Public Employee Unions

[Harry Dresden]

You voted for mayor/sheriff/city council, yes?
Then you had a say.

you said people you work for...

Yep.
You know.. the mayor, the sheriff, the city council... whoever.
All elected.

right....but they are not my employers.....unless i work for them.....i dont and never have.....so i ....and millions of others have NEVER voted our Employers into their jobs....

 

[Polk]

1. It absolutely has to do with what we're talking about, since you claimed "[p]ublic education is not going anywhere because there is a need to ensure that people have a basic education". Even if we accept that as true, what we're really talking about is public provision of the service. There is nothing that requires that service to be provided in state-owned building by state employees.

2. The point is that those drives to outlaw labor unions are not reflecting public opinion. They're reflecting the desires of the donor class.

3. There is nothing that requires public schools to exist. It's a choice society makes. It's a choice you don't agree with, but that doesn't change it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

really?.....in 33 years in the PO..... i never had a say who was going to be my boss....

Yes you do, you vote in your politicians that fund your employer. As a public employee, the director of your department or organisation isn't the top of the food chain, the public is. Therefore, you have an impact on your management in a way that those in the private sector typically do not. This is a crucial difference.

learn about the PO dude.....politicians dont fund the PO not since the early 70's...and the PMG is the top of the food chain in the PO....and NO ONE at the bottom has ANY effect on the guys at the top.....actually as a matter of fact....Congress and the Board of Governors are the actual top of the food chain since they have to approve anything the PMG wants to do........

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yep.
You know.. the mayor, the sheriff, the city council... whoever.
All elected.

right....but they are not my employers.....unless i work for them.....i dont and never have.....so i ....and millions of others have NEVER voted our Employers into their jobs....

If you don't understand this crucial point by now, you never will. Essentially, this is a pointless discussion.

so the Sheriff and Mayor are my Employers?.....so you are saying i am working for them ...right?...because i was under the impression they worked on our behalf.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

you said people you work for...

Yep.
You know.. the mayor, the sheriff, the city council... whoever.
All elected.

right....but they are not my employers.....unless i work for them.

As a city cop, you work for the city government. It is elelcted.
As a toenship cop, you wort for the trustees. They are elected.
As a deputy, you work for the Sheriff. He is elected.
Et cetera.

Being in a public sector union that is allowed to make campaign contributions allows you to...pressure... these people into giving you what they want in a way that no person with a private sector job can do -- give is what we want or we will force you out of your job.

The example of the teacher's union against the school board is perfect and applies just aswll to police, fire, etc, employees.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yep.
You know.. the mayor, the sheriff, the city council... whoever.
All elected.

right....but they are not my employers.....unless i work for them.

As a city cop, you work for the city government. It is elelcted.
As a toenship cop, you wort for the trustees. They are elected.
As a deputy, you work for the Sheriff. He is elected.
Et cetera.

Being in a public sector union that is allowed to make campaign contributions allows you to...pressure... these people into giving you what they want in a way that no person with a private sector job can do -- give is what we want or we will force you out of your job.

The example of the teacher's union against the school board is perfect and applies just aswll to police, fire, etc, employees.

you said......
People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.

i worked in the Public Sector,the PO....i did not vote in my Employers....Striking was against the law so we could not force anyone to do anything .....maybe you should have said SOME Public Sector People....not all.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

right....but they are not my employers.....unless i work for them.

As a city cop, you work for the city government. It is elelcted.
As a toenship cop, you wort for the trustees. They are elected.
As a deputy, you work for the Sheriff. He is elected.
Et cetera.

Being in a public sector union that is allowed to make campaign contributions allows you to...pressure... these people into giving you what they want in a way that no person with a private sector job can do -- give is what we want or we will force you out of your job.

The example of the teacher's union against the school board is perfect and applies just aswll to police, fire, etc, employees.

you said......
People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.
i worked in the Public Sector,the PO....i did not vote in my Employers

As a city cop, you work for the city government. It is elelcted.
As a toenship cop, you wort for the trustees. They are elected.
As a deputy, you work for the Sheriff. He is elected.
So, yes, you did.

Striking was against the law so we could not force anyone to do anything

You could, however, credibly threaten to have your union conribute to the relevant political opponents, thus working to removing those that employed you from office.

 

[Sactowndog]

They have the right to find other work or be public servants. They dont have the right to hold taxpayers hostage for services if more money isn't given. That's extortion and thats the real problem.

And just as many guilty officers are protected from prosecution or even a loss of work for misconduct due to public union "respresentation".

Private sector unions are fine by me, public sector unions should be outlawed completely.

Union's job is to defend it's membership, just as a lawyer may have a guilty client and defend that client so must a union, and public employees have the same rights as any other employee and I still dont understand why the right wing targets working folks while giving big money interests a pass.

When defending its membership involves backroom deals with politicans to garner votes in exchange for sweetheart benefits deals that wont come to the cash register in 20 years, then we have a serious problem.

When a union and a private company negotiate, the union realizes it can only go so far, or it will put the company out of business. Public Unions know no such thing, as they see the taxpayer as an unlimted piggy bank, and the politicans they help get into office go right along with it.

I share your concern but not your conclusion. The issue isn't Unionism as much as the ability for politicians to promise benefits for which they will never have to pay. This problem is especially true with pensions. It is bad for the government and bad for workers who believe they will enjoy benefits future governments can never afford. Even without unions, some politicians will attempt to curry favor with government employees by promising unsustainable benefits.

Let public employees unionize but prevent them from receiving deferred benefits. If they can get 100% match in their 401k more power to them. But that 100% will come from today's budget.

 

[martybegan]

Union's job is to defend it's membership, just as a lawyer may have a guilty client and defend that client so must a union, and public employees have the same rights as any other employee and I still dont understand why the right wing targets working folks while giving big money interests a pass.

When defending its membership involves backroom deals with politicans to garner votes in exchange for sweetheart benefits deals that wont come to the cash register in 20 years, then we have a serious problem.

When a union and a private company negotiate, the union realizes it can only go so far, or it will put the company out of business. Public Unions know no such thing, as they see the taxpayer as an unlimted piggy bank, and the politicans they help get into office go right along with it.

I share your concern but not your conclusion. The issue isn't Unionism as much as the ability for politicians to promise benefits for which they will never have to pay. This problem is especially true with pensions. It is bad for the government and bad for workers who believe they will enjoy benefits future governments can never afford. Even without unions, some politicians will attempt to curry favor with government employees by promising unsustainable benefits.

Let public employees unionize but prevent them from receiving deferred benefits. If they can get 100% match in their 401k more power to them. But that 100% will come from today's budget.

It takes two to tango, so pushing all the blame onto the politicians isnt exactly fair. And good luck trying to get public unions to agree to defined contribution plans like a 401k. They know thier power is based on pension style benefits.

The other solution would be to transfer the retirement funds to the unions themselves, much as construction unions work it. then the fund can't go raiding the taxpayer kitty every time it runs short in a fiscal year.

 

[Harry Dresden]

As a city cop, you work for the city government. It is elelcted.
As a toenship cop, you wort for the trustees. They are elected.
As a deputy, you work for the Sheriff. He is elected.
Et cetera.

Being in a public sector union that is allowed to make campaign contributions allows you to...pressure... these people into giving you what they want in a way that no person with a private sector job can do -- give is what we want or we will force you out of your job.

The example of the teacher's union against the school board is perfect and applies just aswll to police, fire, etc, employees.

you said......
People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.
i worked in the Public Sector,the PO....i did not vote in my Employers

As a city cop, you work for the city government. It is elelcted.
As a toenship cop, you wort for the trustees. They are elected.
As a deputy, you work for the Sheriff. He is elected.
So, yes, you did.

Striking was against the law so we could not force anyone to do anything

You could, however, credibly threaten to have your union conribute to the relevant political opponents, thus working to removing those that employed you from office.

i am not a Cop.....i am not a Deputy......so no i did not.....i was a lowly Letter Carrier.....and we do not pick the Post Master General.....The Board Of Governors do that.....my Union was no different than any other Union in their support of Politicians.....except they cannot give money to them....

 

[M14 Shooter]

you said......
People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.
i worked in the Public Sector,the PO....i did not vote in my Employers

As a city cop, you work for the city government. It is elelcted.
As a toenship cop, you wort for the trustees. They are elected.
As a deputy, you work for the Sheriff. He is elected.
So, yes, you did.

Striking was against the law so we could not force anyone to do anything

You could, however, credibly threaten to have your union conribute to the relevant political opponents, thus working to removing those that employed you from office.

i am not a Cop.....i am not a Deputy......so no i did not.....i was a lowly Letter Carrier

I'm sorry -- I confused PO - post office with PO - police officer
You do not pick the PMG - but the President does. You vote for him.

 

[FA_Q2]

When defending its membership involves backroom deals with politicans to garner votes in exchange for sweetheart benefits deals that wont come to the cash register in 20 years, then we have a serious problem.

When a union and a private company negotiate, the union realizes it can only go so far, or it will put the company out of business. Public Unions know no such thing, as they see the taxpayer as an unlimted piggy bank, and the politicans they help get into office go right along with it.

I share your concern but not your conclusion. The issue isn't Unionism as much as the ability for politicians to promise benefits for which they will never have to pay. This problem is especially true with pensions. It is bad for the government and bad for workers who believe they will enjoy benefits future governments can never afford. Even without unions, some politicians will attempt to curry favor with government employees by promising unsustainable benefits.

Let public employees unionize but prevent them from receiving deferred benefits. If they can get 100% match in their 401k more power to them. But that 100% will come from today's budget.

It takes two to tango, so pushing all the blame onto the politicians isnt exactly fair. And good luck trying to get public unions to agree to defined contribution plans like a 401k. They know thier power is based on pension style benefits.

The other solution would be to transfer the retirement funds to the unions themselves, much as construction unions work it. then the fund can't go raiding the taxpayer kitty every time it runs short in a fiscal year.

You don’t actually have to get the unions to agree though – just make that portion law. I have to admit though; it is not a bad idea. Not sure that it is enough but it is a start.

 

[FA_Q2]

1. It absolutely has to do with what we're talking about, since you claimed "[p]ublic education is not going anywhere because there is a need to ensure that people have a basic education". Even if we accept that as true, what we're really talking about is public provision of the service. There is nothing that requires that service to be provided in state-owned building by state employees.

2. The point is that those drives to outlaw labor unions are not reflecting public opinion. They're reflecting the desires of the donor class.

3. There is nothing that requires public schools to exist. It's a choice society makes. It's a choice you don't agree with, but that doesn't change it.

So now you are placing words into my mouth that I never stated as well as derailing the topic and ignoring my points. I am done with you on this polk. I never expressed your point 3, that is a lie, and you are continuing to ignore everything that I post. In retrospect, that is likely why you seem to have no clue as to what my positions and arguments actually are.

 

[Sactowndog]

I share your concern but not your conclusion. The issue isn't Unionism as much as the ability for politicians to promise benefits for which they will never have to pay. This problem is especially true with pensions. It is bad for the government and bad for workers who believe they will enjoy benefits future governments can never afford. Even without unions, some politicians will attempt to curry favor with government employees by promising unsustainable benefits.

Let public employees unionize but prevent them from receiving dueferred benefits. If they can get 100% match in their 401k more power to them. But that 100% will come from today's budget.

It takes two to tango, so pushing all the blame onto the politicians isnt exactly fair. And good luck trying to get public unions to agree to defined contribution plans like a 401k. They know thier power is based on pension style benefits.

The other solution would be to transfer the retirement funds to the unions themselves, much as construction unions work it. then the fund can't go raiding the taxpayer kitty every time it runs short in a fiscal year.

You don’t actually have to get the unions to agree though – just make that portion law. I have to admit though; it is not a bad idea. Not sure that it is enough but it is a start.

Quite frankly all it will take are a couple more big municiple bankruptcies like Stockton and the public employees will agree also. If they had 401k's their benefits would not be affected by a bankruptcy.

 

[jwoodie]

We keep talking around the main point: Public employee unions are able to bribe their employers through political donations. Case in point: California Governor Gray Davis increased pensions 50% overnight as soon as he was elected with the help of massive public employee union donations to his campaign.

Not only was this retroactive, it instantly became a vested right which could not be subsequently withdrawn (even after his recall). One of the results of this is that California prison guard costs per inmate are 50% higher than the next highest State!

Try comparing the efficiency of unionized and non-unionized government workers. Wait a minute, there is no comparison.

 

[longknife]

Outlaw every single one of them!!!!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

As a city cop, you work for the city government. It is elelcted.
As a toenship cop, you wort for the trustees. They are elected.
As a deputy, you work for the Sheriff. He is elected.
So, yes, you did.


You could, however, credibly threaten to have your union conribute to the relevant political opponents, thus working to removing those that employed you from office.

i am not a Cop.....i am not a Deputy......so no i did not.....i was a lowly Letter Carrier

I'm sorry -- I confused PO - post office with PO - police officer
You do not pick the PMG - but the President does. You vote for him.

no the President does not.....since 1971 the Postmaster is selected by the the 9 member Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service.....if one of these guys leaves then his replacement is picked by whoever is President at the time,they have 7 year terms....The governors are chosen to represent the public interest generally and cannot be representatives of special interests. Not more than five of the nine may belong to the same political party..........the PM becomes the 10th member.....then these 10 select the Deputy PM who becomes the 11th member of the board.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

We keep talking around the main point: Public employee unions are able to bribe their employers through political donations. Case in point: California Governor Gray Davis increased pensions 50% overnight as soon as he was elected with the help of massive public employee union donations to his campaign.

Not only was this retroactive, it instantly became a vested right which could not be subsequently withdrawn (even after his recall). One of the results of this is that California prison guard costs per inmate are 50% higher than the next highest State!

Try comparing the efficiency of unionized and non-unionized government workers. Wait a minute, there is no comparison.

we have both in the PO .....both have great workers and both have some shitty ones....

 

[Polk]

1. It absolutely has to do with what we're talking about, since you claimed "[p]ublic education is not going anywhere because there is a need to ensure that people have a basic education". Even if we accept that as true, what we're really talking about is public provision of the service. There is nothing that requires that service to be provided in state-owned building by state employees.

2. The point is that those drives to outlaw labor unions are not reflecting public opinion. They're reflecting the desires of the donor class.

3. There is nothing that requires public schools to exist. It's a choice society makes. It's a choice you don't agree with, but that doesn't change it.

So now you are placing words into my mouth that I never stated as well as derailing the topic and ignoring my points. I am done with you on this polk. I never expressed your point 3, that is a lie, and you are continuing to ignore everything that I post. In retrospect, that is likely why you seem to have no clue as to what my positions and arguments actually are.

I'm not ignoring your points. You've stated repeated that society has no choice to have schools operated by the government directly. That's simply not true.

Point 3 was stated a bit more strongly than necessary, but it wasn't a lie. You don't agree with society's choice about how to arrange the school system.

 

[Flopper]

When defending its membership involves backroom deals with politicans to garner votes in exchange for sweetheart benefits deals that wont come to the cash register in 20 years, then we have a serious problem.

When a union and a private company negotiate, the union realizes it can only go so far, or it will put the company out of business. Public Unions know no such thing, as they see the taxpayer as an unlimted piggy bank, and the politicans they help get into office go right along with it.

I share your concern but not your conclusion. The issue isn't Unionism as much as the ability for politicians to promise benefits for which they will never have to pay. This problem is especially true with pensions. It is bad for the government and bad for workers who believe they will enjoy benefits future governments can never afford. Even without unions, some politicians will attempt to curry favor with government employees by promising unsustainable benefits.

Let public employees unionize but prevent them from receiving deferred benefits. If they can get 100% match in their 401k more power to them. But that 100% will come from today's budget.

It takes two to tango, so pushing all the blame onto the politicians isnt exactly fair. And good luck trying to get public unions to agree to defined contribution plans like a 401k. They know thier power is based on pension style benefits.

The other solution would be to transfer the retirement funds to the unions themselves, much as construction unions work it. then the fund can't go raiding the taxpayer kitty every time it runs short in a fiscal year.

Transferring retirement money to government employee unions does not make sense because the retirement plans cover both union and non-union employees. In some states, only about half the teachers are members of a union. In fact, membership can vary widely between districts. Within a large school district or city government, there can be many unions with varying percentages of participation, however all employees will probably be covered by the same pension plan.