement. Since govt can, I want different rules. And, if someone doesn't like those terms, they're free to find an employer that has the terms that they do like. As long as tax money isn't involved, I don't care.

Afton 17y ago
Hardly a strawman >> Basically, I don't see how being employed by 'the public' means that contracts that you agreed to and signed can be ripped up at will by the other party. >Because "the public" can't take their money elsewhere if it doesn't like the decisions made by management. I also don't see where you are referring to when you say > As I wrote, I think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't limited. In any event I find it hard to grasp your position. You don't think that being employed by the government means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract, and you do think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't.
- anamax 17y ago
  > In any event I find it hard to grasp your position. You don't think that being employed by the government means that you shouldn't have the protection of a contract, and you do think that public employee contracts should be limited in ways that private employee contracts aren't. It's quite easy to grasp. I think that public employee contracts shouldn't have certain provisions. The "right" to a contract does not imply the right to any possible contract. We already restrict private employee contracts - I'm just saying that there should be somewhat different restrictions on public employee contracts. Folks who object to the restrictions specific to public employee contracts are free to seek private employee contracts more to their liking.