Unions trounced in California

[RockyRacoon]

So pension reform is somehow equivalent to segregation?

puhlease.

Government jobs are just that; jobs.

The terms of employment are set by the employers not the employees.

Taxpayers are the employers of government workers and we should have a say in the terms of employment.

We've seen what happens when public unions sit at a negotiation with politicians who receive campaign contributions and endorsement from the very unions with whom they are negotiating and it's about time it stopped.

Terms of employment should not be set by the employer alone. When that happens you end up with 80 hour work weeks with no overtime. No safety guidelines.

Moot points all. Labor laws are in place to address these issues.

No recourse for grievances. No benefits. No job security whatsoever. No joint sacrifice in the well being of the company.

Every private company i have ever worked at has a grievance policy and job security is never guaranteed nor should it be. We've seen what happens when people can't be fired.

And Sorry but as a business owner I've already sacrificed and risked more than any employee of mine ever will.

There's a reason why the unions rose to power and government rules and regs were enacted at the turn of the 20th century. Left to their own accord, an employer has no incentive to treat their employees any differently then any other resource it needs to function. Obtain it at the lowest cost possible. The health, safety and well-being of the employees be damned! All employees whether public or private should have the right to collectively bargain for pay, benefits and working conditions. As a taxpayer, you do have a say in the terms of employment for public employees. It's called the voting boot

h.

Unions had their place but now they are not needed. We have a myriad of labor laws on the books that the public will not allow to be repealed.

And you have the right to bargain but your employer does not have to accept your terms. If you want to walk off a job and strike then you should take the risk of losing your job. There are plenty of people who want to work and if you don't that's your problem. What you don't realize is that a job is the employers property not yours.

And when was the last time the terms of a public employee contract were put on a ballot?

I'll help you out here: Never.

Public union contracts are negotiated by people who accept union money. It's the very definition of conflict of interest and corruption.[/QUOTE]

Of course your not going to vote on the contract because we live in a representative democracy. You vote for the people that negotiate the contract. BTW I'm not a big labor guy. I think unions have a place but reforms are needed. My point is only that the employer should not have all the power like you stated.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Terms of employment should not be set by the employer alone. When that happens you end up with 80 hour work weeks with no overtime. No safety guidelines.

Moot points all. Labor laws are in place to address these issues.



Every private company i have ever worked at has a grievance policy and job security is never guaranteed nor should it be. We've seen what happens when people can't be fired.

And Sorry but as a business owner I've already sacrificed and risked more than any employee of mine ever will.

There's a reason why the unions rose to power and government rules and regs were enacted at the turn of the 20th century. Left to their own accord, an employer has no incentive to treat their employees any differently then any other resource it needs to function. Obtain it at the lowest cost possible. The health, safety and well-being of the employees be damned! All employees whether public or private should have the right to collectively bargain for pay, benefits and working conditions. As a taxpayer, you do have a say in the terms of employment for public employees. It's called the voting boot

h.

Unions had their place but now they are not needed. We have a myriad of labor laws on the books that the public will not allow to be repealed.

And you have the right to bargain but your employer does not have to accept your terms. If you want to walk off a job and strike then you should take the risk of losing your job. There are plenty of people who want to work and if you don't that's your problem. What you don't realize is that a job is the employers property not yours.

And when was the last time the terms of a public employee contract were put on a ballot?

I'll help you out here: Never.

Public union contracts are negotiated by people who accept union money. It's the very definition of conflict of interest and corruption. Of course your not going to vote on the contract because we live in a representative democracy. You vote for the people that negotiate the contract. BTW I'm not a big labor guy. I think unions have a place but reforms are needed. My point is only that the employer should not have all the power like you stated.

[/QUOTE]



Jobs belong to the employer who provides them not to the employees.

If i as an employer provide jobs then I and I alone should decide who gets hired and fired and why not my employees. You'll find that capricious business owners will find it hard to hire quality people. Market forces apply to employers as well.

If I want to hire only 5' 7" girls with blond hair and blue eyes and big tits then I should have that right in my own business. If I want to fire you so I can give my brother a job that's too bad for you.

I am of the mind that if any of my employees walk out on me to prove a point that their asses will be fired on the spot. If you think people should be able to strike and still have a job to come back to weeks or months later then you have obviously never risked everything you own to start a business.

 

[California Girl]

They can't win at the polls, so now they will turn to the Courts to waste more Taxpayer money.

Yeah, we want all popular things like slavery, segregation, and sexism. those were all landslide victories in the past. The masses should always be able to vote your rights away, right? because the public never does anything stupid.

Maybe you should wake the fuck up and realize that popular doesn't mean right.

You're a conservative! Wow. I did not see that coming.

 

[Leweman]

They can't win at the polls, so now they will turn to the Courts to waste more Taxpayer money.

Yeah, we want all popular things like slavery, segregation, and sexism. those were all landslide victories in the past. The masses should always be able to vote your rights away, right? because the public never does anything stupid.

Maybe you should wake the fuck up and realize that popular doesn't mean right.

Especially when Obama was elected.

 

[tinydancer]

They can't win at the polls, so now they will turn to the Courts to waste more Taxpayer money.

Yeah, we want all popular things like slavery, segregation, and sexism. those were all landslide victories in the past. The masses should always be able to vote your rights away, right? because the public never does anything stupid.

Maybe you should wake the fuck up and realize that popular doesn't mean right.

When I was living in Ontario, I was always listening to a great station out of Buffalo. The people on pensions from the public payroll had more pay coming in than the current staff.

Buffalo literally at that time could not afford to hire more police or firemen, you name it because of the pensions being paid out.

Oh and duly noted that you immediately do a "fall back position" to slavery.

 

[tinydancer]

They can't win at the polls, so now they will turn to the Courts to waste more Taxpayer money.

Yeah, we want all popular things like slavery, segregation, and sexism. those were all landslide victories in the past. The masses should always be able to vote your rights away, right? because the public never does anything stupid.

Maybe you should wake the fuck up and realize that popular doesn't mean right.

Especially when Obama was elected.

Truth!

I remember Peggy

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yeah, we want all popular things like slavery, segregation, and sexism. those were all landslide victories in the past. The masses should always be able to vote your rights away, right? because the public never does anything stupid.

Maybe you should wake the fuck up and realize that popular doesn't mean right.

A tad extreme on the comparisons there..don't Ya think?

The corruption and absolute greed of the unions in California have had the legislators and the private sector by the "boys" for all too long, let the private sector free in my opinion.

I agree that some of the union benefits here in CA are over the top...but the unions did not create these contracts alone. They were agreed to by both parties...and now one side wants to renig. Would you want that to happen to any contract YOU'VE signed?

good point....but the real problem is you got a Democrat union rep on one side of the negotiating table....and a self-serving Democrat politician on the other side.....the union gets the bennies if they deliver deliver the politician's election support....

the taxpayer is not really represented here.....but he gets to pay whether or not the "agreement" was fiscally sound or not...

you wouldn't like it if Republicans had this kind of relationship with public unions.....would you....?
wouldn't you consider those kinds of "deals" to be self-serving, not in the best interest of the public, and thus invalid....?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They can't win at the polls, so now they will turn to the Courts to waste more Taxpayer money.

Yeah, we want all popular things like slavery, segregation, and sexism. those were all landslide victories in the past. The masses should always be able to vote your rights away, right? because the public never does anything stupid.

Maybe you should wake the fuck up and realize that popular doesn't mean right.

Doesn't mean it is wrong either strawman

 

[Katzndogz]

California's rush to poverty is a victim of it's own success.

The state's business climate has driven out thousands of businesses. Yet, the state grows every year driven by poor people moving in to avail themselves of generous public benefits that were given when times were good and business booming.

Rich people have no vested interest in limiting public sector benefits. They don't care. If some public union wants to vote themselves a bigger pension or more vacation time, this means nothing to the business owner. It's not under consideration.

It's not the same with poor voters who don't pay taxes. The tax pie has definite limitations. The more public unions get, the less available for public benefits. The poor have seen benefits cut, medical programs cut, housing cut, medical care cut. Every dollar cut has gone to support the unions and union benefits. Now the poor are starting its own voter rebellion.

 

[rhodescholar]

What do unions do when 70% of voters back pension reform? File a lawsuit. It seems that Wisconsin is not the only place where voters are not all that happy with public employee unions. This story is pretty big here in CA.

Everything one needs to read and learn about the CA public employee unions is here:

The Beholden State by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2010

I wonder if whores like rachel maddow will whine about how the unions were "outspent" in San Jose, too...

 

[Mr.Nick]

They can't win at the polls, so now they will turn to the Courts to waste more Taxpayer money.

Yeah, we want all popular things like slavery, segregation, and sexism. those were all landslide victories in the past. The masses should always be able to vote your rights away, right? because the public never does anything stupid.

Maybe you should wake the fuck up and realize that popular doesn't mean right.

Maybe you should wake the fuck up and realize that unions are nothing more than gangs that extort money from businesses and the taxpayers.

Their whole union line is pretty much: "give us whatever the fuck we demand or we're shutting you down." That is why these states have gotten into big trouble with their pensions - because the states gave in to every fucking demand and now it's biting them in the ass.

Every state should be a "right to work state." I'm sure there are plenty of people in unions who otherwise would prefer not to be....

 

[rhodescholar]

I have no problem with changing the rules for new hires. However the former employees had a contract. We are facing the same situation in NJ. For over a decade, public employees contributed to the pension system, and the lawmakers STOLE the pension money for pet projects.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Corzine promised an increase in benefits EVERY year he was in office.

I respect Gov. Christie for trying to save the system, and certainly he wasn't responsible for the mess. But most people don't understand the complexities of the issue.

It isn't that complicated, Corzine (the MF Global crook) was a thief of the taxpayers' money, and bought votes with it every 4 years.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yeah, we want all popular things like slavery, segregation, and sexism. those were all landslide victories in the past. The masses should always be able to vote your rights away, right? because the public never does anything stupid.

Maybe you should wake the fuck up and realize that popular doesn't mean right.

A tad extreme on the comparisons there..don't Ya think?

The corruption and absolute greed of the unions in California have had the legislators and the private sector by the "boys" for all too long, let the private sector free in my opinion.

I agree that some of the union benefits here in CA are over the top...but the unions did not create these contracts alone. They were agreed to by both parties...and now one side wants to renig. Would you want that to happen to any contract YOU'VE signed?

Pardon? They were created by unions that negotiated with the politicians for whom they have paid. Unions = political contributions, generally in hope of favorable government policy for the unions. That's the crux of the problem with public employee unions and the biggest difference between public and private unions.

 

[rhodescholar]

I have no problem with changing the rules for new hires. However the former employees had a contract. We are facing the same situation in NJ. For over a decade, public employees contributed to the pension system, and the lawmakers STOLE the pension money for pet projects.

I respect Gov. Christie for trying to save the system, and certainly he wasn't responsible for the mess. But most people don't understand the complexities of the issue.

I don't understand why the state is not held to the same standard as Bernie Madoff. It's the same damn thing.

Social security might be viable today if these crooks didn't have their hands in the cookie jar.

A referendum without the TRUTH, is bad law.

If they held the state to the same standard you wouldn't get squat.

Measure B in San Jose applies to all future contracts, the employees still get their contractually obligated pension, they just have to contribute to any future pension benefits. This law simply restricts the city from promising unlimited benefits at the taxpayer expense,

By the way, San Jose is so red it glows at night.

I believe that it will also affect the guaranteed annual COLAs, as it should, for current retirees.

 

[bodecea]

A tad extreme on the comparisons there..don't Ya think?

The corruption and absolute greed of the unions in California have had the legislators and the private sector by the "boys" for all too long, let the private sector free in my opinion.

I agree that some of the union benefits here in CA are over the top...but the unions did not create these contracts alone. They were agreed to by both parties...and now one side wants to renig. Would you want that to happen to any contract YOU'VE signed?

Pardon? They were created by unions that negotiated with the politicians for whom they have paid. Unions = political contributions, generally in hope of favorable government policy for the unions. That's the crux of the problem with public employee unions and the biggest difference between public and private unions.

OK, let me ask you....police unions...who do they negotiate with for their contracts? Politicians?

Firefighter unions....who do they negotiate with for their contracts? Politicians?

Teachers unions...who do they negotiate with for their contracts? Politicians?

Prison Guard unions...who do they negotiate with for their contracts? Politicians?

 

[rhodescholar]

Terms of employment should not be set by the employer alone. When that happens you end up with 80 hour work weeks with no overtime. No safety guidelines. No recourse for grievances. No benefits. No job security whatsoever. No joint sacrifice in the well being of the company. There's a reason why the unions rose to power and government rules and regs were enacted at the turn of the 20th century. Left to their own accord, an employer has no incentive to treat their employees any differently then any other resource it needs to function. Obtain it at the lowest cost possible. The health, safety and well-being of the employees be damned! All employees whether public or private should have the right to collectively bargain for pay, benefits and working conditions. As a taxpayer, you do have a say in the terms of employment for public employees. It's called the voting booth.

Wrong, on multiple fronts.

The FIRST role of gov't is to provide essential services to the general public, not jobs.

Second, if the employer treats employees badly, they are free to leave.

3rd, as a taxpayer I have no say in those benefits if they are negotiated with pols clamoring for votes from the same people they will provide them to.

4th, public union employees have a right to form any group they want - there is not constitutional requirement that the gov't negotiate with them. The agency can simply announce what the salary/benefits are, and it's take it or leave it. If the group of employees doesn't approve the amounts, they can avoid accepting the job in the first place, or quit if they were already hired. In this economy, they'd all be replaced in a matter of minutes.

5th, there is no reason to believe that the pensions were guaranteed to employees, many lehman and bear stearns middle managers lost everything - some after 40 years of service - so why should these public employees get better salaries and benefits than those who worked 10x harder in the private sector? Why do the public employees feel they are ENTITLED to better treatment than everyone else?

 

[g5000]

I have no problem with changing the rules for new hires. However the former employees had a contract. We are facing the same situation in NJ. For over a decade, public employees contributed to the pension system, and the lawmakers STOLE the pension money for pet projects.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Corzine promised an increase in benefits EVERY year he was in office.

Link?

I respect Gov. Christie for trying to save the system, and certainly he wasn't responsible for the mess. But most people don't understand the complexities of the issue.

It isn't that complicated, Corzine (the MF Global crook) was a thief of the taxpayers' money, and bought votes with it every 4 years.

Link?

 

[g5000]

I have no problem with changing the rules for new hires. However the former employees had a contract. We are facing the same situation in NJ. For over a decade, public employees contributed to the pension system, and the lawmakers STOLE the pension money for pet projects.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Corzine promised an increase in benefits EVERY year he was in office.

Really?

N.J. Pension Fund Endangered by Diverted Billions:

Since taking office in January 2006, Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, has been warning that the pension fund is in worse shape than people may realize. “It’s impossible for us to stay on the course that we are on today, and deliver what people are asking for,” he said in an interview late last year. “The money will not be there.”

Governor Corzine has succeeded in getting the Legislature to contribute more to the pension fund, though not enough to meet its future obligations. There appears to be too little money to both restore the pension fund and fulfill the popular promise of property-tax relief without cutting services to an unacceptable level.

Governor Corzine has also pressed to raise the retirement age, increase employee contributions and to institute other changes to stem the growth of future costs. Now his administration is studying novel steps, like the sale of the New Jersey Turnpike.

The thieving took place before Corzine came along:

In 2005, New Jersey put either $551 million, $56 million or nothing into its pension fund for teachers. All three figures appeared in various state documents — though the state now says that the actual amount was zero.

The Times’s examination of New Jersey’s pension fund showed that officials have taken questionable steps again and again. The state recorded investment gains immediately when the markets were up, for instance, then delayed recording losses when the markets were down. It reported money to pay for health care costs as contributions to the pension fund, though that money would soon flow out of the fund. It claimed it had “excess” assets that allowed it to divert required pension contributions to other uses, like providing financial assistance to poor school districts.

State law requires New Jersey’s seven pension plans, large and small, for various types of public employees, to be funded according to actuarial standards. Over the last decade, though, the Legislature has passed, and various governors have signed, a series of amendments to statutes that allow smaller contributions or none. These were justified by various maneuvers and approved with little scrutiny. In interviews, officials of the Treasury said the changes were made at the behest of the Legislature, while legislators faulted the Treasury.

Donald T. DiFrancesco, the acting governor in 2001, when the Legislature approved an expensive pension increase for teachers and other state employees, said he recalled that “people thought it was good public policy,” devised to attract the best people. He said he did not think the measure was considered financially unsound and did not recall anyone challenging it or calling it improper.

The state’s practices have nevertheless left its retirement system in a much more perilous condition than is widely understood.

Donald T. DiFrancesco.

Republican.

 

[Mr.Nick]

A tad extreme on the comparisons there..don't Ya think?

The corruption and absolute greed of the unions in California have had the legislators and the private sector by the "boys" for all too long, let the private sector free in my opinion.

I agree that some of the union benefits here in CA are over the top...but the unions did not create these contracts alone. They were agreed to by both parties...and now one side wants to renig. Would you want that to happen to any contract YOU'VE signed?

Pardon? They were created by unions that negotiated with the politicians for whom they have paid. Unions = political contributions, generally in hope of favorable government policy for the unions. That's the crux of the problem with public employee unions and the biggest difference between public and private unions.

That is pretty much how it works. The unions back the democrat politicians and the democrat politicians back the unions by creating (or allowing some laws to exist) that create favorable environments for the unions.

Unions have gotten out of control because democrats don't care - they only care about retaining their position of power within the government and community...

Democrats don't want to lose their position, they need the unions and the unions need the democrats so they can keep their grossly overpaid wages, benefits and other goodies.

Of course the republicans realize this is totally out of control -- not only that but downright wrong.

 

[rhodescholar]

The thieving took place before Corzine came along:

I did not claim he was the first, but he made sure it continued under his watch.