Union Busting in Wisconsin

[Pliny]

Thanks Jim. I don't see anything there that suggests the duty described is breached. Under your system stonewalling is a practice used as a matter of tactic.

Not an acceptable tactic if you are of the party of "no" though, so it seems.

[bloodyminded]

Public Unions have an obvious conflict of interest. Who will they vote for? The ones that promise them benefits and entitlements. You won't find them voting for Republicans after the Wisconsin confrontation, win or lose in the effort. Only those with a view of the "greater good" or in the "public interest" would consider voting Republican.

People vote--whether sanely or through misperceptions--for their self-interest all the time. How is this a "conflict of interest"?

All that's happening is that "society" outside the union is balking at the value they are receiving for the remuneration they are giving and that it is unfair that they get to vote for politicians that will seek their votes by granting them their demands.

This presumes that all non-union members of the public oppose the unions. This is plainly not the case.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[jefferiah]

All I was pointing out was - "good for the goose, good for the gander" - can't complain about where one's tax dollars go without giving the opposite argument equal weight...

I don't think I did complain. All I am saying is that the issue has nothing to do with freedom of expression or association, and these things have no place in this argument.

[Scotty]

In the beginning, as it is in any ponzi scheme, the first through the gate get the most benefit for the least cost.

No, that doesn't work for me. A ponzi scheme mostly works by selling things to people who don't realize its a ponzi scheme. Are you suggesting the governments which negotiated agreements with various unions are all too stupid to figure out the simple arithmetic of how much these agreements are going to cost them over a number of years?

A school system is what we have now and it seems more important to support the structure and the personnel than it's function, which is education.

How do you have a school system - or a school - without personnel and a structure?

And how do you staff schools when, with an already existing teacher shortage, you cut wages, benefits, and bargaining rights for teachers?

[Scotty]

You make a variety of good points. The problem is that elected officials come and go, and have every incentive to kick a problem down the road. Pensions and other benefits allow them to get the support of unionized workers, a very powerful political group, and lay the giveaways' costs on the public.

I am generally for private sector collective bargaining; not really for public sector collective bargaining.

Maybe if the voters weren't such damn fools, short-sighted themselves, and with very short term memories, we'd not have that issue?

Whatever damnfool thing politicians do the ultimate responsibility is the damnfools who trooped off to the polls and voted for him.

[pinko]

Not an acceptable tactic if you are of the party of "no" though, so it seems.

One need only look to the US Senate for examples of obstructionism. The Republicans have refined that to an art form.

[Pliny]

People vote--whether sanely or through misperceptions--for their self-interest all the time. How is this a "conflict of interest"?

If the federal government doesn't have a mandate to provide entitlements to special interests it makes no difference how you vote. You just vote for what you feel is best for everyone and you can't vote for your special interest. In the past there has always been special interests and that is the problem of governments. In the 19th century and prior, excepting the US, the special interests were the Crown and it's supporters. In the twentieth century special interests shifted to banks and corporations and democratic principles of equality.

There is no conflct in voting for a military if you feel it necessary to the defence of the country as a whole. Are you going to benefit, or is someone else going to benefit more than you? If there is a benefit to someone more than you it is perhaps in vulnerable areas subject to invasion. You have an indirect benefit and some may have a direct benefit. If you feel it unfair then you have a vote on the matter because defence is a legitimate mandate of government, at least to me it is but other libertairians may disagree. I myself don't feel it necessary to have a standing army at all times.

And I defintely wouldn't want members of the military voting itself it's benefits and entitlements solely in their interest.

This presumes that all non-union members of the public oppose the unions. This is plainly not the case.

I'll use your tactic here and say I never said that "all non-union members of the public oppose the unions". You can presume that but it isn't what I said. Assuming I said all non-union members oppose the union is, as you point out, complete nonsense. So why assume I said that?

[bloodyminded]

If the federal government doesn't have a mandate to provide entitlements to special interests it makes no difference how you vote. You just vote for what you feel is best for everyone and you can't vote for your special interest. In the past there has always been special interests and that is the problem of governments. In the 19th century and prior, excepting the US, the special interests were the Crown and it's supporters. In the twentieth century special interests shifted to banks and corporations and democratic principles of equality.

There is no conflct in voting for a military if you feel it necessary to the defence of the country as a whole. Are you going to benefit, or is someone else going to benefit more than you? If there is a benefit to someone more than you it is perhaps in vulnerable areas subject to invasion. You have an indirect benefit and some may have a direct benefit. If you feel it unfair then you have a vote on the matter because defence is a legitimate mandate of government, at least to me it is but other libertairians may disagree. I myself don't feel it necessary to have a standing army at all times.

And I defintely wouldn't want members of the military voting itself it's benefits and entitlements solely in their interest.

This seems like a convoluted way not to respond to what I said!

I'll use your tactic here and say I never said that "all non-union members of the public oppose the unions". You can presume that but it isn't what I said. Assuming I said all non-union members oppose the union is, as you point out, complete nonsense. So why assume I said that?

I have no idea how or why this is "[my] tactic."

At any rate, here is what you said:

All that's happening is that "society" outside the union is balking at the value they are receiving for the remuneration they are giving

So...what are you saying???

[Pliny]

No, that doesn't work for me. A ponzi scheme mostly works by selling things to people who don't realize its a ponzi scheme. Are you suggesting the governments which negotiated agreements with various unions are all too stupid to figure out the simple arithmetic of how much these agreements are going to cost them over a number of years?

Not too stupid, they just neglect to outline that all will not remain as it is. Certainly the objective is to have a growing economy, a stable government, a high standard of living. We do what we can to ensure that. Politicians will abandon future votes and principles for immediate votes. Democrat or Republican they both do it. You seem to think that WI is at this crossroads now because someone is trying to take away workers rights. It is not economically sustainable to keep the level of benefits and entitlements they have and I beleive they realize this and have resigned themselves to that. But the longer term "collective bargaining rights" of public unions they have trouble seeing as a conflict of interest. They uncompromisingly want that entitlement. It is essentially a threat to the power of the union and it's future ability to sway or support politicians in their favour. but the interest of the State as a whole is what should have priority in their bargaining. And they will claim it is in the interests of the State to have Education and well-paid teachers and the resources necessary to education which isn't untrue but a bit of stretch whne it is bankrupting the State.

How do you have a school system - or a school - without personnel and a structure?

And how do you staff schools when, with an already existing teacher shortage, you cut wages, benefits, and bargaining rights for teachers?

The problems of the school system are something they must resolve and if reason prevails they will resolve them - not just add more of a burden on the economy by demanding more money.

Teacher shortages are a result of "quotas" that are deemed necessary by the teachers unions. you can't have more than you need. And the way it is set up you don't produce anymore than has been established as the quota. Teachers being a dime a dozen would mean a cut in pay for sure. It's the same in the health care industry. Certainly, a standard needs to be established but it can only be a minimum standard. What we have is a "variable" standard that is established based upon whether or not the quota is filled.

[ToadBrother]

The funny thing about companies is they eventually find out what is viable. They protect their assets and labour is an asset. If they cannot keep good workers they will make accommodations to do so. They really don't care about the ones that are there simply for a paycheque or those with a poor work ethic.

Not so far as I can tell. Look at the Industrial Revolution. Companies had no problem with child labor, with unsafe conditions, with poor pay. In fact they spent large sums of money making sure the politicians didn't institute labor reforms. What finally forced an end was the popular will forcing politicians to allow the formation of unions, popular will banning child labor and popular will forcing the creation of minimum wages. The only time that businesses prior to that were forced to give higher pay and better conditions was after the Black Death when labor shortages were huge and laborers could name their price (though, in Britain at least, the Crown attempted to force wage controls anyways), but that "burden" on employers evaporated when populations recovered.

To put it another way, unconstrained capitalism does not lead to better conditions for workers and society, it leads to ever-increasing concentration of wealth. Labour laws and unions are among the means used to constrain capitalism from what the Industrial Revolution demonstrated were its failings.

As to public sector unions, what would you replace them with, and how do you justify ending them while private sector workers are still allowed to organize?

[Pliny]

This seems like a convoluted way not to respond to what I said!

It was a little bit more than what was necessary, I suppose.

I have no idea how or why this is "[my] tactic."

See above.

At any rate, here is what you said:

All that's happening is that "society" outside the union is balking at the value they are receiving for the remuneration they are giving

So...what are you saying???

So is that "all non-union people are against the union".

What I did say is "Society" outside the unions, and in a democracy, "society" would mean at least a majority is balking at the cost of public unions. That we don't have mothers and fathers or other's sympathizing with and supporting the benefits unions supply their kids or for whatever reason, is a ridiculous "assumption" and merely an attempt to put words in my mouth that I never said.

[bloodyminded]

It was a little bit more than what was necessary, I suppose.

No, don't get me wrong. I appreciate that you put real effort into your posts, and try to explain your take on some pretty large themes, and in a civil manner.

I simply didn't quite understand you.

What I did say is "Society" outside the unions, and in a democracy, "society" would mean at least a majority is balking at the cost of public unions.

It's not clear that it is a majority. This seems to be the conventional wisdom of those who only listen to others who share their opinion, and mistake this for a public consensus.

If we read the Rasmussen poll, we find a majority supports the anti-union ideas in this case.

If we read other polls, we get a different result.

So the matter of what society thinks about it is far from settled.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

No, don't get me wrong. I appreciate that you put real effort into your posts, and try to explain your take on some pretty large themes, and in a civil manner.

I simply didn't quite understand you.

I understand the difficulty in grasping different concepts than what one holds dear. Especially, on such pretty large themes.

It's not clear that it is a majority.

It isn't clear that what is meant is "all people outside the union" either but you chose to assumed over something that made any sense.

This seems to be the conventional wisdom of those who only listen to others who share their opinion, and mistake this for a public consensus.

If we read the Rasmussen poll, we find a majority supports the anti-union ideas in this case.

If we read other polls, we get a different result.

So the matter of what society thinks about it is far from settled.

Irregardless of polls, the votes were against it or Walker wouldn't be Governor.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

I understand the difficulty in grasping different concepts than what one holds dear. Especially, on such pretty large themes.

Yes, the problem might be in my own intractable biases, of which I'm blithely unaware, as you so often speculate (begging the question of how I can even comprehend your rejoinder on the subject); alternatively, it could be that you garbled your prose, so that decoding it was not the most likely outcome for any reader.

It isn't clear that what is meant is "all people outside the union" either but you chose to assumed over something that made any sense.

No, but you're saying it's a majority; and you're offering it as a certainty, which it is not.

Irregardless of polls, the votes were against it or Walker wouldn't be Governor.

Electoral politics aren't generally so cut and dried.

Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Not so far as I can tell. Look at the Industrial Revolution. Companies had no problem with child labor, with unsafe conditions, with poor pay. In fact they spent large sums of money making sure the politicians didn't institute labor reforms. What finally forced an end was the popular will forcing politicians to allow the formation of unions, popular will banning child labor and popular will forcing the creation of minimum wages. The only time that businesses prior to that were forced to give higher pay and better conditions was after the Black Death when labor shortages were huge and laborers could name their price (though, in Britain at least, the Crown attempted to force wage controls anyways), but that "burden" on employers evaporated when populations recovered.

Yes there was no problem with 12 hour days, six day work weeks, child labour, unsafe work conditions, poor pay and all that.

I find that is the way to prosperity. Third world countries are going thorugh the same thing today but the western nations want them to automatically have the same entitlements as it does. There is no need for a person in India to be making $50,000/yr because there is not enough wealth in the nation to supply the goods and services that all the people making that amount of money could afford. Child labour? Yea kids can't work or even know what work is anything else is barbaric - even if they want to work they should be barred because they don't know any better.

The truth is they can help and if their wage can feed their family and improve their standard of living what more can be asked?

I don't argue that exploitation, such as work for no pay, which is tantamount to slave labour is wrong. Fraud, exploitation

and abuse are criminal and not capitalist properties. Working hard and getting proper recompense as contractually agreed to or negotiatied is not criminal. No matter how many compassionate liberals may think otherwise.

The fact is that they have to work through those conditions and create the prosperity to have those benefits. The Unions in the west take all the credit for the standard of living we have and don't realize that there has to be a certain level of prosperity reached before they can be sustained by the economy, and if they are going to be maintained collectively, the production must also be maintained. Any individual realizes he must produce something or exchange his labour at a certain level to sustain himself. If he doesn't produce he doens't have a job for long not because he will get fired but because the company will fold under his feet.

To put it another way, unconstrained capitalism does not lead to better conditions for workers and society, it leads to ever-increasing concentration of wealth. Labour laws and unions are among the means used to constrain capitalism from what the Industrial Revolution demonstrated were its failings.

Well, what came first, the Production of wealth or the granting of entitlements and benefits? It was the production of wealth and only the production of wealth that made those entitlements and benefits possible.

I have no qualms about labour wishing to improve it's position and demand it's earned share in the increased wealth.

That is only fair. But it must also make concessions when production falls below the point where the benefits and entitlements cannot be sustained without destroying the company or in the case of public unions results in overspending by government and commitments to unfunded future liabilities.

As to public sector unions, what would you replace them with, and how do you justify ending them while private sector workers are still allowed to organize?

The public unions have been able to buy political favour and thus benefits and entitlemnts in return for votes and union money for campaigning. It is an obvious conflict of interest.

There should not be public unions in the same sense as private unions. Unions, as much as they would like to be, are not yet a condition of employment for everyone. And they should never be a condition of employment in the public sector. There should be a means to air grievances and injustices and if government becomes such a bully that grievances and injustices are not addressed then itis necessary for solidarity to bring it to the fore. Fairness in the labour market is all that is wanted, I think. Desiring more than that or desiring political advantage is not what unions should be about.

[ToadBrother]

There should not be public unions in the same sense as private unions. Unions, as much as they would like to be, are not yet a condition of employment for everyone. And they should never be a condition of employment in the public sector. There should be a means to air grievances and injustices and if government becomes such a bully that grievances and injustices are not addressed then itis necessary for solidarity to bring it to the fore. Fairness in the labour market is all that is wanted, I think. Desiring more than that or desiring political advantage is not what unions should be about.

So let me get this straight. There shouldn't be public sector unions, unless there's a need for public sector unions, then public workers should form them?

As to "political advantage", how can taking on the government for any reason not be inherently political?

[punked]

Interesting. This article says that the WI pension which is 99% funded right now and is one of the strongest in the nation is because workers already contribute over and above the %'s Walker is asking for. I wouldn't expect rocks for brains Walker to know that he couldn't even come close to finishing collage but man if this is true then everyone is dropping the ball on reporting this. It makes sense when you think of it, why is a pension no one pays into so well funded in the first place? Oh it is because they do pay into it.

So in the end this isn't about pensions it can't be every dollar is paid by workers, it isn't about health care every dollar comes from workers. The only thing left this can be about is Union busting for tax breaks. Now we know.

http://tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument

[Pliny]

Yes, the problem might be in my own intractable biases, of which I'm blithely unaware, as you so often speculate (begging the question of how I can even comprehend your rejoinder on the subject); alternatively, it could be that you garbled your prose, so that decoding it was not the most likely outcome for any reader.

I concede I am not the most elegant writer and I am often hurried to express myself as I can't spend all day here. I do my best and persist and attempt to clarify my position and tha's all I can do. I also realize I am not politically mainstream and most of that comes from my position on economics. Since all government does is tax those who create wealth and spend where it thinks best it mainly concerns itself with the economy. It doesn't create any increased wealth but simply either contributes or hampers the creation of wealth through it's policies and spending. If it is doing it's job of protecting economic activity, meaning the person's involved in creating wealth and maintains the sanctity of person and property then there will be prosperity.

One cannot exclude market factors that occur that devastate businesses such as technological advances that make the production of certain products or services unnecessary. There should be enough prosperity in the society to absorb such things and even today there is mostly from America charity that contributes to aid and restructuring in places like Haiti. We don't hear too much about world aid from France or Germany but I'm sure there is some. And totally socialist countries such as

China aren't about charity.

It seems that only where people have the protection of their individual wealth as sacrosanct is there any great individual contribution to charity. I don't know the rest of the world, for the most part, expects their government to do something since it provides so much to them and have little idea about individual responsibility.

I know I don't give spare change to people on the street because I think there are civic, provincial and federal programs to help them and soon as the government stops being responsible for the problem and just ignores it then maybe the people, including myself will have to do something personally. Not just pay my taxes and consider that my part.

No, but you're saying it's a majority; and you're offering it as a certainty, which it is not.

According to some polls. The vote for Walker is the only gauge that counts right now. He will be soundly trounced in the next election if he is unpopular then.

Electoral politics aren't generally so cut and dried.

But whoever wins has won by a majority. Unless.....you think it was fixed??? Then we enter into the realm of conspiracy theory.

[Yukon Jack]

The unions want nothing but your money, so they can give it to the party you don't support.

Those who are stupid need the union. Those who can speak for themselves, don't.

Have you ever wondered why Oshawa more often than not votes Conservative?

Edited February 28, 2011 by Yukon Jack

[jbg]

One need only look to the US Senate for examples of obstructionism. The Republicans have refined that to an art form.

There's a huge difference between taking advantage of a procedural rule that in effect boosts the requirement for passage of a bill from 50 + 1 (could be the V.P.) to 60 without the V.P., and hiding in another state.

[Pliny]

So let me get this straight. There shouldn't be public sector unions, unless there's a need for public sector unions, then public workers should form them?

You didn't even try to get it straight. Not that getting it straight would be in your interest.

There should not be public sector unions as we understand what unions are today. Perhaps Jimmy Carter had it right with the Civil Liberties act of 78. Federal employees do not have the right to bargain on wages and benefits. Even Jimmy Carter and FDR, true lib-left do gooders, recognized the inherent conflict of interest in public sector unions not having those bargaining rights.

As to "political advantage", how can taking on the government for any reason not be inherently political?

It can't.

It isn't "taking on the government" that is the problem. It is government appealing to Unions for their votes by promising benefits and entitlements and then making political contributions to that politicians and "suggesting" to union mmebers who most supports their interests that is the problem.

[punked]

You didn't even try to get it straight. Not that getting it straight would be in your interest.

There should not be public sector unions as we understand what unions are today. Perhaps Jimmy Carter had it right with the Civil Liberties act of 78. Federal employees do not have the right to bargain on wages and benefits. Even Jimmy Carter and FDR, true lib-left do gooders, recognized the inherent conflict of interest in public sector unions not having those bargaining rights.

I don't think there was a Civil Liberties act in 78 and if there was I don't think it had anything to do with unions.

There was a Civil Service Reform Act in 78 is that what you are talking about? Regardless it really doesn't do anything you say it does. As far as I know it has nothing in it about bargaining rights and was about accountability and protection for Federal workers.

[ToadBrother]

You didn't even try to get it straight. Not that getting it straight would be in your interest.

There should not be public sector unions as we understand what unions are today. Perhaps Jimmy Carter had it right with the Civil Liberties act of 78. Federal employees do not have the right to bargain on wages and benefits. Even Jimmy Carter and FDR, true lib-left do gooders, recognized the inherent conflict of interest in public sector unions not having those bargaining rights.

How is it a conflict of interest? They are workers, they provide a service? And what if a government does become abusive to employees? Why are public sector employees to be rendered impotent while their private sector counterparts retain the rights to unionizing?

It can't.

It isn't "taking on the government" that is the problem. It is government appealing to Unions for their votes by promising benefits and entitlements and then making political contributions to that politicians and "suggesting" to union mmebers who most supports their interests that is the problem.

I see, so you are, in general, against a specific group trying to influence politicians through contributions. Do you feel the same way about corporations, or any interest group?

What you're basically arguing is that public service workers have no particular employment rights or protections, they not be allowed to petition the government. In essence you argue for a special class of citizen who has less rights than another class.

[pinko]

There's a huge difference between taking advantage of a procedural rule that in effect boosts the requirement for passage of a bill from 50 + 1 (could be the V.P.) to 60 without the V.P., and hiding in another state.

How so, Jim? People in your country have mobility rights and that includes these senators. This is simply a procedural tactic designed to frustrate the attempt to ram this legislation through by the Republican majority.

[pinko]

You didn't even try to get it straight. Not that getting it straight would be in your interest.

There should not be public sector unions as we understand what unions are today. Perhaps Jimmy Carter had it right with the Civil Liberties act of 78. Federal employees do not have the right to bargain on wages and benefits. Even Jimmy Carter and FDR, true lib-left do gooders, recognized the inherent conflict of interest in public sector unions not having those bargaining rights.

It can't.

It isn't "taking on the government" that is the problem. It is government appealing to Unions for their votes by promising benefits and entitlements and then making political contributions to that politicians and "suggesting" to union mmebers who most supports their interests that is the problem.

Would you please post or link to the specific text of this so called Civil Liberties Act of 1978. There appears to be some question with respect to the existence of such a piece of legislation as you have purported it to be.