3 ms·
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 t
by 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.