Union Busting in Wisconsin

[Shady]

The quote was out of context; here is the letter, read it for yourself.

How about this quote?

"Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

[Scotty]

I would call them...Americans, and leave your opinion at the border.

It is not an opinion, it is a description used to differentiate the vast majority of Americans from the wealthy elites who own your country.

Taxes matter to individuals and small business owners. Yes, even the great unwashed masses care about what happens to marginal rates, interest rates, tax credits/deductions, and property taxes, just like the rich folks. Sticking it to the man is only a slogan...I never got a job from a poor person.

This is a collection of cliches which don't seem to lend themselves to a coherent opinion.

It's not like anyone is saying "eat the rich" or planning on robbing them of all their money. I am simply offended by the notion of billionaires actively engaged in efforts at screwing over masses of little people in hopes of increasing their already vast fortunes by a tiny percentage.

You guys have such an attachment to your guns and keep claiming how it's going to defend you against the depredations of government, only your government is now controlled by the wealthy - who have convinced you that screwing you over is good for America! No welfare! No health care! No pensions! No benefits! No vacations! Work harder! No, no raises for you! That's bad for America!

All so your government can funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into corporations and stick you with the bill.

You know, in other countries, the big shots who ran banks and brokerage houses into the ground in order to increase their yearly bonuses would have been arrested, in others they'd have been shot. In America, they don't even lose their ill-gotten gains. Instead, your government makes a public example of a handful of them, then refunds all the money they cost their corporations, and sticks you with the bill.

The "wealthy elites" founded the country too, so is that a bad thing?

And those wealthy elites decided at the outset that only "men of property" should be able to vote. It appears the elites of today have the same belief in their right to decide all issues on behalf of everyone else.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Scotty

[BubberMiley]

It has in some jurisdictions. But I agree, it should apply to them as well. Although some argue that because they risk their lives on a daily basis, they should be treated differently. I don't necessarily agree with that though.

It's nice to see you admit that this is just the first step in a plan to eliminate the right to collectively bargain altogether.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is not an opinion, it is a description used to differentiate the vast majority of Americans from the wealthy elites who own your country.

No...you need such a differentiation for a political and ideological purpose. There is no finite demarcation in American society.

This is a collection of cliches which don't seem to lend themselves to a coherent opinion.

I guess you think the unwashed Americans survive on minimum wage and food stamps?

It's not like anyone is saying "eat the rich" or planning on robbing them of all their money. I am simply offended by the notion of billionaires actively engaged in efforts at screwing over masses of little people in hopes of increasing their already vast fortunes by a tiny percentage.

So what? Who the hell cares whether you are "offended" by Americans being...American. Should Americans offer such an opinion on how the spoils are divided in Canada? I bet there are even some "wealthy people" there too.

You guys have such an attachment to your guns and keep claiming how it's going to defend you against the depredations of government, only your government is now controlled by the wealthy - who have convinced you that screwing you over is good for America! No welfare! No health care! No pensions! No benefits! No vacations! Work harder! No, no raises for you! That's bad for America!

You obviously have a personal value system that is not consistent with what another nation does. Tough titty.

All so your government can funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into corporations and stick you with the bill.

Fine by me...I am the bill.

You know, in other countries, the big shots who ran banks and brokerage houses into the ground in order to increase their yearly bonuses would have been arrested, in others they'd have been shot. In America, they don't even lose their ill-gotten gains. Instead, your government makes a public example of a handful of them, then refunds all the money they cost their corporations, and sticks you with the bill.

Yes...and it worked out quite well. Even for some Canadian banks at the American troft.

And those wealthy elites decided at the outset that only "men of property" should be able to vote. It appears the elites of today have the same belief in their right to decide all issues on behalf of everyone else.

No, it is quite apparent that you want this privilege from Canada. What an odd rant.

[Bitsy]

How about this quote?

"Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

And this is the paragraph that preceded the quote.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

It is very clear that he was opposed to public unions striking but not to public unions organizing.

[Scotty]

No...you need such a differentiation for a political and ideological purpose. There is no finite demarcation in American society.

There might not be an absolute demarcation point but one can certainly use statistically based quartiles to make this differentiation.

I guess you think the unwashed Americans survive on minimum wage and food stamps?

Not yet. But that appears to be the ultimate aim of people like Koch - minus the food stamps.

So what? Who the hell cares whether you are "offended" by Americans being...American. Should Americans offer such an opinion on how the spoils are divided in Canada?

You offer your opinion on Canadian issues on an hourly basis.

You obviously have a personal value system that is not consistent with what another nation does.

If you mean my personal value system doesn't extend to being walked over by people, you're quite correct. Nor do I really understand people who not only don't mind being stepped on, but are proud of being stepped on, and are indignant anyone else would find an issue with that.

[bush_cheney2004]

There might not be an absolute demarcation point but one can certainly use statistically based quartiles to make this differentiation.

I guess you can make up whatever you want...it's your class warfare game.

Not yet. But that appears to be the ultimate aim of people like Koch - minus the food stamps.

Somebody has to refine all that dirty tarsands oil.

You offer your opinion on Canadian issues on an hourly basis.

But I don't classify the serfs and the kings. What do you think "rich people" do in Canada? Should I be "offended"?

If you mean my personal value system doesn't extend to being walked over by people, you're quite correct. Nor do I really understand people who not only don't mind being stepped on, but are proud of being stepped on, and are indignant anyone else would find an issue with that.

It doesn't really matter in the end....the Americans will decide what is to be. You seem to have a problem with that. Why?

Edited February 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[MapleLeafAlliance]

Unions protect inept workers, and forces employers to pay people more than their labour might otherwise be worth.

[Michael Hardner]

Unions protect inept workers, and forces employers to pay people more than their labour might otherwise be worth.

You really should read all pages of this thread before posting on here.

[BubberMiley]

You really should read all pages of this thread before posting on here.

There's 59 pages! That's why you're the top candidate for "facilitator." You're the only one willing to actually read this drivel.

[GWiz]

There's 59 pages! That's why you're the top candidate for "facilitator." You're the only one willing to actually read this drivel.

Nope, not the only one, I read whole threads too, it's a great way to become informed (and often entertained) instead of remaining ignorant about what's going on...

[BubberMiley]

There's very rarely any real information in any of these threads.

But I can't help thinking the hedgefund managers must not believe their good fortune that, after destroying everyone's pensions, people are blaming unions for negotiating them.

[Shady]

It's nice to see you admit that this is just the first step in a plan to eliminate the right to collectively bargain altogether.

Nobody is elminating the right to collectively bargain altogether. Even in the Wisconsin situation, they'd still keep the right to bargain related to salary. But in general, I admit. I don't believe public unions should have collective bargaining priviledges.

[Shady]

It is very clear that he was opposed to public unions striking but not to public unions organizing.

Which is a position I agree with. They can organize. But I don't believe they should have the same priviledges as private sector unions.

[GWiz]

There's very rarely any real information in any of these threads.

But I can't help thinking the hedgefund managers must not believe their good fortune that, after destroying everyone's pensions, people are blaming unions for negotiating them.

Some threads I've found to be informative, funny, and generally a good read, others, I agree, not so much...

As to the second part of your post I find that literally unbelievable and totally agree with your assessment...

[jbg]

I could understand going to the unions in hard economic times and saying things like you need to contribute a little more to your pension plan or that we need to switch from a defined benefit program, or that you need to pay a little bit more for your medical insurance. That is at least a reasonable and even understanable negotiating position.

But he went a helluva lot farther than that. He basically has proposed eliminating the collective bargaining process. He wants to restrict collective bargaining only to salaries and to further restrict salary increases only to inflation - effectively killing collective bargaining.

Given the temper of the times, he may well be our next President. Here are excerpts of New York Times columnist David Brooks' take on this (link, excerpts below). I happen to buy it.

Still, let’s try to put aside the hyperventilation. Everybody now seems to agree that Governor Walker was right to ask state workers to pay more for their benefits. Even if he gets everything he asks for, Wisconsin state workers would still be contributing less to their benefits than the average state worker nationwide and would be contributing far, far less than private sector workers.

The more difficult question is whether Walker was right to try to water down Wisconsin’s collective bargaining agreements. Even if you acknowledge the importance of unions in representing middle-class interests, there are strong arguments on Walker’s side. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack.

That’s because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.

Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.

As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises. They tend to have workplaces where personnel decisions are made on the basis of seniority, not merit. There is little relationship between excellence and reward, which leads to resentment among taxpayers who don’t have that luxury.

These truths must be addressed.

[Shady]

Spot on!

Wisconsin state workers would still be contributing less to their benefits than the average state worker nationwide and would be contributing far, far less than private sector workers.

Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers.

Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.

Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival.

Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.

All of this is exactly why public sector unions shouldn't have collective bargaining. It's what FDR recognized many moons ago.

[GWiz]

Given the temper of the times, he may well be our next President. Here are excerpts of New York Times columnist David Brooks' take on this (link, excerpts below). I happen to buy it.

Still, lets try to put aside the hyperventilation. Everybody now seems to agree that Governor Walker was right to ask state workers to pay more for their benefits. Even if he gets everything he asks for, Wisconsin state workers would still be contributing less to their benefits than the average state worker nationwide and would be contributing far, far less than private sector workers.

The more difficult question is whether Walker was right to try to water down Wisconsins collective bargaining agreements. Even if you acknowledge the importance of unions in representing middle-class interests, there are strong arguments on Walkers side. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack.

Thats because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.

Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.

As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises. They tend to have workplaces where personnel decisions are made on the basis of seniority, not merit. There is little relationship between excellence and reward, which leads to resentment among taxpayers who dont have that luxury.

These truths must be addressed.

Here's a better excerpt from that same oped -

- The foundation of this unwritten constitution has to be this principle: make everybody hurt. The cuts have to be spread more or less equitably among as many groups as possible. There will never be public acceptance if large sectors of society are excluded. Governor Walkers program fails that test. It spares traditional Republican groups (even cops and firefighters). It is thus as unsustainable as the current tide of red ink.

Moreover, the constitution must emphasize transparent evaluation. Over the past weeks, Governor Walker increased expenditures to pump up small business job creation and cut them on teacher benefits. That might be the right choice, but if voters are going to go along with choices such as these, there is going to have to be a credible evaluation process to explain why some things are cut and some things arent. -

< by edit>

Walker gave his Republican friends $67 Million in Tax Cuts in his first few weeks in office...

This guy's a turd and should be lynched (figuratively speaking of course)...

Edited February 23, 2011 by GWiz

[MapleLeafAlliance]

You really should read all pages of this thread before posting on here.

Amazingly enough I have read every page of this thread - and in the end decided to reply to the original issue at hand, instead of making an attempt at replying to all of the clueless hand-wringing that has dominated this discussion.

We don't need unions, only the free market can properly determine what any given person's labour is worth.

[WIP]

Amazingly enough I have read every page of this thread - and in the end decided to reply to the original issue at hand, instead of making an attempt at replying to all of the clueless hand-wringing that has dominated this discussion.

We don't need unions, only the free market can properly determine what any given person's labour is worth.

Perhaps you should get acquainted with modern history prior to the era when collective bargaining and the right to form unions were legalized. It hasn't always been the case, and your laissez-faire "let the market decide" ideology was the way things were done throughout the Industrial Revolution until 100 years ago. If it was such a good system, why didn't it bring a share of the profits to the workers in those factories? Now that we are in a situation again where trade unions have lost members and lost power, and the rich have been the only ones who have increased income over the last 20 years, a lot of people are finally waking up to the fact that they allowed themselves to become too complacent now that "free enterprize" has taken us back to the income disparity of the Guilded Age.

[pinko]

Nobody is elminating the right to collectively bargain altogether. Even in the Wisconsin situation, they'd still keep the right to bargain related to salary. But in general, I admit. I don't believe public unions should have collective bargaining priviledges.

Obviously you lack a proper understanding of the history of the labour movement and the nature of collective bargaining. It is unfortunate that the public school curriculum doesn't include such courses. It is quite evident from your comments you know very little about the subject matter. Have you considered taking some courses of this nature?

Edited February 23, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

Amazingly enough I have read every page of this thread - and in the end decided to reply to the original issue at hand, instead of making an attempt at replying to all of the clueless hand-wringing that has dominated this discussion.

We don't need unions, only the free market can properly determine what any given person's labour is worth.

I am wondering if you could identify the "we" you speak for. Your post seems to infer you are not only speaking for yourself but others. It might also be helpful and a benefit to others for you to indicate your background.

I do think your faith in the so called free market is misplaced. I take the position there is no such thing as a free market.

Edited February 23, 2011 by pinko

[GWiz]

One has to assume that our own Mr. Harper is watching the events in Wisconsin with great interest...

Watching with glee if Walker and Co. win...

Watching with trepidation should the protesters succeed...

How Harper Governs (IF he wins and whether or not with a majority) after the next election may very well be determined by this outcome...

Unfortunately the "strength" of the protesters and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people, both unionists and non unionists, have not already joined them in this fight, does not bode well for the outcome in Wisconsin and other states with simular issues...

Might be something to think about in the next Canadian Federal Election...

[bush_cheney2004]

One has to assume that our own Mr. Harper is watching the events in Wisconsin with great interest...

....Might be something to think about in the next Canadian Federal Election...

Why? How does whatever happens in Wisconsin propagate to a Canadian Federal Election? And how do you lynch somebody "figuratively"?

I was wondering why so many members here would get so worked up over a labor dispute in the US, but I guess it's like everything else...you can see it on your television.

[pinko]

Why? How does whatever happens in Wisconsin propagate to a Canadian Federal Election? And how do you lynch somebody "figuratively"?

I was wondering why so many members here would get so worked up over a labor dispute in the US, but I guess it's like everything else...you can see it on your television.

Has it ever occurred to you that what happens in the USA may impact decisions north of your border? The party Mr. Harper leads has a similar constituency to that of the Republicans in the USA.