Collective bargaining at itsfinest

[gekaap]

Union rep to union member.

Rep; This is who we are voting for.
member; ok


There is no asking why. Unions know how to work the system better than anyone

So you're now trying to argue that unions force their members to vote for certain people? Don't be so conspiracy theory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean the unions asked employers for something and they agreed to it. Dam those Union bastards asking for stuff then getting it.

I keep asking repubs name ONE entity that is free of waste, fraud and or abuse. Once that entity is identified then lets put that thing in charge of government and unions. Just need one name

The Most Effective Organization in the U.S.: Leadership Secrets of The Salvation Army by Robert A. Watson and Ben Brown - Book Review - BookPage.com

The Salvation Army: Annual Reports

 

[signelect]

Every state should have a right to work law and every employee should have the right to go to the boss and strike a better deal. In the GOV the people who approve the outrageous deals have not money in the game so they don't care. That to me is why big gov is no necessary or productive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The complaint that public unions also unduly influence elections and the resutling actions of the POLS they put into office, I totally agree with that complaint.

But corporations ALSO unduly influence elections and the resutling actions of the POLS they put into office.

And I cannot help but note that very VERY few of the people here complaining about UNIONS, can't quite make the leap to see that corporations do the same DAMNED THING.

Why is that? one wonders.

The right wing tools and fools can understand the complex machinations of elections leading to public corruption when it comes to unions easily enough.

But they cannot quite get their heads around the INDENTICAL PROBLEM when it comes to their corporate masters.

Odd, isn't it?

You know what is really odd? the fact that some people cling to their delusions in the face of massive evidence to the contrary.

My beef with public sector unions is not that they influence elections unduly, it is that they do not negotiate with their bosses, they negotiate with their employees. Politicians are interested in only one thing, poser, and unions are a source of power. Unions deliver a reliable block of votes for the politicians they negotiate with, and they can use that block to force concessions that a taxpayer would not be willing to give, like a double pension.

As far as I am concerned unions are free to spend as much money on elections as they want, just like any other corporation. Public sector unions initial lobbied for civil service rules that would protect their members from political backlash, and those rules were public, and fluid enough that if they were over the top they could be changed. As many people here have pointed out, contracts do not work that way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You know, I have no problem with any of this, as far as the workers go. If the employer has agreed to such terms, then that's on the employer, plain and simple. If I sit down at the table with you and work out a business deal that ends up being foolish for me, then that is my fault for being foolish in my business deals. Same thing applies.

here's the problem. The people representing the voters are not impartial.
They are lobbied by unions and then receive contributions to their re-election campaigns. Additionally, there's one group that does not get a seat at the bargaining table. Guess who? The taxpayers. Remember them? The ones that pay for all of this nonsense.
If you were referring to the private sector, fine. I'm with you.
In this instance however, the big problem is public sector workers represented by unions have had a 100% advantage.
The money to pay for this is finite. The money has run out. Plus it is just not right for public workers too have such perks when those who pay for them have no such luck.
It's OVER...No more. Time for public workers to pay up just like those who foot the bill.
It is time for those to are paid to serve to be equal with those they serve.
Just because a business deal is signed, does not mean it is set in stone. The benefits and pensions are no longer sustainable. There is NO MORE MONEY.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But with collective bargaining with public workers, the ones opposing them on the bargaining table are often the very same people who promised them the most on the campaign trail.

This is why even FDR opposed collective bargaining for Public sector workers.

Then that is an issue to be dealt with via the democratic voting process. No need for people to throw a ***** fit about it.

It was. The voters of Wisconsin fired the ones who allowed this. They elected people who would represent THEIR interests.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Public sector unions should be abolished.. the only people at the table are the unions and the people they buy off.

YEAH. Hey while we are at it:

Eliminate overtime pay

Eliminate minimum wage.

Eliminate worker safety.

Yeah totally with you!!! Whooooo!!!! Slavery. Boy I can't wait to work for free. Thanks Soggy, fighting for true colonial values.

Please stop the nonsense.
BTW, there should be no federal or state minimum wage. The marketplace should determine the value of work.
Many people are stuck in low wage situations BECAUSE if the existence of minimum wage laws.
For example, if employer "A" has one salary structure and Employer "B" has a higher salary structure, which one is most likely to attract the majority of employees?
Get it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Either abolished or prohibited from political activities.

What about corporations? Should they be abolished? Because if a corporation can lobbying for their own interests, why can't unions? Because you disagree with them. Totally makes sense. Rights for people I agree with, the American way.

I'm for corporations being abolished from the political system as well. Shareholders' money should not be used to fund politics they disagree with.

Wrong.....Investing in a company's stock is a CHOICE...For union members, paying dues is compulsory. Two entirely different things.

 

[syrenn]

You know, I have no problem with any of this, as far as the workers go. If the employer has agreed to such terms, then that's on the employer, plain and simple. If I sit down at the table with you and work out a business deal that ends up being foolish for me, then that is my fault for being foolish in my business deals. Same thing applies.

Did the employer have a choice? No i don't believed they did. they bowed down to union demands.

 

[Big Fitz]

How is union money co-opting the process? Are unions paying for voter fraud? Are they paying for voter intimidation? When voters cast their ballots, they are responsible for their votes. If a given politician is too cozy with any given donor, that is a matter for the voters to deal with.

Oh you don't see it? It's very plain to most non shills. We are referring ONLY to Public Sector Unions. The public sector union gets dues paid by it's employees who are paid by the government who gets it's finances by taxes.

Then election time rolls around, and they start spending money on candidates that will give them more money. When that candidate wins, he holds true and increases money to the union through contracts, and the employees who are members. Then the taxpayers not in the union say "WTF are you doing??? why are my taxes going up to pay for the same service which is getting worse?" The union supported politicians bluster and then say they'll fix it next time. Of course, then they get more union money and give them another sweetheart deal then need to raise taxes again.

That's the cycle. So either one of a few things have to happen.

1. Criminalize unions being involved in politics.
2. Give Taxpayers a veto on all union contracts with full disclosure of costs and uses. Minimum of 20% of the population must vote to accept or the contract is already vetoed.

I notice that nobody seems to object to a corporation donating to candidates and elected officials.

On the contrary, I'd love to see a conflict of interest rule.

Locally, many large businesses can contribute to campaigns of local politicians, who will then reward those companies with tax breaks, while non contributing companies do not get the benefit of tax breaks.

Key difference. Businesses spend what they make. Government spends what they take. Public sector unions do not get money that was earned through trade or business transactions, they are paid with tax moneys. So your comparison fails on those grounds.

Next thing you know, K-Mart is going out of business because Wal-Mart had their hands in politicians pockets. And you, the citizen, now are subjected to a quasi monopoly because there's nowhere else to go for your goods, except the mall that's an hour away. Just as an example....

Sherman Anti-Trust Act ring any bells? Secondly, this in no way relates to unions. Stay germane.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You know, I have no problem with any of this, as far as the workers go. If the employer has agreed to such terms, then that's on the employer, plain and simple. If I sit down at the table with you and work out a business deal that ends up being foolish for me, then that is my fault for being foolish in my business deals. Same thing applies.

Did the employer have a choice? No i don't believed they did. they bowed down to union demands.

Correct. This is how NJ public workers have been able to be paid 6 figure salaries, get nearly free health insurance for life, 80 or 90% pensions, be able to bank sick and vacation time to the extent that workers were being paid huge lump sum payouts OR be paid for up to two years AFTER they leave their jobs. For example. In Norwood ,J POP 7,000. The long time police chief retired. Because of the union demands, the fomer chief was entitled to a lump sum payout over over $375,000!!!!. The town did not have the money in their capital reserves to cover the amount. Shortly after this, the town government voted to outlaw these payments. Retiring police officers would have to take their retirement in installments. Of course the union bitched.The union tld the town they should just raise taxes. The residents went nuts and that was that. The town told the union that if they did not allow this, there would be NO money for ANY payments.
Oh, one more thing. Double dipping. Many public workers "retire" from one job after they work their 20 or 25 years then take another government job in a different pension fund. After 10 years, that worker becomes fully vested in that pension fund as well. They then "retire" again and collect not one but TWO pensions. That is absurd.
Double dipping should be illegal. Banking vacation and sick time should be banned.
This entire system of compensation and benefits needs to be scrapped for a sustainable system. All pay and benefit negotiations should be done at the table then a referendum submitted to the voters for approval or disapproval. School budgets are by referendum in both New York and New Jersey. however, the collective bargaining between unions and towns goes on under the cover of darkness.

 

[jeffrockit]

But with collective bargaining with public workers, the ones opposing them on the bargaining table are often the very same people who promised them the most on the campaign trail.

This is why even FDR opposed collective bargaining for Public sector workers.

Then that is an issue to be dealt with via the democratic voting process. No need for people to throw a ***** fit about it.

It was dealt with via the democratic voting process. The losers of that process (Democrats) chose to ignore that fact and leave the state rather than vote, thereby refusing to do their job. They were still paid for the 3 weeks "vacation" they took and the union supporters in WI (and others that were bussed in form other states) gave them a hero's welcome home. What other job in this country can you walk off of for 3 weeks and still keep your job?

 

[jeffrockit]

We're getting there.

It will take a cycle or two, but the public unions will be gone, or the exception, by 2015.

Either abolished or prohibited from political activities.

What about corporations? Should they be abolished? Because if a corporation can lobbying for their own interests, why can't unions? Because you disagree with them. Totally makes sense. Rights for people I agree with, the American way.

Corps are not paid by taxpayer dollars, public employee unions are.

The point many are missing is this:
The unions need the politicians to acquire pay and benefits exceeding what they could get in the private sector, plus job security; and the politicians need the unions for financial campaign support and votes on election day. They give each other what they want - and the taxpayers - who are NOT at the bargaining table, by the way - get screwed.

And this from Michael Barone:
Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.
Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats.

 

[georgephillip]

Some of these are indefensible.

Calling in sick and getting overtime?

Correctional Officer collective bargaining agreements allow officers a practice known as “sick leave stacking.” Officers can call in sick for a shift, receiving 8 hours of sick pay, and then are allowed to work the very next shift, earning time-and-a-half for overtime. This results in the officer receiving 2.5 times his or her rate of pay, while still only working 8 hours.

Remember those teachers taking their students out of class to protest? Now I know why they like collective bargaining.

I love this one.

Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit. Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, “Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers."

CARPE DIEM: Collective Bargaining Abuse Examples in Wisconsin

Guess what people, teachers might not be the problem, but their union is.

Don't worry.

It's All For The Children and They're Just Stickin' It To Wall Street.

It's all for Hayley Barbour and other assorted corporate parasites on K Street.

"Wisconsin Republican state Senators, fresh from passing draconian anti-labor and privatization legislation, jetted into Washington, D.C., Wednesday night to collect tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the one constituency group that approves of what Governor Scott Walker and his GOP allies are doing: corporate lobbyists."

"The fact that (Wisconsin state Senator) Fitzgerald has made the linkage between the Senate vote for Walker's bill and his party's corporate benefactors, was not lost of those who gathered outside the BGR offices.

"Jonathan Backer, who came to Washington from Kenosha, Wisconsin, hailed the protests in DC, saying, 'It’s such a good representation of what’s wrong with our democracy right now. There’s so much corporate power in our democracy where literally seconds after one of the worst anti-labor decisions that’s ever happened in the Midwest, you’ve got a big fundraiser going on here, right here in D.C. What we’re doing here is all about trying to fight for unions so there is a way to combat this corporate power going on in democracy right now.'”

Corporate Sell Out...

 

[editec]

Those are terrible policies.

That isn't the fault of collective bargaining though.

That is the fault of bad bargaining on the part of managment.

 

[gekaap]

In the GOV the people who approve the outrageous deals have not money in the game so they don't care. That to me is why big gov is no necessary or productive.

If I work for a private corporate, and I hire you at a given salary, I don't have any money involved either. It's the company's money. So under your line of reasoning, I will not care about anything, and will not be productive.

 

[gekaap]

here's the problem. The people representing the voters are not impartial.

Then it is the responsibility of the voters, isn't it? They're the ones who elected people who would not represent their interests. That is the voters fault, and that decision negates any complaint they can have on the matter.

They are lobbied by unions and then receive contributions to their re-election campaigns.

What's the difference between a union lobbying state politicians for good deals for government employees, and a company lobbying local politicians for good deals (tax breaks, etc.) for itself? It happens all the time, but I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Additionally, there's one group that does not get a seat at the bargaining table. Guess who? The taxpayers. Remember them? The ones that pay for all of this nonsense.

Untrue. The taxpayers are represented by government officials, either elected by the people or appointed by elected officials. But just a moment ago you admitted that the taxpayers tend to make poor decisions by electing people who do not represent their best interests. Honestly, that's just too bad. That is a decision that the taxpayers have made, and one they have to deal with.

If you were referring to the private sector, fine. I'm with you.
In this instance however, the big problem is public sector workers represented by unions have had a 100% advantage.

Why is it a problem that the workers have the advantage? I'm not really concerned with who has the advantage. I'm more concerned with the fact that the line of reasoning that keeps being used to complain about these unions is insufficient. There is no reason why the rights of government employees should be trampled on, just because the voters have made poor decisions. The responsibility is on the voters.

The money to pay for this is finite. The money has run out.

Then the taxpayers, the people who voted in politicians who made bad business deals with their money, are going to have to deal with that. There are consequences for your actions, and if the taxpayers suffer because they elected people who did not manage finances well, then that is for the taxpayers to suffer.

Plus it is just not right for public workers too have such perks when those who pay for them have no such luck.

This sounds like the argument from jealousy. It's "not right" for him to have so much when I have so little.

It's OVER...No more. Time for public workers to pay up just like those who foot the bill.

Public workers already pay up. They are taxpayers just like anyone else.

It is time for those to are paid to serve to be equal with those they serve.

You sound like an awfully slanted left winger. Who are you to say what people should be paid?

Just because a business deal is signed, does not mean it is set in stone.

What!?! Yes it does. The deal is made, it must be honored. Refusing to honor it makes you a snake.

The benefits and pensions are no longer sustainable. There is NO MORE MONEY.

I guess you should have thought of that when you voted.

 

[gekaap]

It was. The voters of Wisconsin fired the ones who allowed this. They elected people who would represent THEIR interests.

Too little too late, it sounds like. In any event, what is the complain now? That the old agreements must continue to be honored? That's life. You can't change the terms just because you suddenly realized that you were a fool. You just have to wait it out and accept the losses.

 

[gekaap]

Did the employer have a choice? No i don't believed they did. they bowed down to union demands. [/COLOR]

You just admitted that they made a choice.

 

[gekaap]

Correct. This is how NJ public workers have been able to be paid 6 figure salaries, get nearly free health insurance for life, 80 or 90% pensions, be able to bank sick and vacation time to the extent that workers were being paid huge lump sum payouts OR be paid for up to two years AFTER they leave their jobs. For example. In Norwood ,J POP 7,000. The long time police chief retired. Because of the union demands, the fomer chief was entitled to a lump sum payout over over $375,000!!!!. The town did not have the money in their capital reserves to cover the amount. Shortly after this, the town government voted to outlaw these payments. Retiring police officers would have to take their retirement in installments. Of course the union bitched.The union tld the town they should just raise taxes. The residents went nuts and that was that. The town told the union that if they did not allow this, there would be NO money for ANY payments.
Oh, one more thing. Double dipping. Many public workers "retire" from one job after they work their 20 or 25 years then take another government job in a different pension fund. After 10 years, that worker becomes fully vested in that pension fund as well. They then "retire" again and collect not one but TWO pensions. That is absurd.
Double dipping should be illegal. Banking vacation and sick time should be banned.
This entire system of compensation and benefits needs to be scrapped for a sustainable system. All pay and benefit negotiations should be done at the table then a referendum submitted to the voters for approval or disapproval. School budgets are by referendum in both New York and New Jersey. however, the collective bargaining between unions and towns goes on under the cover of darkness.

Well, the fact remains that the town agreed to those compensation packages. It's not the union's job to worry about the town not managing its finances very well.

You are proposing an awful lot of crazy things. So called "double dipping" should be illegal? Would you make such a recommendation for the private sector as well? Because it happens there too. Banking vacation and sick time should be banned? Again, would you make such a recommendation for the private sector? You're proposing alot of laws be passed, all because you're jealous of someone else having more money than you. I'm not comfortable with that kind of legislation.