Announcement

**gunnut** · 18 Feb 11,, 19:10

It's about time. Government workers should not have the right to unionize. Normal workers could unionize, but these unions should be subject to the anti-trust regulations.

**cyppok** · 18 Feb 11,, 20:20

The second story seems odd that the feds would actually try to force states into a federal law mandate on an issue of union creation. Basically they want secret ballots scrapped which is what the unions want and is very unreasonable.

**gunnut** · 18 Feb 11,, 20:55

Originally posted by cyppok View Post

The second story seems odd that the feds would actually try to force states into a federal law mandate on an issue of union creation. Basically they want secret ballots scrapped which is what the unions want and is very unreasonable.

The unions own Obama.

Ever noticed that the democrats want secret ballots scrapped at the work place but have no problem with it at the polling place?

**Roosveltrepub** · 19 Feb 11,, 01:03

Thee secret ballot thing isn't cut and dry. Both sides have some reasonable reasons for their position. The bottom line is if intimidation and retaliation didnt happen it would be a non issue. What often happens is by the time the NLRB rules a company broke the law the union is defeated and with union workers making on average 15 percent more than non union the fines the company gets are a small cost. The days of Union thugs threatening when organizing are as much just a piece of history as pinkertons rushing organizers and beating them. I knew a guy that worked at Starter when they were booming. AFL/CIO tried to organize. The company road a few people involved out the door, the owner promised them profit sharing, better benefits if they voted against the Union. They did, the Organizers moved on and the promises turned to vapor.

Read up on the Subway bread factory in North Haven it's a horror story. It went on for years and involved firings, threats, they knew they had illegals and threatened them with Immigration if they voted for the Union, After years the Union lost, a few Managers lost jobs, they were fined several times over several years for breaking labor laws. It's bad actors like that who drive the push for the change in voting. yeah, there are some reasonable objections as well but the idea is not outrageous. Fear, Misinformation, Law-Breaking: The Union Buster's Creed | Change.org News Watch the video he's pretty straight forward about the illegality of the tactics.

As to public unions the problem is the pols who pander and the people who vote them in. Let the WI governor face them down at contract time and force them to choose reasonable give backs or pound sand. What He is atempting to do is abrogate contracts that are legal and binding. If He wants that let him beg the feds to provide a path to bankruptcy for states. Of course since Walker is still cutting taxes that may be a hard argument.

**gunnut** · 19 Feb 11,, 01:43

Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post

Thee secret ballot thing isn't cut and dry. Both sides have some reasonable reasons for their position. The bottom line is if intimidation and retaliation didnt happen it would be a non issue. What often happens is by the time the NLRB rules a company broke the law the union is defeated and with union workers making on average 15 percent more than non union the fines the company gets are a small cost. The days of Union thugs threatening when organizing are as much just a piece of history as pinkertons rushing organizers and beating them. I knew a guy that worked at Starter when they were booming. AFL/CIO tried to organize. The company road a few people involved out the door, the owner promised them profit sharing, better benefits if they voted against the Union. They did, the Organizers moved on and the promises turned to vapor.

Then don't work for that crappy employer.

Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post

As to public unions the problem is the pols who pander and the people who vote them in. Let the WI governor face them down at contract time and force them to choose reasonable give backs or pound sand. What He is atempting to do is abrogate contracts that are legal and binding. If He wants that let him beg the feds to provide a path to bankruptcy for states. Of course since Walker is still cutting taxes that may be a hard argument.

And what happened to the prefered shareholder's stock at GM?

The unions are making way more than people in the private sectors. It's not right to have them make more, and guarantee the pension with tax money. The average salary of a public school teacher in Orange County is $72k per year, not including benefits. Their pension max out at 80% after 30 year of service. That's 80% of the final year's salary (likely to be way higher than any of the first 25 years) with overtime included.

California has an unfunded pension liability of $500 billion over the next 30 years. The unions can either help out by taking a cut. Or California can go into bankruptcy and everyone loses. Wisconsin is not quite there yet, and the governor is trying to prevent the state from becoming another California.

**Roosveltrepub** · 19 Feb 11,, 03:22

Originally posted by gunnut View Post

Then don't work for that crappy employer.

And what happened to the prefered shareholder's stock at GM?

The unions are making way more than people in the private sectors. It's not right to have them make more, and guarantee the pension with tax money. The average salary of a public school teacher in Orange County is $72k per year, not including benefits. Their pension max out at 80% after 30 year of service. That's 80% of the final year's salary (likely to be way higher than any of the first 25 years) with overtime included.

California has an unfunded pension liability of $500 billion over the next 30 years. The unions can either help out by taking a cut. Or California can go into bankruptcy and everyone loses. Wisconsin is not quite there yet, and the governor is trying to prevent the state from becoming another California.

yeah, those GM shareholders were dumbasses buying stock in a company managed on what in hindsight wasn't a next quarter business plan but a 4 day plan. Job banks given as a benefit in the 80s????? I don't blame the UAW for GM refusing to make a short term sacrifice in earnings over a strike in favor of a business model that seemed to hurt everyone but those who negligently offered contracts. Even a retarded acturial could of seen GM's contract offers were a poison pill a generation ago when they were being made based on demographics and shrinking market share.

I agree our public servants need to grow a pair when dealing with public sector labor agreements. One thing about teacher pay to remember is most have a masters level education. When you compare their pay to others of equal education the pay is hardly astronomical. Plus you do want to atteact quality and you have to pay for it our those with solid math and science backgrounds will leave the field for higher pay. The real issue imo is the benefits package. 50 percent would of last years pay would still be generous by today's standards with 70 percent of the last years earnings as the benchmark for a comfortable retirement they would still have less of a savings burden than most. One point to remeber about there retirement benefits is they recieve no social security so that 57k of retirement income is probably comparable to 45k in the private sector when you consider they are avoiding 6 percent SS tax but so is the municipality.

What Walker wants in WI seems fair to me. 12 percent of medical is probably still less than 40 bucks a week and having and having to contribute 5.8 percent to their pension isnt crazy. It's his methods I disagree with. Let him face the Union down when the contracts are up and force a strike and if need be do the ugly act of recruiting replacements. It's not like their is a labor shortage in this country atm and having experienced being on strike when an effort is made to reach a mutually benfit agreement most people are reasonable and accept some sacrifices when the need real. I didnt like getting raises that fell short of the inflation rate in the 90s but understood the business was suffering a severe downturn. Walker isn't attempting to negoiate he is issueing ultimatums and using the current fiscal crisis to castrate labor laws in the state. If WI is in crisis why is squandering resources to reward special interests? Walker gins up Contracts only run a few years if he actually tried to deal in good faith with the union He probably could of gotten some concessions on current contracts now He is going to have a great ideological fight and he may gain some luster on the right but He is hurting WI even if he gets his way by creating a toxic management/labor relationship, an apathetic at best workforce that will have far more people with zero pride in what they do just ghostwalking through the day doing the bare minimum 25 percent less for 8 less effective for 8 percent less pay because of his tactics. Look at the "riots"( I love that one. A rally with people openly carrying AKs is a protest but teachers marching is a riot) He's created an enviroment where concessions would probably never be willingly accepted as the UAW did at GM when those generous gifts from bad management finally destroyed the value of the company.

**tbm3fan** · 19 Feb 11,, 08:15

Originally posted by gunnut View Post

The unions are making way more than people in the private sectors. It's not right to have them make more, and guarantee the pension with tax money. The average salary of a public school teacher in Orange County is $72k per year, not including benefits. Their pension max out at 80% after 30 year of service. That's 80% of the final year's salary (likely to be way higher than any of the first 25 years) with overtime included.

California has an unfunded pension liability of $500 billion over the next 30 years. The unions can either help out by taking a cut. Or California can go into bankruptcy and everyone loses. Wisconsin is not quite there yet, and the governor is trying to prevent the state from becoming another California.

I Goggled for the average salary of a teacher in California and turned up many salary and professional sites. I looked at only the first six since it became apparent that the average salary was between $50,000-60,000, while starting at $35,000. If you ask me it is peanuts given the education of many and how so critically important their job is in the long run. My education is similar in many ways and I easily top those teachers by a wide margin. People say I should teach science because I explain it so well to them but I tell them not a chance.

You get what you pay for. I hear corporations say they need to give those big salaries, benefits and bonuses in order to attract the best. I still think the jury is out on that one. Nonetheless, since you might agree with what those corporations say then why does it not apply to teachers? Education "Quality" is Job #1 to quote Ford. Without education how would anyone one or any country get ahead and stay ahead. Suffice it to say there are probably quite a few on this board with similar educations and make far more. Maybe we should see how many are willing to take those salaries listed above?

Now the Governor has decided to use an axe to deal with a group of people. An axe is his first mistake. Sure fire way to make people uncooperative. Two, he gives out big tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations in the State and then claims he has a deficit to plug which almost matches his tax cuts. Loses the moral high ground. Three, he wants to take away collective bargaining altogether, which I feel is a right for any and all workers. I don't feel "unions" are the bad guys here. I do feel that some of their rules are bad and need to be updated so bad teachers can be shown the door promptly among other changes.

Maybe if he sat down with the teachers, instead of being reactionary, to discuss things in a reasonable manner he might get more done. I'm sure the teachers understand that funding mainly comes from a declining property tax base due to the collapse of housing. He might find that they are willing to pay more for their benefits. Of course, he won't find that out now. Instead of being a jousting match by two big moose for supremacy they should sit down and cooperate. He surely can't win this as the teachers could all just sit out the rest of the season. This is not Reagan and the air traffic controllers as one cannot replace that many teachers overnight or in a school year. He is going to have to blink since he will not only end up with the teachers against him but also every single parent with a child in K-12.

**bonehead** · 19 Feb 11,, 22:34

Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

I Goggled for the average salary of a teacher in California and turned up many salary and professional sites. I looked at only the first six since it became apparent that the average salary was between $50,000-60,000, while starting at $35,000. If you ask me it is peanuts given the education of many and how so critically important their job is in the long run. My education is similar in many ways and I easily top those teachers by a wide margin. People say I should teach science because I explain it so well to them but I tell them not a chance.

You get what you pay for. I hear corporations say they need to give those big salaries, benefits and bonuses in order to attract the best. I still think the jury is out on that one. Nonetheless, since you might agree with what those corporations say then why does it not apply to teachers? Education "Quality" is Job #1 to quote Ford. Without education how would anyone one or any country get ahead and stay ahead. Suffice it to say there are probably quite a few on this board with similar educations and make far more. Maybe we should see how many are willing to take those salaries listed above?

Now the Governor has decided to use an axe to deal with a group of people. An axe is his first mistake. Sure fire way to make people uncooperative. Two, he gives out big tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations in the State and then claims he has a deficit to plug which almost matches his tax cuts. Loses the moral high ground. Three, he wants to take away collective bargaining altogether, which I feel is a right for any and all workers. I don't feel "unions" are the bad guys here. I do feel that some of their rules are bad and need to be updated so bad teachers can be shown the door promptly among other changes.

Maybe if he sat down with the teachers, instead of being reactionary, to discuss things in a reasonable manner he might get more done. I'm sure the teachers understand that funding mainly comes from a declining property tax base due to the collapse of housing. He might find that they are willing to pay more for their benefits. Of course, he won't find that out now. Instead of being a jousting match by two big moose for supremacy they should sit down and cooperate. He surely can't win this as the teachers could all just sit out the rest of the season. This is not Reagan and the air traffic controllers as one cannot replace that many teachers overnight or in a school year. He is going to have to blink since he will not only end up with the teachers against him but also every single parent with a child in K-12.

Unfortunately neither side is interested in compromises or doing whats right for the country/state. Political idealism is all about total victory by furthering their un compromised ideals on the other side of the isle and killing any ideas the other side currently has or have had in the last 200 years. One side desperately wants to to pull to the country to the left as far as possible while the other pulls equally hard to the right. Both have lost sight that our strength is in the middle.

**Julie** · 20 Feb 11,, 02:14

Then the Unions can pay them their weekly checks after they are laid off.

**cyppok** · 20 Feb 11,, 05:02

The problem with "collective bargaining" is that once a union is certified you cannot negotiate(at the behest of both but one always has the right to call a negotiation). In essence what happens is the union throttles negotiations by stalling and calling for their resumptions ( which you cannot turn down).

What happens either the company goes down the path of GM or they decompose ergo every good asset gets shifted to a new holding, the base becomes simply a human resource management mechanism which then does itself out of economic misery. (Aye my language skills here are atrocious).

**Roosveltrepub** · 20 Feb 11,, 10:51

Originally posted by bonehead View Post

Unfortunately neither side is interested in compromises or doing whats right for the country/state. Political idealism is all about total victory by furthering their un compromised ideals on the other side of the isle and killing any ideas the other side currently has or have had in the last 200 years. One side desperately wants to to pull to the country to the left as far as possible while the other pulls equally hard to the right. Both have lost sight that our strength is in the middle.

The Democrat legislaters agreed to go along with the cuts if the Union busting was dropped and Walker declined.

**Roosveltrepub** · 20 Feb 11,, 10:55

Originally posted by cyppok View Post

The problem with "collective bargaining" is that once a union is certified you cannot negotiate(at the behest of both but one always has the right to call a negotiation). In essence what happens is the union throttles negotiations by stalling and calling for their resumptions ( which you cannot turn down).

What happens either the company goes down the path of GM or they decompose ergo every good asset gets shifted to a new holding, the base becomes simply a human resource management mechanism which then does itself out of economic misery. (Aye my language skills here are atrocious).

Contracts are for a fixxed period of time and I have never heard of negotiatons being called mid contract to get the union a better deal only calls for give backs . I think you need to read up on how the contract cycle works. It isn't constant and companies can and often do say "no" to requests at contract time.

**Roosveltrepub** · 20 Feb 11,, 15:18

Posted at 2:30 PM ET, 02/19/2011
Wisconsin: Dueling Statistics About Public Employees
By E.J. Dionne Jr.

As the Battle of Madison continues, I can't resist calling attention to two charts in two newspapers Saturday morning that point to quite different conclusions about the relative pay and benefits of public- and private-sector workers.

The Wall Street Journal has a chart showing that "state and local government workers" clearly do better that "private-industry workers." According to the Journal, state and local government workers make $26.25 cents an hour, compared to the $19.68 an hour that workers in private industry average. This chart clearly feeds the narrative that public-sector workers are - depending on you point of view - "better-paid" or "overpaid."

But the New York Times has a more subtle chart that tells the real story. Focusing only on Wisconsin, the Times chart shows that among workers without a bachelor's degree, state workers are, indeed, better paid than private-sector workers - the figures are $37,000 annually for state workers, $33,250 for private-sector workers.

However, among workers with a bachelor's degree, private-sector workers earn more than state workers -- $57,113 for private-sector workers, $51,921 for public-sector workers.

The Times provides a helpful explanation of these numbers:

Wisconsin state workers have a median wage of $45,691, 22 percent more than the median wage earned by workers in the private sector. But these figures, which do not include benefits, can be deceptive because the state workforce is much better educated than the private-sector workforce. In Wisconsin, more than 60 percent of state workers have at least a bachelor's degree, compared with just over 20 percent in the private sector, according to census data. College-educated workers on the state payroll in fact earn a median wage that is 9 percent less than that of their peers in the private sector.

Bear these numbers in mind in the polemics that we will no doubt hear in the coming months about public employees. It is hugely misleading to compare all public workers to all private workers for the reasons outlined by the Times: A large share of public workers do jobs - one thinks of teachers and nurses, for example - that require a substantial amount of formal education, but they tend to have lower compensation levels than the jobs done by other, comparably educated, private-sector workers. The Economic Policy Institute (a pro-labor group, it should be said) has a fascinating chart on its Web site showing that in Wisconsin, the more educated the group of workers, the larger the gap between the public and private sectors - again, in favor of the private sector. According to EPI, those with professional degrees earn $225,644 in total compensation in the private sector, but $143,569 in the public sector. EPI, by the way, also shows a very small gap ($47,469 to $46,213) in favor of the private sector even among workers with only high school degrees. But the point is clear: the higher the education level, the larger the income gap is in favor of private-sector workers.

Does that mean that less-educated workers in the public sector are "overpaid"? I have to say that I find it pretty outrageous for well-off conservatives to say that -- I'm calculating on the basis of The New York Times numbers here -- that people earning $712 a week are "overpaid" and ought to be making only the $639 a week that comparably educated private-sector workers make. I'd argue it the other way around: that the problem in our society is that private-sector wages for people at the bottom of the income structure are too low relative to everyone else's and this rising inequality is a real problem. You could also say that unions do, indeed, lift the pay and benefits of the least well placed in our society, and that this is a social benefit.

I have left to last a brief reply to my colleague Chuck Lane's post Friday. By the way, Chuck, I was very sorry to hear you weren't feeling well, and I hope you feel better. And just so you don't have to rise from a sickbed over the long weekend, I'll try not to be polemical here and require a reply. Just one factual point: You write that Harold Meyerson, Ezra Klein and I had "retreated" to "a more defensible line" in the arguments we advanced about the problems with Gov. Scott Walker's position. I don't know how I could have "retreated" since the post to which Chuck replied was my first comment on the Wisconsin controversy. I had no position from which to "retreat". (I don't really think Ezra or Harold retreated, either, but I'll let my colleagues sort that out.)

I'll leave any other disagreements I might have with Chuck to next week. And one word of praise for him: I did appreciate his reference to "the glorious blogger-proletarian alliance." He meant it archly, and it was a nice line. And I'm perfectly happy if he wants to think of me as part of that no doubt hugely influential group.

New York Times chart

U.S. > Image >

EPI chart

Wisconsin public servants already face a compensation penalty

PostPartisan - Wisconsin: Dueling Statistics About Public Employees

All things being equal the public sector Professionals appear to be suffering from their career choice or at best the benefit advantages might be worth the 7k difference. The difference in non professional pay isnt that far off the 15 percent average that Union workers typically enjoy. It's hardly a convincing case that public unions are somehow so much stronger than private sector unions they shouldn't be allowed. The Gov. seems to ber making the same arguments the coal miners, railroads ands Automakers were making 80 or 100 years ago that somehow collective bargaining was unfair to them. Seems to me all those folks making less might want to organize :)

**Julie** · 20 Feb 11,, 15:56

F.D.R. Warned Us

Updated February 19, 2011, 09:38 PM

James Sherk is the Bradley fellow in labor policy at the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation.

“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.

George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government. But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. The influx of dues and members quickly changed the union movement’s tune, and collective bargaining in government is now widespread. As a result unions can now insist on laws that serve their interests – at the expense of the common good.

Union contracts make it next to impossible to reward excellent teachers or fire failing ones. Union contracts give government employees gold-plated benefits – at the cost of higher taxes and less spending on other priorities. The alternative to Walker's budget was kicking 200,000 children off Medicaid.

Governor Walker’s plan reasserts voter control over government policy. Voters’ elected representatives should decide how the government spends their taxes. More states should heed the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Executive Council’s 1959 advice: “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress — a right available to every citizen.”

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Announcement

Scrapping Collective Bargaining for State/Municipal Employes...

Scrapping Collective Bargaining for State/Municipal Employes...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment