Union Busting in Wisconsin

[GWiz]

Warning: Please consult your ironist before reading the last line of the previous post.

Good'un...

[blueblood]

You and Pinko are so tiresome in your querying each others' backgrounds, getting ready to argue from authority. It's like having to sit through the 'Coming Soon' promos before seeing a movie my wife made me see with her.

Arguing from authority basically says "My argument is better than yours because I have THIS attribute." But if your argument can't be made on its own merits, then it's usually a bad argument.

If you have more information, or a background or expertise in an area - they link to it and bring the knowledge here. There are cases where you can defer to a personal experience, but that shouldn't be the foundation for a whole argument.

I've been on MLW for 8 years so I know BETTER THAN YOU how to discuss things on MLW so THERE !

I can see your frustration and I empathize. I believe this particular debate I have to argue on personal experience. On one side we have some people who argue on the labor side from personal experience. On the other there is myself who is a small business owner who gives the other and sometimes provocative position. It gives you the 360 degree view that you like.

if someone thinks I'm bluffing, I will respond in kind.

[Michael Hardner]

I believe this particular debate I have to argue on personal experience. On one side we have some people who argue on the labor side from personal experience. On the other there is myself who is a small business owner who gives the other and sometimes provocative position. It gives you the 360 degree view that you like.

There's nothing wrong with including personal experience in your arguments - after all this is what we do in life. We're not robots.

But at the same time, we're human and therefore designed to prefer narratives (stories) over raw data. So there's a bit of a trap there: we could argue from the gut too often and too much, and that could cause us to miss some important facts.

It's good to use both head and heart in these discussions: I use the heart to get me interested/angry/concerned and to energize me towards action, then I use the head to learn more and formulate a reasoned opinion.

[blueblood]

No..

Gerrard answered all of O'Learys moronic accusations and made O'Leary look like the Vulture Capitalist fool that he is!

What he got was a little chin music and he did'nt like it...

The final denoument was watching Gerrard ask O'Leary if he wants Canadian workers to live like Brazilian workers,and the dopey and clueless look that was left on your hero's face because he would have been forced to answer with an obfuscating affirmative...

The obfusacting affirmative the rest of your diatribe has given me to my statement about the race to the bottom...

And from where I'm standing gerrard got smoked because uncle kevin made him snap. If you think kevin not stooping down to gerrard's level is winning than have at it.

Just as I view unions are a race to the boTtom. How would gerrard feel about ripping off retired people who invest in the company because he wants to raid the retained earnings? How would the teachers union feel if they caused a tax increase and service cuts to pay for their demands which are these days unaffordable? It cuts both ways...

Everybody understands that people better off are a good thing. However, from what I see unions and their supporters aren't seeing the forest for the trees, they're thinking small picture instead of big picture. What this says is that there is a fundamental problem in the education system and that steps should be taken to remedy that.

[Pliny]

Absolutely...

Capitalism is about the consolidation of economic power...

The Labour Movement stands as a (correct) check on that power...It's supposed to!

And if it's not about money being the physical manifestation of that power and control dynamic,please look up wage and benefit disparities in RTW states as opposed to Free Collective Bargaining states...

Isn't the argument - the whole scenario in Wisconsin - based upon wage and benefit disparities between RTW and Free collective bargaining States? The cost of labour in the public service in the free collective bargaining states is way too costly for the State.

It is competition that will check economic power in Capitalism not the Labour Movement. The labour movement contributes to a consolidation of economic power by closing down and discouraging competition with excessive labour costs to new enterprises or smaller companies that can't sustain themselves due to the cost of labour or losing employees to large corporations and companies that can afford the higher cost.

In this respect labour and corporations symbiotically kill competition. Of course, like a virus, Unions eventually kill the host, villifying the corporation in harsher economic times for any efforts to control it's labour costs. It becomes the evil corporation with the greedy venture capitalist.

I will say in the defence of labour that the degradation of "money", it's debasement, has meant that distortions in the market are not easily seen as the cause of most labour problems.

Then check out the likelihood of severe injury and death in the workplace in those RTW states as opposed to Free Collective Bargaining states...

I'm certain there are a few good labour sites that have religiously compiled those statistics for use. Do they have statistics on amount of sick days and levels of stress in both as well. It seems to be so stressful in Union jobs these days, doesn't it? Although, it can be exiciting like it is in Wisconsin currently. I see an epidemic of PTSD coming on among teachers.

Your last statement proves you have little,to no grasp at all,as it relates to labour legislation..

My suggestion is that you look up the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 as it relates to the legality of Closed Shop...

From wikipedia re Taft-Hartley:

The term Taft-Hartley has a special meaning in the entertainment industry. Specifically, for film and television actors, an actor not in the union who becomes a "principal performer" (says a line) is immediately eligible to join the Screen Actors Guild and is covered under the SAG contract with the production company for 30 days, at which point he or she must either join SAG or cease working on any union productions; this same provision applies to so-called "background actors" (extras) who work on a SAG covered production for 3 or more days. Once joining the union, the actor may not work on any non-union production, per the terms of the bylaws. This allows SAG to get around the rules forbidding closed shops by providing a mechanism for new members to join the union.

Then look up "Union Shop" provisions...

From "Union Shop" on wikipedia:

A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs.

Then look up "Agency Shop" provisions...

Basically a means for Unions to control hiring - another term for "hiring halls" I suppose.

Then look up "Open Shop" and "Right to Work" legislation...

The "Free Ride" label applies to RTW legislation where a non dues paying employee is still legally entitled to representation...So much so that that non dues paying employee can legally sue the union local for lack of representation!!

Free ride hardly happens. Most jurisdictions require some form of payment but if an employee really objects he can make a donation to a charity in the amount of the ususal union fees.

Seeing as you know about these things,could you elucidate for us all the cost of one (1) Grievance Hearing??

(By the way,that would be the 3rd step if the 3 step dispute resolution process...But you knew this,right?)

How much does a Binding Arbitration hearing cost???

(Here's a hint...It's pretty pricey!!!)

Yeah, pricy is right... see any relation to corporations shyness about unionized labour?

In Ontario,we have a quasi "Union Shop" provision that allows members to have their dues go to charity if they have an objection to representation.However,this is done under the understanding that if they require representation against the employer,they are on their own!

The union local is not on the hook for it at all!!!

That's the essential difference between RTW and "Union Shop/Agency Shop" provisions...RTW is designed to break the financial backs of individual union locals through allowing "Free Ride" members...

"Union Shop" and "Agency Shop",which we find in Free Collective Bargaining states and most provinces in Canada,allows for an individual to "opt out" and designate his/her dues to the charity of their choice,but they are not entitled to representation...

They are entitled to be frowned upon though. Keep those boots polished, Jack!

[Michael Hardner]

It is competition that will check economic power in Capitalism not the Labour Movement. The labour movement contributes to a consolidation of economic power by closing down and discouraging competition with excessive labour costs to new enterprises or smaller companies that can't sustain themselves due to the cost of labour or losing employees to large corporations and companies that can afford the higher cost.

And large firms don't do this ? The economic power of the companies needs to be kept in check, and a natural check on that is the numbers of workers -their political power, and labour combines that they create.

Without that, is pitifully simple for those with economic power to divide and conquer.

[blueblood]

And large firms don't do this ? The economic power of the companies needs to be kept in check, and a natural check on that is the numbers of workers -their political power, and labour combines that they create.

Without that, is pitifully simple for those with economic power to divide and conquer.

You are forgeting that those companies are very rarely privately owned. Shareholders are the owners and there has to be consensus amongst the majority of shares. That's a check. Also the market is a check, if demand is high enough and the returns are there, there results bitter competition.

If the labor becomes too great an expense, the firm relocates somewhere more profitable because of the obligation the company has to provide returns to shareholders.

Imo, labour is a part of the market that keeps companies in check, not the check. If the company doesn't fairly compensate workers, the bottom line suffers, and that fair compensation is the optimum balance between employee and employer satisfaction. Fair compensation is a two way street, failure to see this results in lost productivity, revenues, and jobs.

[Pliny]

And large firms don't do this ? The economic power of the companies needs to be kept in check, and a natural check on that is the numbers of workers -their political power, and labour combines that they create.

Without that, is pitifully simple for those with economic power to divide and conquer.

Union Labour contributes to closing doors on competition. Being competitive is what the market is about. Certainly corporations or businesses like to see their competition disappear. It's a bonus when they have help from labour and government. Limiting legitimate competition in any respect through legislation results in a loss overall and at best a temporary benefit to some at the expense of others.

A public union, of course, has no competition and results in wages and benefits far and above that of the private sector in a competitive market. Unions look at this as great strides in the "rights" of workers. As I said, it's great in the short term for a few at the expense of others, by expense I mean the availability of jobs and the increased cost of a product or service, but eventually those few lose as well when their jobs disappear because the employer can no longer afford them.

Just as an addition, competition and disappearing companies mean that jobs are not guaranteed in the private market. Unionis foster an attitutde of emtitlement and dependency that makes employees less flexible and less able to adjust to a constantly changing market.

The disappearing job is perhaps what Unions are trying to prevent but they exist essentially because government allowed workers to be exploited and abused a different thing than an ever-evolving market which cannot guarantee jobs in the long term.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

You are forgeting that those companies are very rarely privately owned. Shareholders are the owners and there has to be consensus amongst the majority of shares. That's a check. Also the market is a check, if demand is high enough and the returns are there, there results bitter competition.

The shareholders are focused on return on investment, though. And there is still more economic power with the employers, no matter how ownership is broken down. We have already seen how a small minority of Americans control most of the wealth.

If the labor becomes too great an expense, the firm relocates somewhere more profitable because of the obligation the company has to provide returns to shareholders.

That's not always true. They could simply pass the costs on. They could reduce expenses elsewhere. There are other options.

Imo, labour is a part of the market that keeps companies in check, not the check. If the company doesn't fairly compensate workers, the bottom line suffers, and that fair compensation is the optimum balance between employee and employer satisfaction. Fair compensation is a two way street, failure to see this results in lost productivity, revenues, and jobs.

"Fair" in this context means being able to find labour at a certain cost, nothing more. The push will always be for companies to lower costs as much as possible.

[Michael Hardner]

A public union, of course, has no competition and results in wages and benefits far and above that of the private sector in a competitive market.

I contest that this situation happens in all cases.

The disappearing job is perhaps what Unions are trying to prevent but they exist essentially because government allowed workers to be exploited and abused a different thing than an ever-evolving market which cannot guarantee jobs in the long term.

And at some point, there will almost no necessary jobs. Productivity gains result in more wealth overall, and less employment. How should the economy adapt to this ? Government needs to ensure that general economic gains are shared.

[Pliny]

Imo, labour is a part of the market that keeps companies in check, not the check. If the company doesn't fairly compensate workers, the bottom line suffers, and that fair compensation is the optimum balance between employee and employer satisfaction. Fair compensation is a two way street, failure to see this results in lost productivity, revenues, and jobs.

Precisely. Unions talk pretty loosely about exploitation and abuse and if there were as much as they claim we would have gone communist a long time ago and never have to entertain Unions in the least. Unions only exist because the markets do. When markets are gone, and a socialist state established, Unions will be gone too. Something for them to think about as they close down market competition.

[pinko]

You do realize that the current president is a Democrat right ?

Last 40 years = 16 years Democratic president, 24 years Republican President

Last 20 years = 12 years Democratic president, 8 years Republican President

I don't see a move to one party there.

I follow American politics quite closely so yes I am well aware of that fact. The Democrats act like Republican lite in my view.

Edited March 3, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

You and Pinko are so tiresome in your querying each others' backgrounds, getting ready to argue from authority. It's like having to sit through the 'Coming Soon' promos before seeing a movie my wife made me see with her.

Arguing from authority basically says "My argument is better than yours because I have THIS attribute." But if your argument can't be made on its own merits, then it's usually a bad argument.

If you have more information, or a background or expertise in an area - they link to it and bring the knowledge here. There are cases where you can defer to a personal experience, but that shouldn't be the foundation for a whole argument.

I've been on MLW for 8 years so I know BETTER THAN YOU how to discuss things on MLW so THERE !

It would seem to me the question I asked the gentleman was a reasonable one. You may have been here eight years and that is fine but I haven't. The gentleman should answer my question and then we can move on.

[Shady]

[punked]

You do know most private school teachers are paid less because they don't have teaching degrees right? No you don't? Ok well now you do so lets put that to rest.

[pinko]

When shady produces the captioned pictures he creates a false impression of those individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. The Huffington Post reported the following:

MADISON, Wis. — About 50 pro-union protesters peacefully left the state Capitol late Thursday after a judge ruled they could no longer spend the night to show their opposition to Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to eliminate nearly all collective bargaining rights for public workers.

The judge also ruled the state had violated the public's free speech and assembly rights by restricting access to the building.

The protesters demanded to see a written copy of the order before they would go. University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Chief Susan Riseling read the order to the crowd, eliciting cheers when she read the judge's determination that the state had unconstitutionally restricted access to the building.

"We won this battle," said former Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager, who represented unions that had challenged the state's decision to limit building access. But she also told the demonstrators they needed to leave.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/judge-orders-protesters-removed-wisconsin-capitol_n_831167.html?om_rid=NsfrMk&om_mid=_BNcOmBB8Zc-Pff

It seems to me these people have followed the law contrary to the false impression created by others here.

[WIP]

A CEO, a tea party demonstrator, and a union protester, sat down at a table in a local diner. On the table was a box full of a dozen cookies. The CEO immediately reached in with both hands and took out 11 cookies. Then, he turned to the tea party demonstrator beside him and whispered:"you better keep your eye on this union guy, or he'll try to take half of your cookie."

[bloodyminded]

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.

And his winning or losing could well have almost nothing to do with the issue under discussion here.

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

Hell, no. I was suggesting no such thing.

And frankly, my statement--that "electoal politics are rarely so cut and dried"--carries no conspiratorial connotations at all.

I'm saying that just because a candidate mentiosn something in his campaign, we can't deduce that this one thing was not only what got him or her elected, but is effectively a "poll" on the popularity of the issue. It's simply not that simple.

for example, in the 2004 election, the majority of Bush supporters, of Bush voters, believed that he was supportive of the Kyoto protocols. (He wasn't.) By your logic, this would demand that Bush's voters elected him for that reason...which I see no evidence for at all.

[punked]

HAHAHAHA he is Shady's new Savor at work. Apparently Scott Walker in his old job Ginned but a budget short fall so he could bust the Security union in his old country. The problem with that? A court just ruled Scott Walker was lying at the time and ordered that union all rehired. Now the county is forced to pay all the union workers AND is still on the hook for the contract Walker pushed through. They are now paying double because Scott Walker has rocks for brains. No wonder people want him recalled and he would at this time Lose to the Dem he ran against.

[sharkman]

A different judge would bring a different result. *shrug*

I find it quite fascinating how those on the left in this forum and those on the right always, and I mean always, are on their respective sides no matter what the issue is. Unions? check. I'm a fairly new union member (2 years) but I still think the members in this case should be bitch slapped. Weird.

[Pogo]

The benefits that public sector employees receive are so unimaginably large that tax payers won't be able to pay them off in the future. The union will end up causing its own demise by its ludicrous policy regarding these unsustainable benefits that will be unpayable in the future. And guess who's going to lose out, the taxpayers and the public sector employees; not the public sector unions.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Pogo

[punked]

The benefits that public sector employees receive are so unimaginably large that tax payers won't be able to pay them off in the future. The union will end up causing its own demise by its ludicrous policy regarding these unsustainable benefits that will be unpayable in the future. And guess who's going to lose out, the taxpayers and the public sector employees; not the public sector unions.

Ummmmm you do know the Union has agreed to all governments demands on benefits and financing right? No you didn't because you clearly know nothing about the situation I can tell from your talking points and stupid blanket statements.

[Pogo]

Ummmmm you do know the Union has agreed to all governments demands on benefits and financing right? No you didn't because you clearly know nothing about the situation I can tell from your talking points and stupid blanket statements.

I do know this and I am no way arguing it. You completely failed to address my implications. The whole issue with collective bargaining is that as Walker leaves, the unions will collectively bargain for themselves to be right back where they were before this whole debate.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Pogo

[Michael Hardner]

Economic Policy Institute study on public salaries

Interesting survey here. You can argue that this is a liberal-academic group, which is true enough, but the explanation of how the survey was put together is solid.

Their thesis is that if you compare salaries based on organization size and education requirements, public salaries (with benefits factored in) are lower than private industry.

[pinko]

Pogo:

"The whole issue with collective bargaining is that as Walker leaves, the unions will collectively bargain for themselves to be right back where they were before this whole debate."

I am wondering if you would elaborate further on this statement. As I understand the issue in Wisconsin Governor Walker wishes to emasculate the unions. If this is the case then I would be interested in how you would expect the unions to be right back where they were before these measure were taken by the Governor.

Edited March 5, 2011 by pinko