Public Union Rights

[rhodescholar]

Ah so when you take employment with the government you lose the right to form Unions.

Uh, yes. That is what civil service rules are for. Look them up.

 

[initforme]

I see some would love to see public union workers make $20,000 with no benefits and tell them be glad they have a job. Thats where we want america headed. Bizzaro.

 

[Flopper]

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.

All states have civil service systems as do many local governments usually patterned after the federal civil service system. One of the functions of the system is to compare wages between government and the private sector and make recommendations for adjustments in order to keep government employee wages in line for the private sector. In reality this does not work very well because wages for most government jobs are well below the private sector. Employees are compensated with more secure if not better benefits.

Although there is little completion for yearly raises, there is certainly competition for promotions. The idea that all employees are treated the same regardless of their performance is just not so.

In my opinion most state level unions have little purpose and much of what they do is duplicates the civil service board.

 

[rhodescholar]

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.

Professional orgs already exist, donating money to pols deciding on public employee benefits without taxpayer consideration is a fundamental conflict of interest, and is legalized theft.

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.

The job of government is to provide SERVICES, not JOBS, and at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. The government can offer a job, and if the salary/benefits are too low, they will have to raise it to attract people. And to state that public employee unions represent "ordinary people" in any way shape or form is laughable nonsense.

Union political contributions pale in comparison with corporate contributions.

How much did the public and private unions spend in OH to repeal SB5 compared to their opponents? Come again...

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.

#1- you are mixing public and private unions up, as usual from those with an agenda
#2-public union employee membership has been steadily INCREASING over the past several decades.

 

[rhodescholar]

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

So the rise of the japanese and german auto industry plus others like Volvo had nothing to do with it?

What is really funny is how clueless the left is about globalization, and how they completely ignore the fact that there are lots of other countries now competing with the US for those same fucking jobs that the OWS morons and various other "progressives" feel they are entitled to.

 

[initforme]

" #64 (permalink) Today, 06:29 PM
rhodescholar
Registered User
Member #19550 Join Date: May 2009
Location: Strafing Iranian RGs with my .50 Cal
Posts: 1,689
Thanks: 613
Thanked 108 Times in 84 Posts
Rep Power: 18



Quote: Originally Posted by Flopper
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.
Professional orgs already exist, donating money to pols deciding on public employee benefits without taxpayer consideration is a fundamental conflict of interest, and is legalized theft.


Quote:
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.
The job of government is to provide SERVICES, not JOBS, and at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. The government can offer a job, and if the salary/benefits are too low, they will have to raise it to attract people. And to state that public employee unions represent "ordinary people" in any way shape or form is laughable nonsense.


Quote:
Union political contributions pale in comparison with corporate contributions.
How much did the public and private unions spend in OH to repeal SB5 compared to their opponents? Come again..."

Then kick in more next time..or call the Koch bros. Perhaps those that voted yes need to give more.

 

[rhodescholar]

You are absolutely correct. Many state pension plans are seriously underfunded.

As in BANKRUPT. Like IL and RI.

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.

Where on this fucking earth do you come up with this BS? In NJ, the pensions have been sweetened many times since 2000 alone...get some facts before spewing nonsense...

 

[initforme]

When corporatists completely control this country the country CEASES to exist.

 

[rhodescholar]

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.

A better question for you is how exactly do public union employees represent the middle class in any way? And thanks for tossing in the infantile fucking koch brother talking pt BS. You're an idiot.

 

[rhodescholar]

One of the functions of the system is to compare wages between government and the private sector and make recommendations for adjustments in order to keep government employee wages in line for the private sector. In reality this does not work very well because wages for most government jobs are well below the private sector. Employees are compensated with more secure if not better benefits. Although there is little completion for yearly raises, there is certainly competition for promotions. The idea that all employees are treated the same regardless of their performance is just not so. In my opinion most state level unions have little purpose and much of what they do is duplicates the civil service board.

Are you paid to post this BS? Well below the private sector? Is that why Wash DC is now the wealthiest in the country? The average salary for public workers now EXCEEDS the private sector significantly.

 

[initforme]

C'mon, you can do better than "idiot" cant you? I'm 74. You can do far better.

 

[Flopper]

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.

First off, most large cities and towns have civil service system that protect employees, except in the highest positions from political cronyism. The days when clerks and garbage collectors lose their job due to an election are pretty much a thing of past in most cities. I have never seen any lavish benefits for rank and file workers. Benefits are generally, but not always better than the private sector. However good benefits have to be weighted against less opportunity for advancement and often poorer wages than offered in the private sector.

 

[Flopper]

One of the functions of the system is to compare wages between government and the private sector and make recommendations for adjustments in order to keep government employee wages in line for the private sector. In reality this does not work very well because wages for most government jobs are well below the private sector. Employees are compensated with more secure if not better benefits. Although there is little completion for yearly raises, there is certainly competition for promotions. The idea that all employees are treated the same regardless of their performance is just not so. In my opinion most state level unions have little purpose and much of what they do is duplicates the civil service board.

Are you paid to post this BS? Well below the private sector? Is that why Wash DC is now the wealthiest in the country? The average salary for public workers now EXCEEDS the private sector significantly.

Nonsense. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average federal employees are underpaid by 26.3 percent when compared with similar non-federal jobs, a “pay gap” that increased by about 2 percentage points over the last year while federal salary rates were frozen.

Federal employees make average 26 percent less than private workers, Labor agency reports - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post

 

[Flopper]

You are absolutely correct. Many state pension plans are seriously underfunded.

As in BANKRUPT. Like IL and RI.

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.

Where on this fucking earth do you come up with this BS? In NJ, the pensions have been sweetened many times since 2000 alone...get some facts before spewing nonsense...

In most states pension benefits have not increased. I'm not familiar with N.J. I only familiar with an increase in 2001.

 

[Defiant1]

Sounds like democracy. This wasn't an easy thing to do.

i disagree.......

i have alot of problems with unions for government employees......

in the private sector, the company dealing with the union always has the option of closing its doors or moving to another location if it does not like the union demands..... or if it does accept them, there is always the possibility that the company could not sustain the demands and go out of business......
i have no problem with that......


now, the same cannot be applied to the govenrment, it does not have the option of closing shop or moving to another location or even going out of business......... therefore it is forced to comply with union demands....
i have alot of problem with that........

Ah so when you take employment with the government you lose the right to form Unions.

Without unions the government would be raiding people's homes and dragging the children into sweat shops to work 20 hours a day.

 

[rhodescholar]

Federal employees make average 26 percent less than private workers, Labor agency reports - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post

From your own linked article:

The study driving GOP criticism of federal pay - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post

"Much of it stems from a 2010 Heritage Foundation study by James Sherk, a fiscal policy analyst who argues that the total compensation of federal employees — salary, plus health and retirement benefits — is between 30 and 40 percent higher than identical positions in the private sector."

================================

Read this article for the facts, the BEST article on this issue:

The Beholden State by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2010

"The unions’ political triumphs have molded a California in which government workers thrive at the expense of a struggling private sector. The state’s public school teachers are the highest-paid in the nation. Its prison guards can easily earn six-figure salaries. State workers routinely retire at 55 with pensions higher than their base pay for most of their working life. Meanwhile, what was once the most prosperous state now suffers from an unemployment rate far steeper than the nation’s and a flood of firms and jobs escaping high taxes and stifling regulations. This toxic combination—high public-sector employee costs and sagging economic fortunes—has produced recurring budget crises in Sacramento and in virtually every municipality in the state.

How public employees became members of the elite class in a declining California offers a cautionary tale to the rest of the country, where the same process is happening in slower motion. The story starts half a century ago, when California public workers won bargaining rights and quickly learned how to elect their own bosses—that is, sympathetic politicians who would grant them outsize pay and benefits in exchange for their support. Over time, the unions have turned the state’s politics completely in their favor. The result: unaffordable benefits for civil servants; fiscal chaos in Sacramento and in cities and towns across the state; and angry taxpayers finally confronting the unionized masters of California’s unsustainable government."

 

[Wiseacre]

One of the functions of the system is to compare wages between government and the private sector and make recommendations for adjustments in order to keep government employee wages in line for the private sector. In reality this does not work very well because wages for most government jobs are well below the private sector. Employees are compensated with more secure if not better benefits. Although there is little completion for yearly raises, there is certainly competition for promotions. The idea that all employees are treated the same regardless of their performance is just not so. In my opinion most state level unions have little purpose and much of what they do is duplicates the civil service board.

Are you paid to post this BS? Well below the private sector? Is that why Wash DC is now the wealthiest in the country? The average salary for public workers now EXCEEDS the private sector significantly.

Nonsense. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average federal employees are underpaid by 26.3 percent when compared with similar non-federal jobs, a “pay gap” that increased by about 2 percentage points over the last year while federal salary rates were frozen.

Federal employees make average 26 percent less than private workers, Labor agency reports - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post

First of all, I highly doubt that number and suspect there might be some political influence there. I also suspect the BLS report only looks at base salary and does not include the benefits packages that are much better for federal civilians. And they are, and that doesn't include the job security factor either.

And then there's the question of state and local public employees. Check this out:

snippet:

" Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers. According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits. "

Reason Foundation - Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries

 

[Flopper]

Federal employees make average 26 percent less than private workers, Labor agency reports - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post

From your own linked article:

The study driving GOP criticism of federal pay - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post

"Much of it stems from a 2010 Heritage Foundation study by James Sherk, a fiscal policy analyst who argues that the total compensation of federal employees — salary, plus health and retirement benefits — is between 30 and 40 percent higher than identical positions in the private sector."

================================

Read this article for the facts, the BEST article on this issue:

The Beholden State by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2010

"The unions’ political triumphs have molded a California in which government workers thrive at the expense of a struggling private sector. The state’s public school teachers are the highest-paid in the nation. Its prison guards can easily earn six-figure salaries. State workers routinely retire at 55 with pensions higher than their base pay for most of their working life. Meanwhile, what was once the most prosperous state now suffers from an unemployment rate far steeper than the nation’s and a flood of firms and jobs escaping high taxes and stifling regulations. This toxic combination—high public-sector employee costs and sagging economic fortunes—has produced recurring budget crises in Sacramento and in virtually every municipality in the state.

How public employees became members of the elite class in a declining California offers a cautionary tale to the rest of the country, where the same process is happening in slower motion. The story starts half a century ago, when California public workers won bargaining rights and quickly learned how to elect their own bosses—that is, sympathetic politicians who would grant them outsize pay and benefits in exchange for their support. Over time, the unions have turned the state’s politics completely in their favor. The result: unaffordable benefits for civil servants; fiscal chaos in Sacramento and in cities and towns across the state; and angry taxpayers finally confronting the unionized masters of California’s unsustainable government."

From the study - "Salaries and benefits—for identical jobs—are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector Claims that this dramatic discrepancy in compensation is warranted because of government workers’ high skills are unjustified."

In other words, the conclusion is based on the assumption, unproven, that the high skills level of government workers is not needed. The fact that the study comes through the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank further discredits the claim.

 

[rhodescholar]

In other words, the conclusion is based on the assumption, unproven, that the high skills level of government workers is not needed. The fact that the study comes through the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank further discredits the claim.

Federal and state gov't jobs have a less than 6% annual turnover, and it has been this way for many years.

If they were paid so much less than the private sector - they would leave, except they don't, because they know they have a sweetheart deal. Private sector turnover is far higher, and it is because of the lousier work conditions, lower pay, etc.

The facts are on the ground, and the public union employee defenders/sycophants can try and spin this BS any which way they want - the truth is there for all to see.

 

[Flopper]

Are you paid to post this BS? Well below the private sector? Is that why Wash DC is now the wealthiest in the country? The average salary for public workers now EXCEEDS the private sector significantly.

Nonsense. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average federal employees are underpaid by 26.3 percent when compared with similar non-federal jobs, a “pay gap” that increased by about 2 percentage points over the last year while federal salary rates were frozen.

Federal employees make average 26 percent less than private workers, Labor agency reports - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post

First of all, I highly doubt that number and suspect there might be some political influence there. I also suspect the BLS report only looks at base salary and does not include the benefits packages that are much better for federal civilians. And they are, and that doesn't include the job security factor either.

And then there's the question of state and local public employees. Check this out:

snippet:

" Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers. According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits. "

Reason Foundation - Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries

I looked at both reports. The actual federal report was compiled from BLS figures for the Federal Salary Council. The federal report does include federal benefits, however the report suffers from the same short coming of Heritage report. Determining the average value of private sector benefit packages for comparable jobs is nearly impossible because of the range of the packages and difficulty of putting a dollar value on them. I suspect that the benefit values in both reports are highly subjective. However, there is no doubt that the wage comparison shows the private sector pays considerable more that the federal government.