Union Busting in Wisconsin

[BubberMiley]

Why you chose to go off on such silly ass tangents only you understand.

What tangent? I just questioned the data you were trying to pass off as relevant.

I'm not the one going on about how much money I make spending 20 hours a day on the Internet.

Nothing more sad than an anonymous person trying to impress people with their credentials.

They don't even understand how "anonymous" works.

Edited February 25, 2011 by BubberMiley

[Scotty]

Well let's see...using that kind of logic:

Number of MLW thread pages for Libya = 5

Number of MLW thread pages for Union Busting = 81

Now I wonder why union busting would get so much more attention compared to those poor set upon Libyans?

Well, some of us are in unions. And some of us care about the well-being of our society. And then some of us are brainwashed into believing that anything that is good for business is good for ordinary people.

[Scotty]

They should offer its employees the benefits they can actually afford.

Then maybe people should vote for people who can accurately judge what they can afford. Because it seems a lot of governments are running up huge deficits - very little of which has anything to do with public service wage and benefits.

If Toyota couldn't afford them, they wouldn't be offering them.

So you're saying employees of the state cannot rely on the state having any idea what it can afford? So who should they negotiate with? Or should employees of the state just work for whatever the state feels like paying them? But what if the state still doesn't understand what it can afford and runs into a deficit? Should the employees then slit their wrists, or what? I'm trying to understand what you think state employees ought to do. Which goes back to my question - should the public service employer only offer its employees really crappy wages and no benefits?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, some of us are in unions. And some of us care about the well-being of our society. And then some of us are brainwashed into believing that anything that is good for business is good for ordinary people.

Errr.....OK, but Wisconsin is hardly "your society". Do you like cheese too?

[Scotty]

It is impressive for those who saw the gains. These are inflation adjusted median incomes, so some did better, others not so good. Nobody ever said gains would trickle down evenly to ALL the proletariat.

So the families which had incomes of a million a year saw their incomes rise nicely. Those whose incomes was about $40k - eh, not so much.

[Shady]

Well, some of us are in unions. And some of us care about the well-being of our society.

If you truely care about the well-being of society, you'll work to support eliminating public sector collective bargaining. Because continually raising taxes on people that make less, in order to fund ever increasing public sector pay, benefits and pensions is unfair and immoral.

Then maybe people should vote for people who can accurately judge what they can afford.

Looks like they finally have in Wisconsin.

Because it seems a lot of governments are running up huge deficits - very little of which has anything to do with public service wage and benefits.

No, actually on the state and local levels, much of it has to do with public service wage, benefits and pensions.

So you're saying employees of the state cannot rely on the state having any idea what it can afford?

Yes, exactly. Because the system is flawed. Not only do public sector unions not operate under economic reality everybody else does, but if they don't like what's negotiated, they can get what they want directly from the legislature. And the system as it is, makes the easier course of action for politicians to give them what they want in exchange for their support during elections. Which is one of several reasons FDR was against public sector unions having collective bargaining.

So who should they negotiate with? Or should employees of the state just work for whatever the state feels like paying them?

They should earn the average of a comparable private sector job and benefits. And their pension should work the same way everybody elses does. You get out what you put in. What a novel concept. No more relying on taxpayers to provide for their retirement.

[bush_cheney2004]

So the families which had incomes of a million a year saw their incomes rise nicely. Those whose incomes was about $40k - eh, not so much.

Many others in between too...I don't why you are ignoring the obvious. Is this Screw Rich People Month?

[BubberMiley]

Many others in between too...

Nope. Not so much.

[Jonsa]

Quite to the contrary...I enjoy watching how the toxic fumes send you into a far greater panic than I. You see, our economy is not so dependent on exports to any single nation...yours is. The cognitive abilities angle is quite mistaken, as you will find me to be very much up to the task.

Yuk Yuk. I beleive we are talking about your economy. thank you for once again demonstrating a congnitive disfunction, unable to relate to the topic at a hand and ready for the nonsequitar at the drop of your pants. You really should see somebody about that.

Pretty much...folks like you gush about anything American in just about any thread, not just US POLITICS. It's as if you can't hold a conversation without invoking America/Americans at every turn. Accordingly, I just return the favor. Seems fair to me...I am but one little 'ol American!

While you gush in your pants about critics of the US on a US politics discussion forum. Not that I would expect you to see the irony in that.

[Jonsa]

Then we shall have no more silly talk about the rich 2% as implied by others.

Well I guess having 50% of the population experiencing flat income growth over a period of 38 years isn't bad by your standards.

then again, if you followed the link you'd see that income for the 95 percentile went up 98%. Yep a classic example of the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. US GINI index shows and increasing income gap over the past 25 years, now on par with China and Mexico.

At some point something is going to have to give. You can't have that many poor pissed off Americans running around. They all have guns.

Indeed...Canadians are now #1 in that department! (see how I smoothly worked that in?)

You want to discuss the debt issues in canada, start a thread in Canadian politics. I do admit that that was smoothly done.

[WIP]

You know...

Your last point is something I think about alot...

If did'nt know better,it's almost like there is a concerted effort by the upper class to regain what they feel was "wrongfully taken from them" in the period after WW2 to about 1979...

Now,they've had to do this incrementally,hence the wage stagnation since 1980 (for a whole host of reasons legislative and global economic in scope)...

But it almost seems like there is a long term effort to take back from those the upper class has always deemed "not worthy"...

Yes, there does seem to be quite a change in attitude, and a contempt or disregard for the middle class. I remember years ago, one of my uncles from Michigan who worked at the Cadillac Plant, telling us that when he bought a cottage on the Upper Peninsula in the late 60's, in an area where many GM executives and managers owned property, that they weren't too happy about this development that saw factory workers buying summer homes in the same locations where they spent their holiday time. The executives of that era were starting to feel that factory workers were too close to them on the economic ladder, and maybe alot of what's happened over the last 30 years goes beyond merely accumulating more wealth, but also includes a desire to bring back a greater separation between the rich and everyone else.

[pinko]

If you truely care about the well-being of society, you'll work to support eliminating public sector collective bargaining. Because continually raising taxes on people that make less, in order to fund ever increasing public sector pay, benefits and pensions is unfair and immoral.

Looks like they finally have in Wisconsin.

No, actually on the state and local levels, much of it has to do with public service wage, benefits and pensions.

Yes, exactly. Because the system is flawed. Not only do public sector unions not operate under economic reality everybody else does, but if they don't like what's negotiated, they can get what they want directly from the legislature. And the system as it is, makes the easier course of action for politicians to give them what they want in exchange for their support during elections. Which is one of several reasons FDR was against public sector unions having collective bargaining.

They should earn the average of a comparable private sector job and benefits. And their pension should work the same way everybody elses does. You get out what you put in. What a novel concept. No more relying on taxpayers to provide for their retirement.

In many cases the average comparability of total compensation is well below that of the private sector relative to the public sector. When you make such sweeping statements as you have it would be helpful and perhaps more credible if you would produce examples to illustrate your point.

I certainly care for the well being of society but my prescription for change doesn't include the emasculation of public sector unions.

What your proposal appears to ignore is the connection between wealth and power and the preferential treatment provided to the likes of the uber rich.

Further to this you seem to overlook the fact that the Governor is playing off one group of workers against the other in order to jusitfy the draconian measures he intends to ram through with his Republican majority. A true leader finds a way to unite people rather than divide them.

Finally I am wondering if you can point me to a reliable source to validate your contention that FDR was against public sector unions having collective bargaining.

You need to learn to distinguish public sector employment and the conditions of employment from the entity known as the union. If you are going to opine on such topics I expect you to have a basic understanding of the subject matter.

Edited February 25, 2011 by pinko

[jefferiah]

No doubt. Maybe some cockroach spray properly applied might have been applicable. You never know when your behaviour as a scab will come back to haunt you. I would take pleasure in giving you an attitude adjustment myself if that were a suitable option.

By the way my health isn't failing.

Wow, all by yourself, or with a few more peaceful brethren?

[jefferiah]

After all in most civilized countries collective bargining and freedom of association and expression are basic human rights.

Freedom of expression and association are natural rights, but they don't include an obligation that others must pay for your expression or provide you with employment.

[pinko]

Freedom of expression and association are natural rights, but they don't include an obligation that others must pay for your expression or provide you with employment.

I am not sure where you are from but here in Canada collective bargaining rights have a constitutional foundation and that includes public sector employment.

[GWiz]

Freedom of expression and association are natural rights, but they don't include an obligation that others must pay for your expression or provide you with employment.

Seems fair...

So that means that NONE of the TAXES the public employees pay should go to the services YOU use every day either, right? So; the public employees TAXES should NOT be used to pay for any road you drive on to go to work, the fire or police services to protect you and/or your property, the schools your children attend, in short NOTHING that YOU benefit from in YOUR daily life... As I said, sounds perfectly fair to me...

Now all YOU have to do is inform the Government that YOU will in the future PAY for all those services yourself and they should no longer deduct those sums of TAXES from ANY public employees...

[pinko]

Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin Is Really About

2008, A LIBERAL Democrat was elected president. Landslide votes gave Democrats huge congressional majorities. Eight years of war and scandal and George W. Bush had stigmatized the Republican Party almost beyond redemption. A global financial crisis had discredited the disciples of free-market fundamentalism, and Americans were ready for serious change.

Or so it seemed. But two years later, Wall Street is back to earning record profits, and conservatives are triumphant. To understand why this happened, it's not enough to examine polls and tea parties and the makeup of Barack Obama's economic team. You have to understand how we fell so short, and what we rightfully should have expected from Obama's election. And you have to understand two crucial things about American politics.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline

[GWiz]

Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin Is Really About

2008, A LIBERAL Democrat was elected president. Landslide votes gave Democrats huge congressional majorities. Eight years of war and scandal and George W. Bush had stigmatized the Republican Party almost beyond redemption. A global financial crisis had discredited the disciples of free-market fundamentalism, and Americans were ready for serious change.

Or so it seemed. But two years later, Wall Street is back to earning record profits, and conservatives are triumphant. To understand why this happened, it's not enough to examine polls and tea parties and the makeup of Barack Obama's economic team. You have to understand how we fell so short, and what we rightfully should have expected from Obama's election. And you have to understand two crucial things about American politics.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline

Excellent link, I enjoyed the read... Thanks...

[Shady]

Freedom of expression and association are natural rights, but they don't include an obligation that others must pay for your expression or provide you with employment.

Spot on!

When did taking money from other people to pay for your salary, benefits and pensions become a human right?

[Shady]

In many cases the average comparability of total compensation is well below that of the private sector relative to the public sector.

Really? Which cases?

When you make such sweeping statements as you have it would be helpful and perhaps more credible if you would produce examples to illustrate your point.

Federal pay ahead of private industry

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Link

Suck on it!

I certainly care for the well being of society but my prescription for change doesn't include the emasculation of public sector unions.

Either does mine. Asking people to take the same level of pension they pay into isn't emasculating anyone. Asking people to make an average salary of comparable private sector jobs, of whom fund their salary isn't emasculating anyone.

What your proposal appears to ignore is the connection between wealth and power and the preferential treatment provided to the likes of the uber rich.

Nope. My concern is for John Q Taxpayer. Who sees their property taxes and state and local taxes increase at significant rates year after year. All to fund people sheltered from economic reality, making more money than them, and recieving better benefits and pension levels they don't pay into. My concern is about fairness.

Further to this you seem to overlook the fact that the Governor is playing off one group of workers against the other in order to jusitfy the draconian measures he intends to ram through with his Republican majority. A true leader finds a way to unite people rather than divide them.

Oh I agree. These measures should be implemented toward all public sector employees. But I disagree that they're draconian. Especially when you look at what's being proposed. Paying half as much for full health benefits as private sector workers is hardly draconian. And you diminish the term draconian when you use it in such a cavalier manner.

Finally I am wondering if you can point me to a reliable source to validate your contention that FDR was against public sector unions having collective bargaining.

You have an annoying habit of asking people to repost information they've already posted. I'm doing this one more time. And that's it. Waste somebody else's time.

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

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.

Link

"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people." - FDR

Suck on it!

[Michael Hardner]

When did taking money from other people to pay for your salary, benefits and pensions become a human right?

Where else does your salary come from, if not other people ?

The point is that the system can and should work to bring salaries and benefits in line with what is affordable, but only if people use the system. That means politicians have to be realistic in their financial planning, and the dialogue has to be based in reality to some degree.

I say 'to some degree' because the system can and does work on autopilot to a point. But if reality is neglected then the gap between reality and rhetoric becomes so wide that a problem results.

What doesn't make sense is to destroy the system outright because politicians haven't been using it properly. That amounts to rewarding bad government and making working people give up their rights - yes, rights - to pay for others' mistakes.

The Republicans are no slouches at getting up on the stump and launching simplified rhetoric, I think. So they have to take responsibility for what has happened and not take the easy route. The rhetoric on the Democratic side of this issue is very simple: this is an attack on established rights. And they're correct.

[Michael Hardner]

Suck on it!

Good for you for providing numbers. Does anybody have numbers for Wisconsin now ?

Two additional points:

This is the biggest perk, and the gap is quite startling:

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Secondly I thought of this point, and it's reflected in the article too:

Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman Sedelta Verble, says higher pay also reflects the longevity and older age of federal workers.

It's hard for young people to get into the civil service. They tend to stay there.

Nope. My concern is for John Q Taxpayer. Who sees their property taxes and state and local taxes increase at significant rates year after year. All to fund people sheltered from economic reality, making more money than them, and recieving better benefits and pension levels they don't pay into. My concern is about fairness.

Not "all to fund". Now you're slipping into the world of rhetoric again. The savings from the action in Wisconsin is supposed to save $150M over two years, right ? (Maybe it's per year) Anyway, the shortfall is $1B.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Michael Hardner

[Pliny]

Plutocracy. Yes, it's really out of control.

Take a look at the statistics that the article is based upon.

The Rich get richer!

Of course if it weren't for big government and unions we wouldn't have anywhere near the standard of living we enjoy. We live in such great times. But the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Arguing with the left who only use economics to point to disparities in their wealth and have no understanding of economics beyond that is an interesting exercise in futility.

The most important thing in presenting the argument that the rich are getting richer is the fact that they have tons of money and the graphs all show the great disparity. All of our wealth, the rich and the poor is measured money. Well, "money" has of course become merely an entry on a balance sheet and is only a measure, a deceiving measure of course because it doesn't relate so easily to purchasing power.

If we want to see what Unions and government have bought us we need to look at our standard of living. We have social security, public health care, single payer insurance in Canada and medicare and medicaid as well as the child health care plan in the States, welfare, all these things to look after the poor and as a safety net. We must be thankful for all of this ans give credit where credit is due. We have job security, benefits and entitlements that would never have been achieved if left to private enterprise and a free market.

The taxpayer is paying for this. It is very expensive. And the left wonders why they seem to be getting poorer. Not only is the dollar constantly being inflated and losing purchasing power but more and more is necessary to pay for all those expensive entitlements. That leaves you with less purchasing power but maybe more "money" in your pocket so you feel poorer, and you indeed are getting poorer.

But let's attack the rich and take some more from them, more of their entry on their balance sheet. How does that help? It doesn't really. Your standard of living won't improve a wit because the measurement of wealth is no longer the same thing as wealth. The numbers going up for the rich mean nothing but the fact that your dollar is becoming less and less valuable. Comparing the amount of "money" the rich have and the amount of money the average citizen has is very misleading.

The article is about a plutocracy. Well, are the Unions nothing then? Have they achieved nothing? Have the citizens not been able to vote themselves welfare and health care for the most needy and a public education, social security, double time on holidays, a 40 hour work week? All those things? Well, they cost a portion of the economy to provide and that portion must be considered part of your wealth not just your annual income measured in "money". Do you wonder why you seem to be getting poorer? All your money is going to buy big government, provide for them, pay for the services they provide. so it isn't the money in your pocket that needs to be measured and compared, it is your standard of living. The money is only a means of accounting. It is not even a true measure since in different times it's purchasing power varies and depending upon your positioning in the lineup to receive your entry on your bank account balance you could receive less benefit than others. But that's all to do with economics and, for the left, beyond the fact that "money" statistics show the rich get richer and the poor get poorer there is nothing to understand.

Looking at those statistics, I would be more concerned that my money was becoming less and less valuable not that there was a disparity. There always will be a disparity, unless you live in the totalitarian socialist utopia that makes all individuals but those enforcing the State equal.

Have a glorious day!

Edited February 25, 2011 by Pliny

[pinko]

"Do you wonder why you seem to be getting poorer?"

I am of the view that I am not getting poorer. Maybe you and others who resort to utilizing credit need to get a handle on your spending habits.

Your most recent post (tome) tacitly accepts the role unions have played in elevating the standard of living in both Canada and the USA. Your view of the causes of inflation are somewhat simplistic and certainly out of touch with contemporary economics.

Your prescription for change represents a race to the bottom with the middle class been decimated amd more people being thrown into the streets.

Every day above ground is a good day for me.

Edited February 25, 2011 by pinko

[Scotty]

They should earn the average of a comparable private sector job and benefits. And their pension should work the same way everybody elses does. You get out what you put in. What a novel concept. No more relying on taxpayers to provide for their retirement.

I don't know about Wisconsin, but are you aware many public service jobs in Canada pay less than their private sector counterparts? For example, you might have a deputy minister running a huge multi-billion dollar department with tens of thousands of employees being paid $200k per year. Under your scheme, he would have to be paid $5-25 million per year. And senior financial people would have to be up for million dollar bonuses. Are you okay with that?