I don’t get how Wilson reconciles these two statements:

So there is absolutely nothing wrong with employees collectively deciding that conditions on the job are horrendous, and deciding en masse that they don’t want to work there anymore. And there is no problem with them negotiating with the owner from that collective position. Say they are asking for a raise, or for safer working conditions. That is fully legitimate as well.

…and…

In other words, collective bargaining is nothing but extortion, and Christians should do everything in their power to have nothing to do with it.

It sure sounds like he supports the morality of collective bargaining, except when a group of employees extracts from an employer a promise to only hire union members.

@DLE: How would you apply the golden rule to the issue of collective bargaining?

In other words, the public sector unions are holding the taxpayers hostage in order to extort more money from them. Public sector jobs ought to be controlled by legislation, not collective bargaining.

I don’t see why the public/private distinction is relevant. At the root of the situation you have an employer (the state) that wants to offer compensation X and you have employees who want X+. If they organize and “demand” X+ and the employer feels this is unreasonably higher than the market rate for that labor then he’s free to attempt to fill those positions with non-union workers who’ll do the job for only X. If he is unable to fill those positions with non-union workers by offering X, then perhaps the union is correct in asserting the “market rate” is X+ and not X.

The government can’t go out of business if the union’s demands are too excessive to permit continued operation, yet the government has a legal duty to its citizens to provide mandated services. Union demands therefore amount to extortion.

I don’t see how the former implies the latter (extortion). In particular the use of the word extortion to describe what’s going on seems hyperbolic. From the dictionary.com definition of extort:

a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.b. to take illegally by reason of one’s office.

If we’re going to say collective bargaining amounts to “wresting money from a person by intimidation” or “obtaining by threat” then all collective bargaining is extortion, public or private. For that matter, it would be extortion if I told my employer, “Give me a raise or I’m going to quit,” and he complied.

Back to your point. No, the govt. can’t go out of business. It can, however, get into a situation where its employees are earning above-market wage and where it needs to unduly burden taxpayers in order to pay them. Many assert that’s the situation Wisconsin is in. Even if true, though, I’d argue that prohibiting unions and/or striking by public employees is not the right solution. It just means the state should have driven a harder bargain during negotiation, and/or someone should have been held accountable for squandering revenue by overpaying for labor.

I guess I can see the argument that the state is uniquely hamstrung when it comes to dealing with unions since there’s not the same sort of accountability you’d find in a private enterprise. If a govt. official caves to a union and hands out a sweetheart deal then he probably doesn’t risk being fired or voted out of office in the same way a private negotiator risks being fired or his enterprise going bankrupt. To me this suggests we need more accountability. Possibly these negotiations need to be handled by someone who is not directly elected and is thus less susceptible to the lure of union support come election time.

As far as the contradiction you perceive, Wilson is evidently using the precise term “collective bargaining” to include the nearly universal practice of intimidating replacement workers during a strike.

But that’s not the definition of “collective bargaining” is it? It seems like Wilson doesn’t oppose “collective bargaining” per se, just the tactic of intimidating scabs. If so, then he might be better served by stating that explicitly.

*en masse

Eh. Guess it hinges on what we mean by “intimidation”. I have no problem with unions chastising scabs for not showing solidarity, etc. But when it comes to physical violence, making threats, spitting on people, shouting profanity, etc. then a line has been crossed.

Basically if it gets to the point where an employer is willing to replace striking union workers on a semi-permanent basis then the union has seriously overplayed its hand. Demands should be set such that it is more financially advantageous for an employer to agree to them than it would be for him to endure a strike. If the employer views the demands are being so damaging that it’s “worth it” to let the strike happen and/or to just fire everybody and hire a new work force, then the demands were clearly too high.

Game theory thing. The idea being if the replacements showed solidarity with the others then everyone would benefit, including the replacements themselves. So by taking the job they’re elevating their short-term personal well-being over that of the long-term well-being of everyone collectively.

I’m don’t personally believe that, but I can see how someone might.

I’d have to agree with Arpit Matthew - Tim even to include the item about Benny Hinn was in poor taste to say the least especially after the very good item about someone growing in the grace of the Lord Jesus. Your comment is out of character. I would humbly ask you to exercise some discernment in your comments.

To justify Challies’ Judgement on Benny Hinn with the above scripture would mean that Challies is absolutely certain that the man is unrepentant and guilty and has all authority to pass this judgement upon Hinn right? since Peter knew for certain of simon’s Sin so Challies is personally aware of Hinn’s sin right?