Public Employee Unions

[martybegan]

Public employee unions should only exist if they are barred from makiing campaign conributions of any kind.

Unlike any ther sort of union, these unions can hold their employers - elected officials - hostage by threatening to make effery effort to defeat them in the next election of they do net get what they want.

Should same standard apply to defense contractors and other businesses that do business with the government?

The issue is more at the local level, where the public unions can provide a voting block that can sway elections in thier favor, and thus vote themselves more benefits.

Defense contractors dont have enough votes at the federal level to do the same thing.

The argument over lobbying in general is a seperate topic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Public employee unions should only exist if they are barred from makiing campaign conributions of any kind.

Unlike any ther sort of union, these unions can hold their employers - elected officials - hostage by threatening to make effery effort to defeat them in the next election of they do net get what they want.

Should same standard apply to defense contractors and other businesses that do business with the government?

Why would it?
These people work for Boeing (et al), not the mayor.
As such they cannot contribute to an election that will oust Boeing as their boss.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Public employee unions should only exist if they are barred from makiing campaign conributions of any kind.

Unlike any ther sort of union, these unions can hold their employers - elected officials - hostage by threatening to make effery effort to defeat them in the next election of they do net get what they want.

Should same standard apply to defense contractors and other businesses that do business with the government?

The issue is more at the local level, where the public unions can provide a voting block that can sway elections in thier favor, and thus vote themselves more benefits.

Like... oh... teacher's unions and the school board.
Give us a raise and better benefits or we'll vote in people who will.

 

[noose4]

Public employee unions should only exist if they are barred from makiing campaign conributions of any kind.

Unlike any ther sort of union, these unions can hold their employers - elected officials - hostage by threatening to make effery effort to defeat them in the next election of they do net get what they want.

Should same standard apply to defense contractors and other businesses that do business with the government?

Why would it?
These people work for Boeing (et al), not the mayor.
As such they cannot contribute to an election that will oust Boeing as their boss.

So corporations that are given money for a service can donate money to politicians that have influence over the contracts they get from the government but you would deny that same function to working people?

 

[martybegan]

Should same standard apply to defense contractors and other businesses that do business with the government?

Why would it?
These people work for Boeing (et al), not the mayor.
As such they cannot contribute to an election that will oust Boeing as their boss.

So corporations that are given money for a service can donate money to politicians that have influence over the contracts they get from the government but you would deny that same function to working people?

Find me a public union that has competitiors bidding on the same project/work and then we can find the comparison.

 

[FA_Q2]

Public and private sector unions are funded by the same source: their members.

Public sector unions are PAID by people who are supposed to be representing the taxpayers, and it's naive to expect them to do that well when their campaigns are being paid for by unions.

And how, exactly, is that different than the myriad of industries that largely exist because of government contracts?

That's just one of the issues. Another problem is the nature of their job. They have a monopoly on the services they perform. If they choose to do a sick out or go on a "no extras at all until we get the contract we want" virtual strike and, for an example which happened here in Wisconsin, refuse to write references for students who are filling out college applications until they get their way, there's no place for those kids to turn.

The problems are not theoretical. They are on the record for everyone to see. Too many unsustainable promises made to the public unions without the natural checks and balances which exist for public sector unions.

Tons of unsustainable promises were made to private sector unions as well. It's interesting that conservatives are very much about "responsibility", unless responsibility requires people in positions of power, be they CEOs or politicians, actually following through. Then outright theft becomes okay, because, hey, those rubes in the union shouldn't really have expected the rules to apply to people in positions of power.

The MASSIVE difference is that the people that receive that service are LEGALLY bound to purchase it. Let’s take schools as a good example. If the teachers want to strike, their customers (the people) have no options. The money that they pay the school cannot be taken back and used somewhere else. They can’t take their business to another company. They cannot put that school out of business. In that regard, the customers are beholden to the service provider. There is no balancing power against that strike. If the teachers push to far, who cares? They will get their pay anyway and they are going to get a better contract. As I already pointed out, the politician who is ‘representing’ the people never actually has to pay for that. The people don’t even see the results until it is too late and the politician is likely sipping margaritas at his retirement home. OTOH, the fact that children are not able to go to school AND the people are still paying for that is VERY visible.

Now, compare that to a company. If the workers push to far, the company goes out of business or they replace the workers. That is simply not an option that is generally afforded to governmental agencies that use union employees. Companies have to balance this also with the real costs of doing business as a bad union deal can put them under where a bad deal with the government does… well… nothing at all to the parties involved.

So you ask how they are different. The easier question would be how are they the same? One does not resemble the other in any shape or form.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Should same standard apply to defense contractors and other businesses that do business with the government?

Why would it?
These people work for Boeing (et al), not the mayor.
As such they cannot contribute to an election that will oust Boeing as their boss.

So corporations that are given money for a service can donate money to politicians that have influence over the contracts they get from the government but you would deny that same function to working people?

People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.
You are appraretly unable or unwilling to see the difference.

 

[jasonnfree]

Public sector unions are PAID by people who are supposed to be representing the taxpayers, and it's naive to expect them to do that well when their campaigns are being paid for by unions.

And how, exactly, is that different than the myriad of industries that largely exist because of government contracts?

That's just one of the issues. Another problem is the nature of their job. They have a monopoly on the services they perform. If they choose to do a sick out or go on a "no extras at all until we get the contract we want" virtual strike and, for an example which happened here in Wisconsin, refuse to write references for students who are filling out college applications until they get their way, there's no place for those kids to turn.

The problems are not theoretical. They are on the record for everyone to see. Too many unsustainable promises made to the public unions without the natural checks and balances which exist for public sector unions.

Tons of unsustainable promises were made to private sector unions as well. It's interesting that conservatives are very much about "responsibility", unless responsibility requires people in positions of power, be they CEOs or politicians, actually following through. Then outright theft becomes okay, because, hey, those rubes in the union shouldn't really have expected the rules to apply to people in positions of power.

The MASSIVE difference is that the people that receive that service are LEGALLY bound to purchase it. Let’s take schools as a good example. If the teachers want to strike, their customers (the people) have no options. The money that they pay the school cannot be taken back and used somewhere else. They can’t take their business to another company. They cannot put that school out of business. In that regard, the customers are beholden to the service provider. There is no balancing power against that strike. If the teachers push to far, who cares? They will get their pay anyway and they are going to get a better contract. As I already pointed out, the politician who is ‘representing’ the people never actually has to pay for that. The people don’t even see the results until it is too late and the politician is likely sipping margaritas at his retirement home. OTOH, the fact that children are not able to go to school AND the people are still paying for that is VERY visible.

Now, compare that to a company. If the workers push to far, the company goes out of business or they replace the workers. That is simply not an option that is generally afforded to governmental agencies that use union employees. Companies have to balance this also with the real costs of doing business as a bad union deal can put them under where a bad deal with the government does… well… nothing at all to the parties involved.

So you ask how they are different. The easier question would be how are they the same? One does not resemble the other in any shape or form.

I've worked union and I'm pro union but I have to agree with a lot of what you say. In California we had a governor that pushed for bigger pensions for cops and firemen, to have them in his corner come election time. Their retirement is 90% of their base pay after 30 years service. In some places working for the state and county, you can not take overtime in pay and put it in a comp fund. This can build up to some serious money over the years. Every time there's a pay raise, your comp fund gets that pay raise. Fair treatment is one thing, but pay and benefits should be more in line with reality.

 

[bripat9643]

I will stop asking you to fork it over when you stop using government provided services.

I have never used welfare, so i should stop paying for it.
I have never used the public defenders office, so I should stop paying for it
I have never had to call the police, so I guess I dont need to pay for them
I have never called the fire department, yay! I can stop maying
I have never called an ambulance, good! more deductions!
I have never used unemployment insurance, have that deduction taken out of my paystub please.

You use paved roads, you have police protection whether you have had to call them or not and since you havent had to call them they must be doing a very good job.

That accounts for about 5% of what I pay in taxes. Please refund the other 95%.

 

[jwoodie]

Why don't you compare similar jobs in the public and private sectors?
Public school teachers are paid more than twice as much as private school teachers with the same credentials. In california, health & safety (fire & police) retire at 90% of their highest salary after 30 years, and their spouses can continue to to receive these benefits for a miniscule (5%-10%) reduction. Even worse, they are considered disabled if they get any type of cancer or heart problems, which makes their retirement tax free. This then makes them eligible for low income tax credits. Wake up!!!!!

In California, EC Section 48222 specifies only that private school teachers be "persons capable of teaching". There is no certification requirement nor educational requirement. Sorry, but you're comparing apples and oranges. There are many private schools that require that their teachers be certified, but there're also many that don't, particular in private elementary schools. Some of these teachers are just one step up from day care workers and are paid accordingly.

In the state I live in, over 60% of the public school teachers have advanced degrees. They have more education and more experience than private school teachers and of course they make more money.

Thanks for the misinformation. (Why am I not surprised?) EC 48222 refers to "private day schools" which include home schooling. The appropriate comparison would be with "nonpublic schools" (EC36000 et seq), which require equal or greater teacher credentials than do public schools.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Many a police officer wrongly accused of misconduct have been saved thanks to the representation of their public employee union, government workers are not slaves they have the right to union representation just like any other working person.

Interesting..... the first type of public union worker you would like bring up is cops or fireman..... thats how the left trys diffuse the topic instead of a Union Teacher or a Union Dmv worker......Why didnt you praise those folks at what a fine job they do?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Should same standard apply to defense contractors and other businesses that do business with the government?

Why would it?
These people work for Boeing (et al), not the mayor.
As such they cannot contribute to an election that will oust Boeing as their boss.

So corporations that are given money for a service can donate money to politicians that have influence over the contracts they get from the government but you would deny that same function to working people?

What dont you get? Public unions is using our tax dollars to take our money against us... Corperations are not giving money people BUY their Products.. Btw Boeing is also in RTW South Carolina. I will never get why the poor left supports and votes against their own self intrest.

 

[noose4]

I have never used welfare, so i should stop paying for it.
I have never used the public defenders office, so I should stop paying for it
I have never had to call the police, so I guess I dont need to pay for them
I have never called the fire department, yay! I can stop maying
I have never called an ambulance, good! more deductions!
I have never used unemployment insurance, have that deduction taken out of my paystub please.

You use paved roads, you have police protection whether you have had to call them or not and since you havent had to call them they must be doing a very good job.

That accounts for about 5% of what I pay in taxes. Please refund the other 95%.

Military uses much more than 5%

 

[noose4]

Why would it?
These people work for Boeing (et al), not the mayor.
As such they cannot contribute to an election that will oust Boeing as their boss.

So corporations that are given money for a service can donate money to politicians that have influence over the contracts they get from the government but you would deny that same function to working people?

What dont you get? Public unions is using our tax dollars to take our money against us... Corperations are not giving money people BUY their Products.. Btw Boeing is also in RTW South Carolina. I will never get why the poor left supports and votes against their own self intrest.

The general public does not buy missiles and tanks.

 

[noose4]

Many a police officer wrongly accused of misconduct have been saved thanks to the representation of their public employee union, government workers are not slaves they have the right to union representation just like any other working person.

Interesting..... the first type of public union worker you would like bring up is cops or fireman..... thats how the left trys diffuse the topic instead of a Union Teacher or a Union Dmv worker......Why didnt you praise those folks at what a fine job they do?

They are public workers too bad cons want to screw them over.

 

[Polk]

Why then do private schools out-perform public schools by such a wide margin?

Maybe we should pay less to teachers and more to the things that actually teach our kids.

The margin is pretty entirely made up of skimming cream. Private school kids are the children of wealthier parents who are more involved.

 

[Polk]

Public employee unions should only exist if they are barred from makiing campaign conributions of any kind.

Unlike any ther sort of union, these unions can hold their employers - elected officials - hostage by threatening to make effery effort to defeat them in the next election of they do net get what they want.

Should same standard apply to defense contractors and other businesses that do business with the government?

Why would it?
These people work for Boeing (et al), not the mayor.
As such they cannot contribute to an election that will oust Boeing as their boss.

He's referring to management and the firms at a corporate level. And their spending absolutely influences who does and does not get government contracts.

 

[Polk]

Public sector unions are PAID by people who are supposed to be representing the taxpayers, and it's naive to expect them to do that well when their campaigns are being paid for by unions.

And how, exactly, is that different than the myriad of industries that largely exist because of government contracts?

That's just one of the issues. Another problem is the nature of their job. They have a monopoly on the services they perform. If they choose to do a sick out or go on a "no extras at all until we get the contract we want" virtual strike and, for an example which happened here in Wisconsin, refuse to write references for students who are filling out college applications until they get their way, there's no place for those kids to turn.

The problems are not theoretical. They are on the record for everyone to see. Too many unsustainable promises made to the public unions without the natural checks and balances which exist for public sector unions.

Tons of unsustainable promises were made to private sector unions as well. It's interesting that conservatives are very much about "responsibility", unless responsibility requires people in positions of power, be they CEOs or politicians, actually following through. Then outright theft becomes okay, because, hey, those rubes in the union shouldn't really have expected the rules to apply to people in positions of power.

The MASSIVE difference is that the people that receive that service are LEGALLY bound to purchase it. Let’s take schools as a good example. If the teachers want to strike, their customers (the people) have no options. The money that they pay the school cannot be taken back and used somewhere else. They can’t take their business to another company. They cannot put that school out of business. In that regard, the customers are beholden to the service provider. There is no balancing power against that strike. If the teachers push to far, who cares? They will get their pay anyway and they are going to get a better contract. As I already pointed out, the politician who is ‘representing’ the people never actually has to pay for that. The people don’t even see the results until it is too late and the politician is likely sipping margaritas at his retirement home. OTOH, the fact that children are not able to go to school AND the people are still paying for that is VERY visible.

Now, compare that to a company. If the workers push to far, the company goes out of business or they replace the workers. That is simply not an option that is generally afforded to governmental agencies that use union employees. Companies have to balance this also with the real costs of doing business as a bad union deal can put them under where a bad deal with the government does… well… nothing at all to the parties involved.

So you ask how they are different. The easier question would be how are they the same? One does not resemble the other in any shape or form.

Ultimately, the public has the option of abolishing public schools if they find the process so outrageous. The fact that they don't means they don't place as high of a value on the question as you do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So corporations that are given money for a service can donate money to politicians that have influence over the contracts they get from the government but you would deny that same function to working people?

What dont you get? Public unions is using our tax dollars to take our money against us... Corperations are not giving money people BUY their Products.. Btw Boeing is also in RTW South Carolina. I will never get why the poor left supports and votes against their own self intrest.

The general public does not buy missiles and tanks.

People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.
You are appraretly unable or unwilling to see the difference.

 

[Polk]

Many private sectors firms do as well. As Noose very sharply put it, the general public isn't buying missiles and tanks.