Does Choking Public Sector Unions Save States?

Madeline

Rookie
Apr 20, 2010
18,505
1,866
0
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
2/24/2011
Note to Republican Governors: Pissing Off the Unions Is Never a Good Idea:
Here's a little recent history lesson for the day: Back in 2005, the newly-elected governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, on his second day in office, canceled all union contracts by executive order, ending collective bargaining rights for two-thirds of state workers, many of whom earned less than $30,000 a year. Some of those contracts were supposed to be in effect until 2007. At the time, Daniels said that union contracts were not acceptable at a time when the state faced a $1.5 billion deficit.

One would think that, like in a village where a noble knight defeated a terrible dragon, all would be well in Indiana once this workers' right was eliminated, for, indeed, Daniels said it would make the state whole. Yet here we are, in 2011, and, oh, wait, Indiana has a $1.6 billion deficit. And now Daniels wants to limit collective bargaining rights for teachers. He had wanted to turn Indiana into a "right-to-work" state, effectively killing unionization, to close the budget gap, but when Democrats in the legislature went to Illinois to stop the vote, Daniels backed down.

In 2004, Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, and, in 2005, in his first act as Missouri governor, Matt Blunt both issued executive orders rescinding collective bargaining rights, which had been granted by previous administrations through such orders. Easy come, easy go. Blunt was at least, you know, blunt about it, saying that he didn't think state workers should have to pay dues. He didn't say it was a cure for the budget woes. He just didn't think state workers should be in unions. Would that such honesty was part of the discussion now.

Of course, what Daniels and Wisconsin Governor Scott "Eyes of a Porn Booth Masturbator" Walker and Ohio Governor John "This Is Easier Than Putting Up with O'Reilly" Kasich face now are legislative efforts to strip workers of rights. There was nothing to protest before. The executive orders were issued and unions could go fuck themselves. But, goddamn democracy, there's actually a process and rules in place. So now all three states have to deal with thousands of pissed off union workers and sympathizers who think it's bullshit that after the stupidity of massive tax cuts in the last few years (done by Democrats and Republicans) that Republicans would have the balls to suggest that budget crises have been caused not just by union contracts, but by the existence of public sector unions.

You can leave it to the turd-that-walks, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, to jiggle his jowls in the most offensive, idiotic way possible. On MSNBC, Christie said, "[T]he unions are trying to break the middle class in New Jersey." Which, if you know anything at all about the history of the nation, is a statement so crassly ass-backwards and calculatedly inflammatory that a just God would have set starving bears loose on Christie. But, oh, gee, it's darling Chris Christie. He doesn't lie. He just speaks harsh truths we all need to hear. Run that pile of shit for president.

Speaking of, it's way, way past time for President Obama to stop being such a pussy about this battle. He doesn't have to specifically address the concerns of each state (although he should). But howzabout a clear but general statement on support for collective bargaining rights, huh? Would that be so fucking hard? Or is the White House too worried that Hannity will get pissy about it? Or that it would focus attention on the fact that the White House froze the pay for federal workers?

The Rude Pundit

This person evidentially does not think so. Anyone care to dispute his facts?

Anyone?
 
When I read this:
Of course, what Daniels and Wisconsin Governor Scott "Eyes of a Porn Booth Masturbator" Walker and Ohio Governor John "This Is Easier Than Putting Up with O'Reilly" Kasich

I'm done. Can you leftists find anybody on your side that can make a cogent case instead of paragraphs of childish demonization and name calling?

Whoever this guy is, he very pedestrian and extremely full of shit.
 
The Rude Pundit is wrong.

There is a lot more in the noxious fiscal stew besides excessive pay and benefits for current public employee. I'll bet that the problems in Indiana consist of a combination of the following:

- Pensions and health care for public employees that predated the elimination of unions.
- Drop in tax receipts due to the moribund effects of Obamanomics.
- The burden of unfunded and underfunded federal mandates such as Medicaid.
- The regulatory and tax uncertainties that are causing businesses to put investment on hold.
- Unemployment claims for those who cannot find jobs in the horrible Obama Recovery.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
The Rude Pundit is wrong.

There is a lot more in the noxious fiscal stew besides excessive pay and benefits for current public employee. I'll bet that the problems in Indiana consist of a combination of the following:

- Pensions and health care for public employees that predated the elimination of unions.
- Drop in tax receipts due to the moribund effects of Obamanomics.
- The burden of unfunded and underfunded federal mandates such as Medicaid.
- The regulatory and tax uncertainties that are causing businesses to put investment on hold.
- Unemployment claims for those who cannot find jobs in the horrible Obama Recovery.

Fair enough, boedicca. How will killing Indiana public employee unions solve any of those problems?
 
The Rude Pundit is wrong.

There is a lot more in the noxious fiscal stew besides excessive pay and benefits for current public employee. I'll bet that the problems in Indiana consist of a combination of the following:

- Pensions and health care for public employees that predated the elimination of unions.
- Drop in tax receipts due to the moribund effects of Obamanomics.
- The burden of unfunded and underfunded federal mandates such as Medicaid.
- The regulatory and tax uncertainties that are causing businesses to put investment on hold.
- Unemployment claims for those who cannot find jobs in the horrible Obama Recovery.

Fair enough, boedicca. How will killing Indiana public employee unions solve any of those problems?

I've stated this before, private sector unions, whatever. I wouldn't join one and I can't imagine why anyone would. But hey, it's a free country. My experience with unions is that their members' loyalties are with the union first. I have a BIG problem with public servants, yes servants, beholden to a union and not their bosses... the taxpayer. The practice should be outlawed.. PERIOD.
 
Virginia doesnt have public sector unions. They are currently running a surplus and cutting taxes.

Coincidence? Maybe. But im willing to bet otherwise.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
The Rude Pundit is wrong.

There is a lot more in the noxious fiscal stew besides excessive pay and benefits for current public employee. I'll bet that the problems in Indiana consist of a combination of the following:

- Pensions and health care for public employees that predated the elimination of unions.
- Drop in tax receipts due to the moribund effects of Obamanomics.
- The burden of unfunded and underfunded federal mandates such as Medicaid.
- The regulatory and tax uncertainties that are causing businesses to put investment on hold.
- Unemployment claims for those who cannot find jobs in the horrible Obama Recovery.

Fair enough, boedicca. How will killing Indiana public employee unions solve any of those problems?

I've stated this before, private sector unions, whatever. I wouldn't join one and I can't imagine why anyone would. But hey, it's a free country. My experience with unions is that their members' loyalties are with the union first. I have a BIG problem with public servants, yes servants, beholden to a union and not their bosses... the taxpayer. The practice should be outlawed.. PERIOD.

Yes, I know you feel this way, Soggy. I just need a lucid explanation as to how a state without public sector unions is suddenly free of its deficit or any other economic problem.

I'm all ears here.
 
The Rude Pundit is wrong.

There is a lot more in the noxious fiscal stew besides excessive pay and benefits for current public employee. I'll bet that the problems in Indiana consist of a combination of the following:

- Pensions and health care for public employees that predated the elimination of unions.
- Drop in tax receipts due to the moribund effects of Obamanomics.
- The burden of unfunded and underfunded federal mandates such as Medicaid.
- The regulatory and tax uncertainties that are causing businesses to put investment on hold.
- Unemployment claims for those who cannot find jobs in the horrible Obama Recovery.

Fair enough, boedicca. How will killing Indiana public employee unions solve any of those problems?

Fair enough? Absolutely nothing she posted is correct..in any way.

And if this trend continues..the eviseration of public Unions..look forward to a further weaking of the Democratic Republic..and a shift toward Plutocracy. Which is the aim of Conservatives anyway. Gut government and create a de-facto Autocracy...for and by the rich.

It's always been like that..it will always be like that.
 
Fair enough, boedicca. How will killing Indiana public employee unions solve any of those problems?

I've stated this before, private sector unions, whatever. I wouldn't join one and I can't imagine why anyone would. But hey, it's a free country. My experience with unions is that their members' loyalties are with the union first. I have a BIG problem with public servants, yes servants, beholden to a union and not their bosses... the taxpayer. The practice should be outlawed.. PERIOD.

Yes, I know you feel this way, Soggy. I just need a lucid explanation as to how a state without public sector unions is suddenly free of its deficit or any other economic problem.

I'm all ears here.

I don't think anyone is arguing that getting the unions out of government will eliminate state's deficits all by themselves. That's as silly as arguing that the deficit will be eliminated by raising taxes on 1% of the population. I think several other factors were offered earlier as causal factors in the mess.

In nutshell, it;s a start but must be followed up with meaningful entitlement reform, and in some cases elimination of programs, coupled with sensible tax structures, etc. No one thing is going to fix this. We've turned government into a monster that is providing way too much... it's unsustainable, as we now see.
 
Last edited:
Judging by the rather robust bodies of the teachers illegally abandoning their posts to try to extort more money from a broke state, nobody is choking. Public Sector unions are us. We pay their salaries and they do the job we hire them to do but no political entity should have the unrestricted power to extort money from citizens who can't afford it. The republican governors were elected to rein in spending and public sector unions are only one of the many ways to do it even if the vocal and crude slobs want to make a federal case out of it.
 
So the deficit is 1.6B now, after the cuts.

The obvious question is what would it be had the Governor not made the cuts in 2005?

And I agree with those saying its hard to take anyone seriously when they seem more concerned with impressing the reader with their off-color nicknames than actually addressing the issues.
 
The Rude Pundit is wrong.

There is a lot more in the noxious fiscal stew besides excessive pay and benefits for current public employee. I'll bet that the problems in Indiana consist of a combination of the following:

- Pensions and health care for public employees that predated the elimination of unions.
- Drop in tax receipts due to the moribund effects of Obamanomics.
- The burden of unfunded and underfunded federal mandates such as Medicaid.
- The regulatory and tax uncertainties that are causing businesses to put investment on hold.
- Unemployment claims for those who cannot find jobs in the horrible Obama Recovery.

Fair enough, boedicca. How will killing Indiana public employee unions solve any of those problems?

Fair enough? Absolutely nothing she posted is correct..in any way.

And if this trend continues..the eviseration of public Unions..look forward to a further weaking of the Democratic Republic..and a shift toward Plutocracy. Which is the aim of Conservatives anyway. Gut government and create a de-facto Autocracy...for and by the rich.

It's always been like that..it will always be like that.

The word you are looking for is "meritocracy". :tongue:
 
Fair enough, boedicca. How will killing Indiana public employee unions solve any of those problems?

Fair enough? Absolutely nothing she posted is correct..in any way.

And if this trend continues..the eviseration of public Unions..look forward to a further weaking of the Democratic Republic..and a shift toward Plutocracy. Which is the aim of Conservatives anyway. Gut government and create a de-facto Autocracy...for and by the rich.

It's always been like that..it will always be like that.

The word you are looking for is "meritocracy". :tongue:

For the most part, unions and meritocracy are like oil and water.
 
I've stated this before, private sector unions, whatever. I wouldn't join one and I can't imagine why anyone would. But hey, it's a free country. My experience with unions is that their members' loyalties are with the union first. I have a BIG problem with public servants, yes servants, beholden to a union and not their bosses... the taxpayer. The practice should be outlawed.. PERIOD.

Yes, I know you feel this way, Soggy. I just need a lucid explanation as to how a state without public sector unions is suddenly free of its deficit or any other economic problem.

I'm all ears here.

I don't think anyone is arguing that getting the unions out of government will eliminate state's deficits all by themselves. That's as silly as arguing that the deficit will be eliminated by raising taxes on 1% of the population. I think several other factors were offered earlier as causal factors in the mess.

In nutshell, it;s a start but must be followed up with meaningful entitlement reform, and in some cases elimination of programs, coupled with sensible tax structures, etc. No one thing is going to fix this. We've turned government into a monster that is providing way too much... it's unsustainable, as we now see.

This is the part I am having trouble with, Soggy. Where is the economic relief and/or benefit to a state flowing from the extinction of its public sector unions? Will its businesses flourish and grow? Property values rise? Levels of poor people decline?

I just am not seeing any rational cause and effect relationship between a dead public sector union and an economically enhanced state. I do see where if public employees are paid less, they will owe less in taxes and spend less. But that would seem to be harmful to a state's economy.
 
Mr. Clean, perhaps you should go to a non-government school and learn something. Math would be a good start. I did the math and came up with $10.33 per person. Not a lot of money perhaps, but it tells me you just want to promote the "spread the wealth mantra.
 
This person evidentially does not think so. Anyone care to dispute his facts?

Anyone?

No need to dispute his facts. All that is necessary is that each state amend their own constitution so that the states are constitutionally prohibited from entering into contractual obligations with employees or employee unions beyond the current budget cycle.

It is a mistake for states to bind themselves to obligations based on future revenue. Bonds included. Because states must balance their books every year. So borrowing on future revenue is an actual theft against persons often not yet born, or not of legal age.

States should never be beholden to unions in order to employ civil servants. That's just like forcing states to do all of their hiring via a temp agency. Imagine if Halliburton contracted to provide all personnel to Wisc state positions. That is pretty much what happens when a union takes over a state employee pool.
 
Does Choking Public Sector Unions Save States?

In and of itself, no. But they should not be exempt from sacrifice when the going gets tough.
 
2/24/2011
Note to Republican Governors: Pissing Off the Unions Is Never a Good Idea:
Here's a little recent history lesson for the day: Back in 2005, the newly-elected governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, on his second day in office, canceled all union contracts by executive order, ending collective bargaining rights for two-thirds of state workers, many of whom earned less than $30,000 a year. Some of those contracts were supposed to be in effect until 2007. At the time, Daniels said that union contracts were not acceptable at a time when the state faced a $1.5 billion deficit.

One would think that, like in a village where a noble knight defeated a terrible dragon, all would be well in Indiana once this workers' right was eliminated, for, indeed, Daniels said it would make the state whole. Yet here we are, in 2011, and, oh, wait, Indiana has a $1.6 billion deficit. And now Daniels wants to limit collective bargaining rights for teachers. He had wanted to turn Indiana into a "right-to-work" state, effectively killing unionization, to close the budget gap, but when Democrats in the legislature went to Illinois to stop the vote, Daniels backed down.

In 2004, Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, and, in 2005, in his first act as Missouri governor, Matt Blunt both issued executive orders rescinding collective bargaining rights, which had been granted by previous administrations through such orders. Easy come, easy go. Blunt was at least, you know, blunt about it, saying that he didn't think state workers should have to pay dues. He didn't say it was a cure for the budget woes. He just didn't think state workers should be in unions. Would that such honesty was part of the discussion now.

Of course, what Daniels and Wisconsin Governor Scott "Eyes of a Porn Booth Masturbator" Walker and Ohio Governor John "This Is Easier Than Putting Up with O'Reilly" Kasich face now are legislative efforts to strip workers of rights. There was nothing to protest before. The executive orders were issued and unions could go fuck themselves. But, goddamn democracy, there's actually a process and rules in place. So now all three states have to deal with thousands of pissed off union workers and sympathizers who think it's bullshit that after the stupidity of massive tax cuts in the last few years (done by Democrats and Republicans) that Republicans would have the balls to suggest that budget crises have been caused not just by union contracts, but by the existence of public sector unions.

You can leave it to the turd-that-walks, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, to jiggle his jowls in the most offensive, idiotic way possible. On MSNBC, Christie said, "[T]he unions are trying to break the middle class in New Jersey." Which, if you know anything at all about the history of the nation, is a statement so crassly ass-backwards and calculatedly inflammatory that a just God would have set starving bears loose on Christie. But, oh, gee, it's darling Chris Christie. He doesn't lie. He just speaks harsh truths we all need to hear. Run that pile of shit for president.

Speaking of, it's way, way past time for President Obama to stop being such a pussy about this battle. He doesn't have to specifically address the concerns of each state (although he should). But howzabout a clear but general statement on support for collective bargaining rights, huh? Would that be so fucking hard? Or is the White House too worried that Hannity will get pissy about it? Or that it would focus attention on the fact that the White House froze the pay for federal workers?

The Rude Pundit

This person evidentially does not think so. Anyone care to dispute his facts?

Anyone?

Apparently not everyone agrees that the Modest concession the Union in Wis is being asked to make amounts to choking Unions.

The Rather Modest concessions the Union is being asked to make would cut 10% of Wisconsins 3 BILLION dollar Deficit.

Why is it all you do is whine about the Union being Attacked, but never want to talk about the Deal that was offered to the Union? Could it be because you know Dwelling on the Facts of what the Union will still be getting even if they give in to these Demands hurts your case. And exposes the Rather lavish Deals they have and will still have?

Your Heros in the Wis Teachers union only care about their own Jobs, they are out Blocking a deal that will stop 12,000 layoffs as we speak, and still you blindly defend them.

Foolish, and shortsighted.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top