Public Union Rights

[Flopper]

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.

I've worked in both the private and the public sector and also as a a consultant in both environments. Whether the environment is a sweetheart deal, depends on the employee's risk tolerance and their need for stable employment versus opportunity for advancement. Because an employee values stable employment has little to do with their job performance.

 

[Steelplate]

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?

On your first question..... Would I prefer India China and Brazil continue to operate as 3rd world shitholes? Oh... so you ARE for welfare... for people in other countries. I consider you anti-American with that comment... you WANT to take our jobs away from us and give them to people from other countries.... Let's see, the Standard Conservative line is... Find your own damn jobs.. Start your own damned businesses. Why doesn't that apply to other countries?

Item TWO... What the **** does the Kennedy Quote have to do with Public vs. Private sector jobs? Once again..... What you see in the Public Sector is what the Private Sector COULD have been if the lie of "Trickle down" economics never happened.

The problem is.... Because you are a taxpayer, who probably works in the Private Sector... you feel you have the right to dictate what a Public Employee is worth. You won't be happy until Public Employees are one step above welfare recipients. There's a reason why Public Sector jobs have a little better benefits than the Private... because in most cases, the Private Sector jobs pay better up front and it's harder to hire and retain talent in the Public Sector.

I Really don't understand this desire for a downward spiral that Conservatives have. It's almost as if they WANT the standard of living to go down. All except for their millionaires and billionaires of course.

 

[editec]

The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.

Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Huh? Were you even alive during the 1970's?

First, things were not going well for the Auto Industry in the 1970's. Chrysler needed to get bailed out. Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda, were all making serious inroads into market share in the American market. The Japanese were engaged in the process of "Dumping"- selling Japanese products in America at a lower price than they were being sold in Japan in order to undercut American manufacturers. (A practice Reagan called shenninigans on, forcing the Japanese auto makers to open plants here.)

So, yeah, I guess for the Auto Industry workers, they was living large on someone else's dime, but the fact is, they were killing the auto-makers, which is why they started outsourcing the manufacture of most of the components to non-union.

Unions make companies uncompetitive. that's why companies try to bust them when possible.

 

[JoeB131]

The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.

Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.

Please, guy, unions are in decline.

Unions jobs are like Rent Controlled apartment. A wonderful privilage if you happen to luck into one.

Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.

 

[editec]

The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.

Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.

Please, guy, unions are in decline.

Yes they are, no doubt.

Unions jobs are like Rent Controlled apartment. A wonderful privilage if you happen to luck into one.

Yup.

Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.

That's nice,

So?

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

Well I'll just say this: I've worked for the past 35 years along side federal civil service people, and I've never heard even one guy complain about his pay. Guys don't leave civil service until it's time to retire, so I'm thinking the pay differential is not as great as the report would have you believe. Can't fire 'em either, it's takes an act of God and a mountain of paperwork and a long time to fire a civil servant.

And: In the past 20 years or so the federal gov't has privatized as many functions as they can to the private sector because it's cheaper than paying for active duty military or civil service slots. I know for a fact this is true, cuz I held a contractor for the DoD for several years after I retired from the USAF. They paid me more money for doing the same job, but I didn't get any of the retirement or other bennies that the GS folks got.

And: what we're really talking about in this thread are not the federal public unions, they're not allowed to collectively bargain for pay and benefits. It's the state and local guys who pay huge sums to the democratic party campaigns and get highly rewarding contracts in return. And I also don't think those elected reps give a flyin' fig about conflict of interest.

 

[JoeB131]

The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.

Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.

Yes they are, no doubt.



Yup.

Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.

That's nice,

So?

Besides the fact you can't master the quoting process..

That's the point. Most working people don't look at the union workers as their brothers in arms. They look at them as lazy, unproductive slugs.

They look at them at the worthless union teacher who wants to put your kid on Ritalin because she doesn't want to do her job.

They look at them as the six guys who stand around watching one guy work at a construction site, because he's got the lowest seniority.

Real working folks, they know management is out to screw them, but they don't see unions as being much of a help.

 

[Claudette]

Gotta agree. Having worked in two Union situations in the private sector I can't tell you how many thieves, lazy assholes, drunks, druggies and just plain idiots the Unions came to bat for. Hell. They even wanted the company to foot the bill to rehab the druggies and alcoholics.

Public sector unions are payed with tax dollars. The taxpayers in many States are hosed to pay for the beni's, perks and just plain BS the Unions get for their members. Just check out NY and NJ.

Unions are out for themselves, period. They could care less about anyone who isn't a Union member. They also could care less how much is payed in taxes to support their members. Rather like Welfare. They don't care who supplies the money as long as it comes.

Not a union fan. Never have been and never will be.

 

[Seawytch]

That's the point. Most working people don't look at the union workers as their brothers in arms. They look at them as lazy, unproductive slugs.

No actually, "most" people don't. Unions still have majority support despite it waning over the last few years (probably due to Fox's constant union bashing )

They look at them at the worthless union teacher who wants to put your kid on Ritalin because she doesn't want to do her job.

Right...because it is the teacher that keeps increasing the class sizes. It is a lot easier to handle the kid that SHOULD be on Ritalin when you only have 19 other kids to deal with as well. Of course, class sizes keep increasing so the teacher has to deal with 29 or 39 other kids and that hyper kid takes up WAY too much of the teachers time.

A survey conducted in September by the United Federation of Teachers found a spike in class size grievances in New York City, with 6,978 classes reported as having more students than the contract allows. Even Texas, which has laws to keep class sizes down, granted more than 2,000 waivers to districts that couldn’t afford to keep the requisite number of teachers. Ruth Skow, president of McAllen, Texas's arm of the American Federation of Teachers, said one class at Memorial High School has 50 students this year. A Las Vegas elementary school kindergarten class has 41 students.​

Class Size Fight: Debate Looms During A Year Of Overcrowding

 

[editec]

Yes they are, no doubt.



Yup.



That's nice,

So?

That's the point. Most working people don't look at the union workers as their brothers in arms. They look at them as lazy, unproductive slugs.

Well don't know about the "most people" part but I understand and am somewhat sympathetic to the point you are making.

They look at them at the worthless union teacher who wants to put your kid on Ritalin because she doesn't want to do her job.

Yes, there are some faith-based believers in such GOP tripe, no doubt. I'd say about 25% of the citizens suscrive to that sort of nonsense.

They look at them as the six guys who stand around watching one guy work at a construction site, because he's got the lowest seniority.

I've worked on road crew for PENN DOT. I understand why there are times that people are just standing around. If you've ever worked construction, no doubt you do too.

Real working folks, they know management is out to screw them, but they don't see unions as being much of a help.

And I fault UNIONS for that, just as you apparently are doing, too.

I remember back in the 60s when union members were more ubiquitous and also somewhat arrogant, too.

They had the world by the balls, and they're paying a price for that now.

But the sad part is now all Ameircan workers are paying the price for that.

 

[Wiseacre]

Do I need to post a link that shows how big a hole our cities, counties, and states are in because they've got huge unfunded liabilities for public union benefits, mostly medical and pension? Does anyone really doubt that below the federal level, public unions have pay and benefits that exceed what the private sector gets? Why else are state and local gov'ts in such drastic fiscal shape?

Does anyone really doubt that public unions give hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations to the democrats, and very little to the GOP? Does anyone want to dispute the natural conclusion that the reason for that is because the dems at state and local levels give payback to the public unions through the labor contracts?

To me, the link between public unions and elected democrat reps they support is inescapable. It smacks of cronyism, bordering on or perhaps crossing the line on fraud and bribery. It is extremely hypocritical to slam big biz for doing exactly what the PUs are doing. Unethical behavior is unethical regardless of who the beneficiaries are.

 

[Flopper]

The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.

Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.

Please, guy, unions are in decline.

Unions jobs are like Rent Controlled apartment. A wonderful privilage if you happen to luck into one.

Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.

I know someone who recently moved his family across the country to accept a new job. The company put him and his family up in a nice hotel while he looked for housing. In two weeks he had leased a nice apartment, had his kids registered in their new school. In three weeks his department was phased out. The company gave him two weeks pay and apologized.

Screwing the employees to protect profits, is not just tolerated today, it's become part of the business model.

 

[Wiseacre]

The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.

Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.

Please, guy, unions are in decline.

Unions jobs are like Rent Controlled apartment. A wonderful privilage if you happen to luck into one.

Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.

I know someone who recently moved his family across the country to accept a new job. The company put him and his family up in a nice hotel while he looked for housing. In two weeks he had leased a nice apartment, had his kids registered in their new school. In three weeks his department was phased out. The company gave him two weeks pay and apologized.

Screwing the employees to protect profits, is not just tolerated today, it's become part of the business model.

That's total bullshit, the company screwed up all right, but to suggest it's part of anyone's business model is absolute bullshit. And to imply that such is common place is also absolute bullshit.

 

[The T]

Doesn't seem to fit the definition of a "right"

They have the right to compete like any other worker. They don't have the right to bilk the taxpayers for higher pay than the private sector...nor do they have the right to intimidate the taxpayer into paying. (In that case they can strike, and be fired as far as I am concerned...just like what Reagan did in the ATC strike in the 1980's).

**** 'em all.

 

[JoeB131]

That's the point. Most working people don't look at the union workers as their brothers in arms. They look at them as lazy, unproductive slugs.

No actually, "most" people don't. Unions still have majority support despite it waning over the last few years (probably due to Fox's constant union bashing )

They look at them at the worthless union teacher who wants to put your kid on Ritalin because she doesn't want to do her job.

Right...because it is the teacher that keeps increasing the class sizes. It is a lot easier to handle the kid that SHOULD be on Ritalin when you only have 19 other kids to deal with as well. Of course, class sizes keep increasing so the teacher has to deal with 29 or 39 other kids and that hyper kid takes up WAY too much of the teachers time.

A survey conducted in September by the United Federation of Teachers found a spike in class size grievances in New York City, with 6,978 classes reported as having more students than the contract allows. Even Texas, which has laws to keep class sizes down, granted more than 2,000 waivers to districts that couldn’t afford to keep the requisite number of teachers. Ruth Skow, president of McAllen, Texas's arm of the American Federation of Teachers, said one class at Memorial High School has 50 students this year. A Las Vegas elementary school kindergarten class has 41 students.​

Class Size Fight: Debate Looms During A Year Of Overcrowding

Ah, yeah, the horseshit factor.

Hey, I went to a Catholic School where they spent only about a quarter per pupil that they did in the Public Schools, and my mom, who taught there, didn't make half what a Public School slug made.

But you know what, more of those kids got into college.

More of those kids stayed off welfare.

more of those kids had good careers.

And the nuns didn't use "Ritalin" for the kid who acted up. They used a big wooden ruler, which was much more effective.

 

[JoeB131]

I know someone who recently moved his family across the country to accept a new job. The company put him and his family up in a nice hotel while he looked for housing. In two weeks he had leased a nice apartment, had his kids registered in their new school. In three weeks his department was phased out. The company gave him two weeks pay and apologized.

Screwing the employees to protect profits, is not just tolerated today, it's become part of the business model.

How would a union have prevented that situation?

In a union environment, LIFO, baby. He'd have been the first one fired. Usually to preserve the job of the worthless prick who has tenure and uncle is the Shop Steward.

I agree that screwing employees is a major part of the business model, because it's really the only element that companies can control with all the regulation.

 

[Flopper]

Please, guy, unions are in decline.

Unions jobs are like Rent Controlled apartment. A wonderful privilage if you happen to luck into one.

Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.

I know someone who recently moved his family across the country to accept a new job. The company put him and his family up in a nice hotel while he looked for housing. In two weeks he had leased a nice apartment, had his kids registered in their new school. In three weeks his department was phased out. The company gave him two weeks pay and apologized.

Screwing the employees to protect profits, is not just tolerated today, it's become part of the business model.

That's total bullshit, the company screwed up all right, but to suggest it's part of anyone's business model is absolute bullshit. And to imply that such is common place is also absolute bullshit.

No, it’s not B.S. It’s real. Screwing the employees has become part of the corporate culture. It’s often not by malicious intent. It’s just considered good business. Profit is not a goal of business today. It is the only goal. In order for management to meet an ever-increasing demand for higher growth rates either revenue must increase or cost must come down. Cutting cost usually means cutting employee expenses.

With the decline of unions, has also come a more liberal interpretation of the FLSA rules for determining exempt employees. The result has been an increase in number of employees exempted from the wage and hour laws. More employees are being forced to work longer hours and having to bring work home. Families across the country are suffering from either the lack of employment or problems that result from overworked parents. Two parents working 50 to 60 hours a week can have a devastating effect on the family.

With high unemployment unethical hiring practices are becoming the rule not the exception. Companies are hiring people into permanent positions offering great benefits but meager pay. But there’s one catch. You’re on probation for 90 days and at the end of the 90 days most of the new hires are terminated. The company avoids the higher cost of hiring temps. Another common one is over staffing personnel in new stores in order to provide excellent service for new customers. There’s nothing wrong with that providing you tell the new hires that their job is not likely to be permanent. Often 20 or 30 people are hired into what they believe are permanent positions with benefits. Then a month before the benefits kick in, only the tops 10 are kept and remainder are terminated. The employee handbook for new hires looks like it's headed for the scrap heap.

Another tactic the big corporations are using is the threat of plant closure. They use this to coerce employees to accept cuts in pay, benefits, and increased work. This can really be effective today since moving operations offshore can have dramatic increases on the bottom line.

With unions on the decline and federal and state regulations that protect employees and their communities under attack, it appears the unfettered business environment that big business covets may be just around the corner.

 

[JoeB131]

You know what, Guy, I don't buy that.

My last job was a 90 day temp to hire position, but most of the office temps were hired eventually (although usually a lot longer than 90 days.) The fact is, it takes more than 90 days for an employee to get proficient in their job, for the most part. Rotating them every 90 days isn't a smart business strategy, really.

90 day temp to hire does have an advantage. You pick out the dirtbags pretty quickly. The one who sounded great in the interview but turned into a real slug on the workfloor.

 

[Flopper]

You know what, Guy, I don't buy that.

My last job was a 90 day temp to hire position, but most of the office temps were hired eventually (although usually a lot longer than 90 days.) The fact is, it takes more than 90 days for an employee to get proficient in their job, for the most part. Rotating them every 90 days isn't a smart business strategy, really.

90 day temp to hire does have an advantage. You pick out the dirtbags pretty quickly. The one who sounded great in the interview but turned into a real slug on the workfloor.

Well, it really depends on the job. For example, I did some telemarketing many years ago. Training was about 30 minutes. I reached my peak proficiency by end of the first day. I quit the second day.

A lot of college grads are finding a job by interning for 3 months with no pay.