Public Union Rights

[Wiseacre]

just plain old cronyism works........

not really splitting hairs since crony capitalism is far worse since it is far more harmful to the public and economy........

Far worse? Sure about that? Now I'm the one spliting hairs. But I'm thinking our education system and the state budgets for most states would not be in the terrible shape they're in if it wasn't for cronyism, union style.

you could be right... lets just agree they are both pretty bad......

the problem is there is no real way to stop it, just punish those who get caught........

I don't agree, there's a lot we could do if we had the political will to do it. Like a flat tax or a slightly progressive one with no deductions, loopholes, and tax breaks, for both individuals and businesses. No more subsidies, no more guaranteed loans, grants, or any other financial backing, and no more bailouts whatsoever.

At the state level we could eliminate CB rights for public unions, tie their pay and compensation to what the private gets. Above all we need to foster competition in everything as much as possible, in education and healthcare, the whole 9 yards. There's a lot we could do, but we're not forcing our elected reps to do it. Maybe one day, after we've gone through a major economic shitstorm.

 

[Flopper]

I posted this in another thread, didn't get an answer. Let's see if anyone can offer a counter argument here.

" Will somebody please tell me why the blue blazes fuck public unions should have collective bargaining rights with the very same politicians who decide their contracts? At a time when their compensation and benefits far outstrip what the private sector gets? "

Collective bargaining rights for public unions have made governance next to impossible. Promotions, reassignments, and layoffs are so restricted by rigid rules that there's no room for managerial judgement. Consider that last year's best 1st year teacher inthe state of Wisconsin had to be lt go due to the LIFO providsions of the union contract. Anybody who claims that limiting union CB rights is an attack on education is a flatout liar or idiot who doesn't really know squat. Probably both.

It's ridiculous. There's just no possible way state and local gov'ts are going to be able to pay for the promises they've made. They just will not have the money, and raising taxes on the rich just isn't going to make up the shortfall, not even close.

Corporations can raise money to get the Congress they want. Teachers and other public employees should have a say in those who oversee the sectors in which they work. Unions and professional associations allow public employees to pool their resources to support candidates who support them. Outlawing collective bargaining for public employees is just a way of breaking their unions and diminishing the influence of ordinary people, and leaving all the power in the corporate board rooms.

Union political contributions pale in comparison with corporate contributions. In the 2008 presidential campaign, all union contributions including public sector was 1.3 million. The financial sector alone was 141 million. Lawyers and lobbies were a 100 million. The impact of labor contributions to national political campaigns are greatly exaggerated.

The impact that unions have on the political process has decreased radically as has the number of members. In 1945, 1 in 3 employees in the US belong to unions. By 1979, 1 in 4, by 2008, only 1 in 10. I think public sector unions will disappear along with private sector unions in the 21st century leaving corporatists in control of government.


Presidential Candidates: Contributions by Sector, 2008 Cycle | OpenSecrets
The Decline of Union Power

 

[Steelplate]

Look at all the good unions have done for the US auto industry and for Detroit and its suburbs!

Funny... up until Reaganomics took hold... things were going swimmingly for the people of Detroit who worked in the Auto industry.

 

[Steelplate]

You see... the thing is... Corporate entities and very wealthy individuals have plenty of lobbyists and lawyers to speak up for them. Workers have Unions.

You want to take the ONLY voice that the working people of America have.

Let's suppose that Joe Schmoe owns a large business. Joe wants more profit for himself. He decides arbitrarily to cut wages to all his line level staff and keep the revenue for him and his upper management. Perhaps he even lays off a group of people and forces the other remaining workers to pick up the slack. Perhaps.... he even goes so far as to shut down the plant and outsource the job to a foreign country to make even more.

I know... too bad for the people he fucked over. It's his business, right? Well, technically that's true. However, what if a huge chunk of American business did the same thing.... then we have EXACTLY what we have now in this country. High unemployment, A middle class that can barely keep it's head above water, a large group of working poor and a small, elite group of people making more money than ever before in the history of this country.

Yeah... blame the unions.

 

[Wiseacre]

You see... the thing is... Corporate entities and very wealthy individuals have plenty of lobbyists and lawyers to speak up for them. Workers have Unions.

You want to take the ONLY voice that the working people of America have.

Let's suppose that Joe Schmoe owns a large business. Joe wants more profit for himself. He decides arbitrarily to cut wages to all his line level staff and keep the revenue for him and his upper management. Perhaps he even lays off a group of people and forces the other remaining workers to pick up the slack. Perhaps.... he even goes so far as to shut down the plant and outsource the job to a foreign country to make even more.

I know... too bad for the people he fucked over. It's his business, right? Well, technically that's true. However, what if a huge chunk of American business did the same thing.... then we have EXACTLY what we have now in this country. High unemployment, A middle class that can barely keep it's head above water, a large group of working poor and a small, elite group of people making more money than ever before in the history of this country.

Yeah... blame the unions.

First of all, this thread is about public unions, not private ones. Why don't you start a thread about that and I'll come calling with my views on that. Or maye I'll do it myself.

Second, unions only cover about 7% of the national workforce, or something like that. They do not represent anybody but themselves, don't kid yourself otherwise. And to some extent they really only care about promoting their own self interest of the unionitself instead of the membership.

And finally, with or without the large campaign donations, the unions are not insignificant as a voting block. I don't think their voice is going to be taken away just because the public unions aren't allowed to buy their own politicians.


PS: re labor and capital, I think you have it backwards. Without capital upfront financing new business you don't get any new jobs. Capital comes first dude.

 

[Steelplate]

You see... the thing is... Corporate entities and very wealthy individuals have plenty of lobbyists and lawyers to speak up for them. Workers have Unions.

You want to take the ONLY voice that the working people of America have.

Let's suppose that Joe Schmoe owns a large business. Joe wants more profit for himself. He decides arbitrarily to cut wages to all his line level staff and keep the revenue for him and his upper management. Perhaps he even lays off a group of people and forces the other remaining workers to pick up the slack. Perhaps.... he even goes so far as to shut down the plant and outsource the job to a foreign country to make even more.

I know... too bad for the people he fucked over. It's his business, right? Well, technically that's true. However, what if a huge chunk of American business did the same thing.... then we have EXACTLY what we have now in this country. High unemployment, A middle class that can barely keep it's head above water, a large group of working poor and a small, elite group of people making more money than ever before in the history of this country.

Yeah... blame the unions.

First of all, this thread is about public unions, not private ones. Why don't you start a thread about that and I'll come calling with my views on that. Or maye I'll do it myself.

Second, unions only cover about 7% of the national workforce, or something like that. They do not represent anybody but themselves, don't kid yourself otherwise. And to some extent they really only care about promoting their own self interest of the unionitself instead of the membership.

And finally, with or without the large campaign donations, the unions are not insignificant as a voting block. I don't think their voice is going to be taken away just because the public unions aren't allowed to buy their own politicians.


PS: re labor and capital, I think you have it backwards. Without capital upfront financing new business you don't get any new jobs. Capital comes first dude.

7% now.... before Reagan, they made up 1/4 of the workforce. Most of that 7% ARE Public employee unions.

Ps.... you're wrong. Without labor, there is no capital.... period. The working men and women MAKE the money for the business owner... then by God... they turn around and BUY the stuff they make.... hence creating MORE DEMAND. You fuck over labor and you get our current situation.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, I so totally agree.

Military pensions ARE very generous.

Some of the best out there.

Still...veterans always seem to scream the loudest when their pensions & benefits are cut or proposed to be cut.

 

[Seawytch]

The way to stop the influence unions have on politicians is public financing of elections...

 

[Wiseacre]

You see... the thing is... Corporate entities and very wealthy individuals have plenty of lobbyists and lawyers to speak up for them. Workers have Unions.

You want to take the ONLY voice that the working people of America have.

Let's suppose that Joe Schmoe owns a large business. Joe wants more profit for himself. He decides arbitrarily to cut wages to all his line level staff and keep the revenue for him and his upper management. Perhaps he even lays off a group of people and forces the other remaining workers to pick up the slack. Perhaps.... he even goes so far as to shut down the plant and outsource the job to a foreign country to make even more.

I know... too bad for the people he fucked over. It's his business, right? Well, technically that's true. However, what if a huge chunk of American business did the same thing.... then we have EXACTLY what we have now in this country. High unemployment, A middle class that can barely keep it's head above water, a large group of working poor and a small, elite group of people making more money than ever before in the history of this country.

Yeah... blame the unions.

First of all, this thread is about public unions, not private ones. Why don't you start a thread about that and I'll come calling with my views on that. Or maye I'll do it myself.

Second, unions only cover about 7% of the national workforce, or something like that. They do not represent anybody but themselves, don't kid yourself otherwise. And to some extent they really only care about promoting their own self interest of the unionitself instead of the membership.

And finally, with or without the large campaign donations, the unions are not insignificant as a voting block. I don't think their voice is going to be taken away just because the public unions aren't allowed to buy their own politicians.


PS: re labor and capital, I think you have it backwards. Without capital upfront financing new business you don't get any new jobs. Capital comes first dude.

7% now.... before Reagan, they made up 1/4 of the workforce. Most of that 7% ARE Public employee unions.

Ps.... you're wrong. Without labor, there is no capital.... period. The working men and women MAKE the money for the business owner... then by God... they turn around and BUY the stuff they make.... hence creating MORE DEMAND. You fuck over labor and you get our current situation.

We can disagree about the labor vs capital thing, maybe for another time. Now, back to the issue about public union CB rights. How can you posssibly deny the cronyism and corruption going on there? Yes, I know the rich guys and big corps do it too, do you want to make the argument that 2 wrongs make a right?

 

[Flopper]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

I have no problem with unions contributing to any political party or campaign they want to. And I do support campaign finance reform, but I see no reason why a business or corporation should be treated differently from a union or any other organization in this regard.

My problem is that public unions can in effect control their own increases in pay and benefits, and severely restrict or outright prevent managerial actions against one of their own members, no matter how well it is deserved. Unions were once part of the solution, now they are part of the problem.

And here's the kicker: the pension funds for state, county, and city public unions are woefully underfunded, to the tune of perhaps trillions of dollars. At some point in the not to distant future the music will stop and there will be no chairs to sit on. Default - or bailout from the federal gov't - are the only posible options.

You are absolutely correct. Many state pension plans are seriously underfunded. About 10 will be in crisis mode within 10 years and about half will have serious problems in the next 10 years. However, this is not the fault of public employee unions. In only rare cases have benefits increased this century. Unions have bargained to keep the benefits the same for new employees but this is not the problem.

There are two main problems neither of which involve the unions. State legislatures have declared pension holidays allowing them to cut and even eliminate state contributions to the plans. Also most states allow equity investments making yearly returns variable, however benefits are fixed by law as they have been for many years. The return on equity investments for the last 4 yrs has been negative. This has made a bad situation much worse. Now we are seeing the projected growth of funds have been exaggerated.

 

[Conservative]

The way to stop the influence unions have on politicians is public financing of elections...

If everyone got the exact same amount, only had X they were allowed to spend, it would be.....

interesting.

 

[Steelplate]

First of all, this thread is about public unions, not private ones. Why don't you start a thread about that and I'll come calling with my views on that. Or maye I'll do it myself.

Second, unions only cover about 7% of the national workforce, or something like that. They do not represent anybody but themselves, don't kid yourself otherwise. And to some extent they really only care about promoting their own self interest of the unionitself instead of the membership.

And finally, with or without the large campaign donations, the unions are not insignificant as a voting block. I don't think their voice is going to be taken away just because the public unions aren't allowed to buy their own politicians.


PS: re labor and capital, I think you have it backwards. Without capital upfront financing new business you don't get any new jobs. Capital comes first dude.

7% now.... before Reagan, they made up 1/4 of the workforce. Most of that 7% ARE Public employee unions.

Ps.... you're wrong. Without labor, there is no capital.... period. The working men and women MAKE the money for the business owner... then by God... they turn around and BUY the stuff they make.... hence creating MORE DEMAND. You fuck over labor and you get our current situation.

We can disagree about the labor vs capital thing, maybe for another time. Now, back to the issue about public union CB rights. How can you posssibly deny the cronyism and corruption going on there? Yes, I know the rich guys and big corps do it too, do you want to make the argument that 2 wrongs make a right?

What cronyism and Corruption? The Unions, who represent Labor tries to get the best contract they can for their members, The Government(be it Federal or State), tries to lowball the Union as much as possible. Most times they meet in the middle. Lately, it's been leaning much harder towards the governmental side. Workers have been giving up a lot.

I work for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I have for the past 23 years. I've voted on 6-7 contracts in that time. As long as I've been there, the labor side has given up things. We gave up 3 holidays that we used to get... election day, Good Friday, and another one that escapes me. We've lost 2 personal days, we have started to help pay for our health insurance(remember, this is over 23 years... and it started three contracts ago(about 10 years), when no one gave a shit about public sector employees and what they earned. Our contribution to our pensions has risen while the State's contribution has stayed the same. This last contract(which we voted on in June), we gave into paying even more of a % towards our health care, and our health care choices have been downgraded, new employees lost a number of days of sick time and annual time.

I've been working through Republican and Democratic governors... the negotiations are always tough and always end up as a fair Compromise.... as all labor/management items should be.

The point is... the stuff you read on Heritage.org and hear about on the radio or from the boys at Fox is well spun. We work hard at my place of employ, as do most state workers. Are there a few bad apples? Absolutely, but by far... we are good conscientious employees who are also taxpayers and want the best deal for both sides.

 

[Flopper]

The question is whethe elected officials who are the beneficiaries of those donations should also be the same people who decide future public union contracts. That's BS, and should be illegal.

Nonsense. Elected officials, at least those with any sense, separate themselves from decisions that can lead to a conflict of interest, whether that be a union contract, award of a construction contract, or any other action that can be construed as a conflict of interest. For example when a school board approves a union contract, it is based on recommendation by a negotiating team. Elected officials do not engage in contract negotiations, particular with anyone that contributes to their election campaign. Most union contracts are negotiated by professional negotiators and are assisted by management, not elected officials nor union members.

 

[JoeB131]

I think that there is a need for union protections so that the government jobs don't end up going to the idiot cousin of the mayor or a congressman.

But the inflexible personnel rules and the lavish benefits outweigh any merits of the thing.

 

[initforme]

I worked in corporate america for 30 years. Darned near. I used to believe the same thing. I will never cast my ballot again for the party that only believes in the rich. I see Ohio as hope for the middle class against a plan that has nothing but hatred and loathing for the hard working middle class americans. My daughter is a teacher in Wisconsin. her $36,500 salary and benefits has ZERO to do with any financial hardships in the state. REPEAT: ZERO.

 

[rhodescholar]

I posted this in another thread, didn't get an answer. Let's see if anyone can offer a counter argument here.

" Will somebody please tell me why the blue blazes fuck public unions should have collective bargaining rights with the very same politicians who decide their contracts? At a time when their compensation and benefits far outstrip what the private sector gets? "

Collective bargaining rights for public unions have made governance next to impossible. Promotions, reassignments, and layoffs are so restricted by rigid rules that there's no room for managerial judgement. Consider that last year's best 1st year teacher inthe state of Wisconsin had to be lt go due to the LIFO providsions of the union contract. Anybody who claims that limiting union CB rights is an attack on education is a flatout liar or idiot who doesn't really know squat. Probably both.

It's ridiculous. There's just no possible way state and local gov'ts are going to be able to pay for the promises they've made. They just will not have the money, and raising taxes on the rich just isn't going to make up the shortfall, not even close.

There isn't, and you are not ever going to get an answer. What you will hear again and again is obfuscation nonsense, because polished, absurd talking points created by the unions' marketing/PR staff is all they have:

- "you are against the middle class" - as if public employee unions and their obscene benefits, salaries and perks represent the middle class in any way

- "you are bought and paid for by the Koch brothers" - as if someone cannot form their own opinion after years of watching public union employee costs take an ever increasing percentage of city/state budgets, with ever increasing tax rates to pay for them

- "you need to stop watching Fox news" - as if this issue is not widely reported across all major media outlets

- "you are against unions" - as if intelligent people cannot, unlike the accuser, differentiate between public and private unions

- "unions got us a 5-day/40 hour workweek, sick days, healthier working conditions, etc." - which is patently false since all of these were achieved decades before public unions ever existed

So the bottom line, is that the vested interests like the public employees and their paid-for politicians will never, ever address your question directly - because they can't - as the facts are completely against them. All they can hope to do is lie to the general public with massive advertising campaigns like what we saw in OH these past weeks to try and confuse the general public.

 

[rhodescholar]

It's a very simple equation. The unions give scads of money to dimocrat politicians. Those clowns love that money flowing in. They've learned to depend on it like a bunch of welfare queens. Thus there's plenty of incentive for them to keep the union stooges well paid.

I would be willing to continue to allow public employees to join a union under the following conditions:

1) they forfeit the right to vote, or
2) they and their unions cannot make campaign contributions of any kind

Then the playing field will have been leveled off, and the taxpayer protected.

 

[rhodescholar]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Another asshole from my city. BTW dickhead, you posted this in another related thread and got smoked there as well IIRC.

The right to free speech and assemble have no relation to collective bargaining, which means a group of employees are recognized as a unified group to be negotiated with. There is no item whatsoever in the constitution that requires the government or any elected official to have to recognize a union.

Employees are welcome to form any union they want; the union of people 5-foot-6, the union of people born on Wednesday, there is no requirement of government to accept that group and enter negotiations with it to determine salary, benefits, etc.

 

[initforme]

Please justify giving billionaires and millionairs tax breaks while making the middle class contribute more. Answer? A hatred for the middle class. Guess the Koch brothers didnt contribute enough. It wasnt billionaires who decided, it was those who make a middle class wage.

 

[rhodescholar]

I know... blame the Public Sector because you sheep allowed the Private Sector to dismantle your wages, benefits and pensions.

Its called global competition. Or would you prefer that india, china and brazil continue to operate as 3rd-world shitholes? The advancement of these nations and their populations puts them in direct competition with the US middle class.

You see, when Kennedy said "A rising tide raises all boats", he wasn't referring to the already wealthy. he was referring to the workforce of America. You pay them good wages, you give them attractive benefits packages and a pension for their years of loyalty, and they will in turn keep our consumer driven economy rolling to the point where everyone makes out well.

Except we are talking about PUBLIC unions, not private. Do you understand the difference?