Yes, I know. I answered my own question.  

I'd still be interested in Prof. Epstein's take on this whole fiasco.

I discovered this source that suggests it's a dead issue, as of June 30, 2009.  

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_gm_bankruptcy_and_the_supr.html

The domain's available!  It can be yours for $7.49 per year...

Another puzzle piece:  The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (party affiliations: R-D-D) was adopted by the California Legislature in 1967, signed into law by Gov. Reagan that same year, and took initial effect in 1969 and full effect in 1972.  At the same time, judges started resisting hospitalizing people for indefinite periods of time.  Unruh was indeed Speaker.

Started at the federal level with the Community Mental Health Act of 1963?

And I think it says something good that we're struggling.  

I honestly didn't know that Catholics made up such a large proportion of the population, but you're absolutely right.   

Microsoft Windows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining

Rikipedia is a persona at this point, although the plan is to fill it with a dedicated person.  The Logo is exclusively assigned in this manner to our publisher (on site, at least - on Facebook it's a shared persona), and Blue Yeti is exclusively assigned to our podcast producer.  

I understand from Diane that our interns are taking final exams right now, so their rotations are coming to an end.

That seems like an excellent, related question to consider. Sounds like a perfect combination of monopoly power, lavish staff salaries, and forced fealty by the actual workers.

That would be one argument. But don't you think it would useful to support that with specifics on taxpayer overspending and public union contributions to Democrats?  We've had more than a few good, sober Ricochet Members say they supported collective bargaining in the public sector, and it's far from clear that Walker is being supported by most Wisconsinites.  

In other words, it's one thing to be right; it's another to be persuasive about it.

And if for and against doesn't work, we can come up with new pages.

We had a bit of an internal debate at Ricochet as to whether collective bargaining was a necessary and sufficient condition for, simply, a union.  I argued that it was, but others felt that you could have a union, such as a guild, that doesn't actually engage in collective bargaining.  

So, to answer your question: collective bargaining can be as simple as having one person represent other workers to negotiate things like wages and working conditions. It is one of the primary functions of a union.

In Wisconsin, Gov. Walker has proposed eliminating collective bargaining for benefits, not wages. 

Uh, yes.  

Thanks for the catch.  Corrected. 

Process note:  As long as the position remains a work in progress, this post will stay at the top of the page.  It will get edited, however, as new arguments take shape.

Once we have a sense of the major arguments, we’ll split these off into separate discussions so they can be refined and, if necessary, substantiated.

Process note:  As long as the position remains a work in progress, this post will stay at the top of the page.  It will get edited, however, as new arguments take shape.

Once we have a sense of the major arguments, we’ll split these off into separate discussions so they can be refined and, if necessary, substantiated.