End Public Sector Unions Period.

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand the anger at public employees. For many, such as Willow Tree, are too stupid to pass a civil service test and lacking any skills are green with envy.

Others have bought the propaganda, and joined the herd bleating the emotion stirred by the power elite. An elite motivated by avarice and aided in this coup by NewsCorp and the GOP, pitting working people against working people, in an effort to divide and conquer the hoi polloi - their enemy.

Thinking, rational and non-callous people understand our nation's, and the world's, economies are in trouble - only in the United States is the cause of this ecomomic malaise blamed on one group of people. It is easy to scapegoat, but the RW should be careful of the goat chosen and the consequences should they actually get what their emotions desire.

Public and private sector unions have been on the radar, a target of the 'conservative' movement since Reagan was elected and thus far been successful. The success has resulted in a shrinking middleclass, an increase in the numbers of Americans living below the poverty line and the creation of a class of billionaires insulated from 98% of the American People.

This is not sustainable. As Amercians we all need to pull together. Public unions have offered consessions, yet compromise is not in the lexicon of the New Right; divide and conquer in a zero sum game is the plan of elected Republicans and those who control them.

Unions serve a purpose in the private sector, as long as they keep the membership small and serve their members, and not a national agenda. I would never join a union, and would sue any company that docked my wages for union dies, but if others want to join, that is fine. The thing is that private sector and public sector are two different things, and anyone that lumps them together is the one who is actually ignorant.

Private sector unions exist to protect workers form unsafe working environments, and negotiate equitable profit sharing through wage and benefits. The public, on the other hand, is required to deal with those unsafe working conditions, like cleaning up after an industrial disaster, and it does not have any profits to share.

If you really want to make a rational argument for public sector unions you have to start with the understanding that they are inherently different from private sector unions, and make your case totally independent of the need for the unions in the private sector.

By the way, telling me that I have to share the suffering because they have a mortgage when I do not have a job is not a concession, it is arrogance. It is no different than your complaints about Wall Street and bonuses when the company gets bailed out, you are just too partisan to admit it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whoa, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The taxpayer is well served by a public employee who has sufficient job security to do his assigned work well and fairly, without regard to the political ties of the member of the public he is dealing with. Nobody wants a "to the victor goes the spoils" system. We had such a thing here, and as a result, there is very little Democratic-owned property in my county now paying its fair share of property taxes.

I say EITHER union protection OR civil service protection -- but not both. Frankly, civil service makes more sense to me.

Unions tie the politicians to the civil servant, which is why they should be illegal in the public sector. The only alternative to that that makes sense is, frankly, abhorrent to me. That would be barring unions, or their members, from having any voice in politics at all. The way it works now is that unions essentially choose who they negotiate with, and get to demand ridiculous promises in return for that person keeping his job.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The taxpayer is well served by a public employee who has sufficient job security to do his assigned work well and fairly, without regard to the political ties of the member of the public he is dealing with

Their job security is guaranteed by two things no private sector employee has. Government guns shutting down their competition and the ability to confiscate money at the point of a gun rather then from customers with a choice. I own two businesses, one is a restaurant. The health department regularly inspects me, and sends me a bill for doing it. For both businesses, the fire marshall inspects and sends me a bill. The county sends me a bill to tax me on all my possessions. And that doesn't even count the Federal and State governments forcing me to pay taxes on my income. No private sector company can do that. As a taxpayer, I shouldn't be subject to getting reamed yet once again by bureaucrats giving more pay and benefits beyond what private employers get because they demand it. They should get jobs that contribute to the economy. They are the economic equivalent of welfare recipients, only they get to chose what they get and force us to pay it.

The IRS is a private Corporation from the private sector. How many more tax collectors are private firms working on contracts?

Internal Revenue Service

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, essentially the Republicans want to set up a situation where they are guaranteed to always win

Government can bring in as many high powered representatives as they wish while labor must negotiate one on one

I'd like a fight too where the other side has both hands tied behind its back

Thumbs up. I'd like them to leave and get jobs that produce economic value and grow the economy. Both sides in this, bureaucrats and lazy, greedy government workers, are leaches on our economy. I'd like both to lose, but I'd settle for either one. The winner in your scenario is the taxpayer. They are more important then either the unaccountable bureaucrats or the glorified welfare recipients.

Jobs which produce economic value and grow the economy. Great idea. How about a government policy supporting hybird and electric cars? Or, a government policy which rebuilds the electric grid, connects major metro regions by high speed rail, all of which reduce our dependence on oil?

How about a government polcy which hold private contractors to the signed contracts, eliminates the low-bid and no bid practice, and holds the selected bidder to all terms and conditions of the contract?

Oh, and how about explaining which jobs produce economic value and grow the economy? Think about the entire impact the jobs have before answering.

 

[boedicca]

The IRS is a private Corporation from the private sector. How many more tax collectors are private firms working on contracts?

B'loney. I call shenanigans.

LINK?

Still waiting for that link...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bull shit.

Even FDR realized that unions for public employees are a very bad construct.

I've never heard or read such a comment by FDR ('cept from you). Do you have a quote or link to such a comment?

Worth recalling: FDR was no fan of public employee unions | Matthew Continetti | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How true...

Protesting for your rights as a citizen is un-American

What rights would those be?

 

[boedicca]

So, essentially the Republicans want to set up a situation where they are guaranteed to always win

Government can bring in as many high powered representatives as they wish while labor must negotiate one on one

I'd like a fight too where the other side has both hands tied behind its back

Thumbs up. I'd like them to leave and get jobs that produce economic value and grow the economy. Both sides in this, bureaucrats and lazy, greedy government workers, are leaches on our economy. I'd like both to lose, but I'd settle for either one. The winner in your scenario is the taxpayer. They are more important then either the unaccountable bureaucrats or the glorified welfare recipients.

Jobs which produce economic value and grow the economy. Great idea. How about a government policy supporting hybird and electric cars? Or, a government policy which rebuilds the electric grid, connects major metro regions by high speed rail, all of which reduce our dependence on oil?

How about a government polcy which hold private contractors to the signed contracts, eliminates the low-bid and no bid practice, and holds the selected bidder to all terms and conditions of the contract?

How about a government policy that doesn't interfere in investment decisions?

Entrepreneurs and private investors do a much better job targeting investment than government bureaucrats.

They already tried your idea. The Chevy Volt costs far more than a Prius - that's the result.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, essentially the Republicans want to set up a situation where they are guaranteed to always win

Government can bring in as many high powered representatives as they wish while labor must negotiate one on one

I'd like a fight too where the other side has both hands tied behind its back

No, they want to eliminate the stacked deck where unions elect the people they negotiate with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's what I think and why.

I spent over thirty years in civil service, as a deputy, supervisor and manager. I see the issue from both sides of the equation - from management and from labor and the reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue.
As somewhat of an iconoclast I took on senior mangement on issues I felt were important, both personally and professionally, causing me years of being passed over for promotion. Top management can be as callus in government service as in the private sector, and use the power of their office to sustain the status quo. Both public service managers and private sector managers tend to resist change (if one watches, the manager challenged to change long term policy will pause, considers the most importatnt question, "how will this effect me?" and replies with something like, "but we've never done that before"). If one persists and asks, "Why not?" the insecure manager senses a 'troublemaker' and careers can and are stalled or damaged beyond repair. A union offers an opportunity for an outsider to defend an employee from vindictive actions such as involuntary transfers, changes in hours or working conditions or even false allegations of wrongdoing.

As a member of senior management I was also - for a time - charged with internal affairs, investigating employee wrongdoing and recommending employee discipline. The counter-point to union representation is that unions generally defend employees who have earned termination. The business agents I worked with complained 'off the table' that 5% of the employees took up 90% of their time, yet when at the table but defended their member, sometimes the same member several times.

As for unions negotiating salary, benefits and working conditions, every agreement must be certified by a vote of elected officials. And this brings the issue in Wisconsin full circle. The Governor chose to engage in brinkmanship, and now both sides of the political spectrum have dug in their heals. Everyone agrees the pension benefits for some public employees are excessive, as do I even though I benefit from some of the most liberal in the nation. Change must be a result of reasoned arguments and rational debate; something not apparent on the pages of this message board orin the halls of government in Wisconsin and The District.

Mind boggling.

the technique or practice of maneuvering a dangerous situation the limits of tolerance or safety in order to secure the greatest advantage, especially by creating diplomatic crises.

Brinkmanship | Define Brinkmanship at Dictionary.com

If either side is engaged in brinkmanship it would be the Democrats who ran to Illinois rather than vote on a solution to the problem. It would be the unions who are shutting down the schools, and the government, rather than admit that the status quo needs to change. Those are the people who are maneuvering a dangerous situation for political advantage. Or do you really think that illegally bringing students to a political rally is either tolerable, or safe?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, essentially the Republicans want to set up a situation where they are guaranteed to always win

Government can bring in as many high powered representatives as they wish while labor must negotiate one on one

I'd like a fight too where the other side has both hands tied behind its back

Thumbs up. I'd like them to leave and get jobs that produce economic value and grow the economy. Both sides in this, bureaucrats and lazy, greedy government workers, are leaches on our economy. I'd like both to lose, but I'd settle for either one. The winner in your scenario is the taxpayer. They are more important then either the unaccountable bureaucrats or the glorified welfare recipients.

Jobs which produce economic value and grow the economy. Great idea. How about a government policy supporting hybird and electric cars? Or, a government policy which rebuilds the electric grid, connects major metro regions by high speed rail, all of which reduce our dependence on oil?

How about a government polcy which hold private contractors to the signed contracts, eliminates the low-bid and no bid practice, and holds the selected bidder to all terms and conditions of the contract?

Oh, and how about explaining which jobs produce economic value and grow the economy? Think about the entire impact the jobs has before answering.

Wonderful idea.

The government is already spending more money than it takes in and you want to hand out more tax breaks to corporations.

 

[Wry Catcher]

QW wrote, "If you really want to make a rational argument for public sector unions you have to start with the understanding that they are inherently different from private sector unions, and make your case totally independent of the need for the unions in the private sector."

Why are they "inherently different"? Because they work for the government? That I submit; it is self evident. But the question is, why are they fundamentally different?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bull shit.

Even FDR realized that unions for public employees are a very bad construct.

I've never heard or read such a comment by FDR ('cept from you). Do you have a quote or link to such a comment?

Worth recalling: FDR was no fan of public employee unions | Matthew Continetti | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

My question was not to you QW, and it was asked and answered and responded to above. Thanks for explaining the post was from the Washington Examiner, now I want a credible source.

 

[boedicca]

I already provided the source with FDR's 1937 letter in Post #29.

You read it - don't you have any RECALL?

 

[Jroc]

Jobs which produce economic value and grow the economy. Great idea.

Government doesn't produce or grow anything big government takes from the economy it doesn't contribute.

How about a government policy supporting hybird and electric cars? Or, a government policy which rebuilds the electric grid, connects major metro regions by high speed rail, all of which reduce our dependence on oil?

It's not the job of government to support a product or industry over another, thats how we got into the mess we are in today "croney capitalism" is that what you want? High speed rail is a joke and a big waste of money. Show me were this "high speed rail" is not a big waste of money. If it were a money maker private companies would be looking to build it

How about a government polcy which hold private contractors to the signed contracts, eliminates the low-bid and no bid practice, and holds the selected bidder to all terms and conditions of the contract?

Eliminate no bid contracts i agree with that terms and conditions of contracts is a gimmie no problem there

Oh, and how about explaining which jobs produce economic value and grow the economy? Think about the entire impact the jobs have before answering.

If a private company is making money and employing people, they are contributing to the economy. The problem with public workers is they don't add any money to the economy, they just move it around, no new wealth is created.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

If you want to see pure, unadulterated greed, take a look at the Wisconsin protesters

No doubt. They're a stain on America and an absolute embarassment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW wrote, "If you really want to make a rational argument for public sector unions you have to start with the understanding that they are inherently different from private sector unions, and make your case totally independent of the need for the unions in the private sector."

Why are they "inherently different"? Because they work for the government? That I submit; it is self evident. But the question is, why are they fundamentally different?

They are fundamentally different because one is private sector and one is public sector. One group competes for resources, the other does not. I know you live under the misconception that the government is essentially good for the economy, but you are wrong. The government is a drain on the economy, and can be nothing else.

It is a necessary drain, yet nonetheless a drain, and that drain should be minimized. That cannot happen if we allow the public sector to unionize, as has been aptly demonstrated by the shutdown of the state legislature in Wisconsin. It can also be demonstrated by the fact that Obama felt the need to directly involve himself in something he has no business being involved in. How as the budget of any state the responsibility of the President? Especially when the federal budget is so far off the charts that our bond rating is in serious jeopardy? Shouldn't he worry about that before he tells the states what to do? Would you object if Bush had stepped in and told California how to balance the budget? Or mobilized the RNC and the Koch brothers to protest in Sacramento?

You want to think you are a reasonable person, but you are as blinded by your own prejudices as the worst bigot you can imagine. You actually make the caricatures of bigots look sensible at times. It is quite sad really, as you are intelligent, and have integrity. If only you were capable of looking at yourself and seeing your faults you would be a person worth knowing.

 

[shintao]

Are you really this dense? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question.

In a typical public employee union negotiation, the parties at the table are career politicians and the union reps - who are really on the same side. The former agree to excessive comp packages (to be paid for by future taxpayers who didn't elect them) in exchange for union support and donations.

Gov. Walker has said no to this con game. Good for him.

Finally an answer that confirms what I already know. The article is a lie to suggest that the people are not represented. Politicians represent the people at the table, or is Willow too stupid to even acknowledge that?

which politicians fucktard? the ones who moved to Illinois..

The elected ones fuckface............The ones that represent the people imbecile...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How true...

Protesting for your rights as a citizen is un-American

Sorry sewer-dweller.... nobody has the right to bankrupt a state. The people of WI in voting in Walker, voted to put the brakes on this shit.

Get over it as it is spreading. Nanny-statism has been tried and it has failed... failed miserably.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

How true...

Protesting for your rights as a citizen is un-American

Sorry sewer-dweller.... nobody has the right to bankrupt a state. The people of WI in voting in Walker, voted to put the brakes on this shit.

Get over it as it is spreading. Nanny-statism has been tried and it has failed... failed miserably.

qft!