Union Busting in Wisconsin

[Scotty]

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

If there's ever been such a month it hasn't been seen since the French Revolution.

On the other hand, EVERY month seems to be Screw Poor People and Screw Middle Class People month.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

del.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Scotty

[Jack Weber]

If there's ever been such a month it hasn't been seen since the French Revolution.

On the other hand, EVERY month seems to be Screw Poor People and Screw Middle Class People month.

Been that way for 3 decades...

Thanks Uncle Milty and the Chicago School of Business...

Gimme that "freedom"....

[Scotty]

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

Two additional points:

These are the kinds of numbers which places like Fox News come up with. They sound superficially like something which would excite the tiny synapses of their viewers, but in reality they're utterly without value.

You cannot use the 'average' private sector salary to compare to the public sector, even where the actual jobs are roughly comparable. You need to disregard all the jobs working for crappy little mom and pop shops, and the hard nosed, 100% annual turnover places which pay so crappy. You need to strictly compare what public servants make to private sector counterparts in large, unionized organizations to have any sense of fairness.

The average federal public servant has more education and more seniority than their average private sector counterpart, since the latter includes tons of people who'd never be able to even apply for the government, much less get hired.

[GWiz]

Been that way for 3 decades...

Thanks Uncle Milty and the Chicago School of Business...

Gimme that "freedom"....

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=app&sParam=35877579.story

SomeTIMEs one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry...

Thousands of teachers getting laid off and the argument centers around WHICH teachers should be laid off... Totally ignoring the FACT that even the greatest teacher in the world isn't gonna be any good in front of 45-50 bored to death kids...

The girls in Afghanistan will probably be getting a better education...

There's bailout money for Banks and Big Business but no money to educate America's kids; what's wrong with that picture in a FREE, "advanced" society?

just askin'

[pinko]

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.

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.

I have reviewed the USA today article provided and note there is no reference to teachers in the schedule provided in that article. As you have observed in your post the relevant statistics (which wern't provided by the anti-union person) would be for the State of Wisconsin.

You suggest a shortfall of one billion dollars and imply a savings of $150 over two years. I am wondering if you can direct me to an authoritative source in ths regard.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[pinko]

Spot on!

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

Here you are.

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Freedom of association — Right to bargain collectively — Health and social services delivery improvement legislation adopted by provincial government in response to pressing health care crisis — Legislation affecting health care workers’ terms of employment — Whether constitutional guarantee of freedom of association includes procedural right to collective bargaining — If so, whether legislation infringes right to bargain collectively — Whether infringement justifiable — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(d) — Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 2, Part 2.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc27/2007scc27.html

[pinko]

Here is the text of a letter from Public Citizen

Brian,

On Wisconsin and America

We are now having a major dispute about what kind of society America should be.

Right now, the flashpoint in this controversy is Wisconsin, where tens of thousands of people are demonstrating every day in an effort to block Governor Scott Walker’s plan to all but end collective bargaining rights for public employees.

But the debate is a national one. The Wisconsin showdown is only the first in a whole series of pending state conflicts. And, over the next 10 days, a corporate-friendly Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives may decide to shut down the federal government.

The clashes in Wisconsin and other states, and in Washington, D.C., are dressed up in the language of budget debates. But these debates have nothing to do with “fiscal responsibility.” They are about what kind of society we want.

Do we want government to provide vital services, or exacerbate inequality? Should we have strong protections for health, safety, the environment and economic stability, or should giant corporations be free to impose their rules on the rest of us? Will we protect the right of workers to join together in unions, or will we permit private and public employers to drive down wages in the interest of generating more profits or lowering taxes for corporations and the wealthy?

Corporate plutocracy or a working democracy?

The people in Wisconsin who are demonstrating to stop Governor Walker’s union-busting plans are acting not just to preserve Wisconsin’s democratic traditions, but to make the case for a better America for all of us.

The people in Wisconsin — including many Public Citizen members and friends — need our solidarity. Even more, they need us to join with them in fighting for the America we all want.

Tomorrow, people will be gathering in state capitols to do just that. Please join them. Find a rally near you.

As we engage this contest for the future of America, it’s important to understand how we got into our current circumstance, and exactly what is at stake.

How Did We Get Here?

The Republican line on state and federal budgetary shortfalls, echoed by too many in the media, and by too many Democrats, is that we are spending beyond our means and “mortgaging our future.” This is not true.

States are not suddenly spending more than they were two, three of four years ago. (This is true for the federal government as well, with the caveat that there was an addition of federal stimulus spending, now winding down.) The reason states are facing acute budget crises is because revenues have declined. The reason revenues have declined is because the economy crashed. And the reason the economy crashed is because an unregulated Wall Street enabled a housing bubble, and then built a financial bubble on top of the housing bubble.

In other words, Republican governors are blaming state employees for the budget crisis, when the blame actually rests with Wall Street. Making things even more obscene, while state employees are seeing salaries and benefits slashed and jobs cut, the Wall Street titans are paying themselves outrageous bonuses. Wall Street paid out more than $20 billion in bonuses last year, while Wall Street profits totaled more than $27 billion, the second highest total on record.

This central point can’t be emphasized enough: The story of the current state and federal budget challenges is the diminished tax revenue that has followed from the Wall Street-induced recession.

Raising Revenues

OK, you might say. Maybe Wall Street deserves the blame, but what choice do governments have?

Well, the states are under an obligation to balance their budgets. The simple solution for this problem is for the federal government — which does not need to balance its budget — to give them grants. Unfortunately, that solution is not forthcoming.

Still, the states have options. Notably, they can raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, as some are now preparing to do.

Amazingly, however, those most vociferously demanding state and federal budget cutbacks in the name of fiscal rectitude also support tax cuts for those most able to pay. In Wisconsin, Governor Walker — who took office just this January — has pushed through $127 million in tax cuts. Meanwhile, in D.C., last December’s tax deal between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans gives about $120 billion in benefits to the wealthy over the next two years.

Would it be unreasonable to ask for a rule that anyone supporting such tax breaks for the super-rich is prohibited from claiming they care about balancing budgets?

There are, of course, other ways to raise revenues. Cracking down on corporate welfare would be a good place to start. States have given away billions in corporate welfare deals, as Good Jobs First has documented. Walmart alone is grabbing $400 million a year in state and local tax breaks. At the federal level, there are tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare giveaways that should be eliminated or reformed, involving everything from loan guarantees to nuclear power plants to export promotion schemes for big corporations.

The federal government has other ways to raise revenues that would be worth pursuing as good policy, in addition to their revenue implications. A very small tax on Wall Street trading, for example, could raise more than $100 billion a year. It would force Wall Street to offset some of the damage it has inflicted on the rest of the country. And it would slow the dangerous churning of stocks, bonds and derivatives.

The Role of Government

The Republicans’ insistence on cutting back government spending is ultimately a disguised way to advance their agenda of selectively limiting the role of government in society. (It is selective because they and their corporate backers DO support an aggressive role for government when it comes to policies and activities that benefit big corporations.)

That the real issue is the role of government itself is underscored by congressional Republican budget proposals. As Congress debates a short-term government funding bill, not only are the Republicans proposing to slash vital programs, they are seeking to block, stop or undermine government restraints on Big Business — an array of rules, regulations, programs and enforcement schemes that have little or no budgetary impact, but are hugely important for protecting the public and the environment from predatory corporations.

Among many, many other troubling measures, the House Republican proposals would:

Eliminate funding for a new consumer product safety database. Removing its funding would deprive consumers of a critical tool — three years in the planning — to report and research safety incidents on toys and other products.

Slash the budget for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by roughly a third. Saving only $50 million, this measure would completely hamstring the agency charged with implementing some of the most important components of the Wall Street reform law.

Eliminate the presidential public financing system.

Stop the Environmental Protection Agency from listing coal ash as hazardous waste, enforcing rules that would curtail mountaintop-removal coal mining, issuing new rules that would protect rivers from coal waste, or improving air quality standards.

It’s important to emphasize in this discussion that the Obama administration budget proposals, while far superior to the Republican alternative, accept many of the Republican premises — including the most important one, that the government should be reducing spending.

At a time when one in six people who would like a full-time job are unable to find one, the government should be spending more money to put people back to work, get the economy moving and prevent the waste of letting workers and plants remain idle. Instead, the Obama administration has essentially conceded the need for austerity.

Adopting the false politics of scarcity, the president needlessly proposes to shortchange vital public programs. A distressing example is his proposal to slash $3 billion from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides cash assistance to poor people to help them pay their utility bills.

One can go program by program, or rider by rider, and explain how misguided are proposals from both the Republicans and the administration. But even more important is to insist on what we want our government to do. We need a strong government. There are of course government programs that should be eliminated or improved. But we do need a government that is able to educate our children, ensure access to health care for all, move us to a clean energy future, keep the economy working, provide a social safety net, and protect us from corporate predations. We need a government that takes seriously its duty to advance the General Welfare.

The Role of Unions

At this point, the debate in Wisconsin is no longer about obtaining givebacks from teachers, nurses and other public employees. The public employee unions have agreed to the governor’s economic demands.

What is now in dispute is whether public employees will maintain the right to be represented by unions.

What a sad state of affairs.

The right of workers to join together into a union to bargain collectively with their employer is a basic First Amendment right and a fundamental right of workers everywhere. Unions enable workers to band together to offset the otherwise overwhelming bargaining power of employers, and make the economy and workplace a fairer and more just place.

We all benefit from a strong union movement, whether or not we are union members. Because they organize workers to act together, unions are — by far — the most important countervailing force to concentrated corporate power.

It’s not just a matter of unions supporting particular policies. By their very existence, unions change the political terrain, making it more possible to advance justice, fairness and equality.

The severe decline of unions over the past 40 years is a crucial contributing factor in explaining why inequality has risen so dramatically and why corporations have been able to increase their political influence.

The remaining union stronghold in the U.S. economy is the public sector. If Wisconsin, followed by other states, manages to undermine unionization in the public sector, it’s not just public sector workers who will be worse off. We all will be.

Let’s Get to Work

It is now incumbent on all of us to make Wisconsin just the beginning of something much bigger.

We start by demonstrating on Saturday.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman

President, Public Citizen

Go to http://action.citizen.org/unsubscribe.jsp if you do not want to receive future emails from Public Citizen.

© 2011 Public Citizen • 1600 20th Street, NW / Washington, D.C. 20009 • www.citizen.org

[pinko]

Lautenschlager noted, in particular, the governor’s reference to displaying a photo of former President Ronald Reagan at the dinner where he explained plans for his budget repair bill — which seeks to strip state, county and municipal employees of their collective bargaining rights, restructure state government in a manner that dramatically extends the power of the governor, undermine the BadgerCare and SeniorCare programs, and sell off publicly owned power plants to private firms like Koch Industries.

“He essentially parallels what he’s going to do to organized labor with what Ronald Reagan did to the air traffic controllers,” said Lautenschlager, referencing the former president’s firing of striking controllers in 1981. “By doing that at this time, when the contracts for state employees are still in effect, it looks as if he’s signaling a willingness to commit an unfair labor practice violation by refusing to negotiate.”

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_0657a7e5-a7ca-59df-abf0-3222b8c8ef98.html

[Pliny]

"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.

The rich aren't getting richer and the poor poorer? Then you disagree with the article and we agree?

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.

I don't tacitly accept the role Unions played in elevating the standard of living. Unions like to make the claim that they are responsible for the standard of living and it is because of their demands that we have any benefits at all. In my opinion, overall they aren't at all responsible for our standard of living but have kept the standard of living lower for a greater majority of people. Yet when they are bargaining for more benefits for themselves it seems the issue is never money and benefits they are demanding but always about the money the greedy rich are hoarding away from them and they point statistics such as in that article.

No we aren't a plutocracy and I am surprised Michael hasn't jumped on that since he so staunchly defends that we are a democracy and we voters design our future thus eliminating any possibility of tyranny, such as a plutocracy.

We are unfortunately, a social democracy that caters to special interests and votes themselves benefits.

Plutocracy? No. It is not just the rich but whoever can bend the politician's ear and provide votes. The Corporations help to provide good economic statistics for them, such as employment, etc.

Every day above ground is a good day for me.

Well, it's another glorious day!

[bloodyminded]

Spot on!

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

Why don't you Support The Troops?

[Pliny]

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

Of course it comes form other people. But in a fair exchange not through "taking" it.

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.

It's a conflict of interest, Michael, plain and simple. No rhetoric necessary. Federal government employees in the US do not have the right to collective bargaining.

[BubberMiley]

Federal government employees in the US do not have the right to collective bargaining.

Wrong. They still do. That's why the GOP has to change the law to take it away from them.

Try to keep up.

[pinko]

The rich aren't getting richer and the poor poorer? Then you disagree with the article and we agree?

I don't tacitly accept the role Unions played in elevating the standard of living. Unions like to make the claim that they are responsible for the standard of living and it is because of their demands that we have any benefits at all. In my opinion, overall they aren't at all responsible for our standard of living but have kept the standard of living lower for a greater majority of people. Yet when they are bargaining for more benefits for themselves it seems the issue is never money and benefits they are demanding but always about the money the greedy rich are hoarding away from them and they point statistics such as in that article.

No we aren't a plutocracy and I am surprised Michael hasn't jumped on that since he so staunchly defends that we are a democracy and we voters design our future thus eliminating any possibility of tyranny, such as a plutocracy.

We are unfortunately, a social democracy that caters to special interests and votes themselves benefits.

Plutocracy? No. It is not just the rich but whoever can bend the politician's ear and provide votes. The Corporations help to provide good economic statistics for them, such as employment, etc.

Well, it's another glorious day!

I think it is safe to say that we are in fundamental disagreement. With you it is difficult to decide where to start without having to repeat what has already been said.

Try googling the Haymarket riot.

Edited February 26, 2011 by pinko

[GostHacked]

You already have no credibility. I am not a female from Regina...or North Dakota. I am also not from Saskatchewan.

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

LOL, talking about credibility. ...... and how often do you go on tangents for the sole purpose of derailing a thread, and you will admit that and make no apologies about it.

I guess you are the reason why the 'muslims' want to kill americans. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[GWiz]

LOL, talking about credibility. ...... and how often do you go on tangents for the sole purpose of derailing a thread, and you will admit that and make no apologies about it.

I guess you are the reason why the 'muslims' want to kill americans. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Why are you picking on "muslims"?

[jefferiah]

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...

I was just pointing out that natural rights like freedom of expression and association are not dependent upon having monetary support. They are irrelevant. You can still express yourself and associate with whom you choose, whether or not your employer supports you.

[Pliny]

Here you are.

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Freedom of association — Right to bargain collectively — Health and social services delivery improvement legislation adopted by provincial government in response to pressing health care crisis — Legislation affecting health care workers’ terms of employment — Whether constitutional guarantee of freedom of association includes procedural right to collective bargaining — If so, whether legislation infringes right to bargain collectively — Whether infringement justifiable — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(d) — Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 2, Part 2.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc27/2007scc27.html

This is confusing rights with entitlements.

[Scotty]

Of course it comes form other people. But in a fair exchange not through "taking" it.

That's a damned silly argument. You want to create a school system. You hire a bunch of people to teach. You negotiate salaries and benefits with them. Then you scream that they're taking it unfairly? How does THAT work? Because the people you voted to represent you in the negotiations were idiots? So then you voted for them again?!

And also, how is it their efforts are now undeserving and worthless just because they work for the people you elected to represent your interests instead of some private corporation?

[Mr.Canada]

Those cowardly democrats should stop being afraid and come back to Wi and do their jobs instead of hiding out of cowardice. They should come back for debate but instead they run and hide. Pouting like children, they are no doubt staying in hotels paid for by the public. It's disgusting.

[pinko]

This is confusing rights with entitlements.

No. It is confirming the law as it stands in Canada.

[pinko]

Those cowardly democrats should stop being afraid and come back to Wi and do their jobs instead of hiding out of cowardice. They should come back for debate but instead they run and hide. Pouting like children, they are no doubt staying in hotels paid for by the public. It's disgusting.

Maybe they prefer to debate from out of state.

[Pliny]

Wrong. They still do. That's why the GOP has to change the law to take it away from them.

Try to keep up.

Try and keep up yourself. The Federal employee's union cannot bargain for wages and benefits.

Why not let federal workers bargain collectively?

Union support is also not compulsory.

The reason is the Civil Service Reform act of 1978.

[ToadBrother]

That's a damned silly argument. You want to create a school system. You hire a bunch of people to teach. You negotiate salaries and benefits with them. Then you scream that they're taking it unfairly? How does THAT work? Because the people you voted to represent you in the negotiations were idiots? So then you voted for them again?!

And also, how is it their efforts are now undeserving and worthless just because they work for the people you elected to represent your interests instead of some private corporation?

Teacher bashing has been in vogue in the English-speaking world for some time. I'm wondering why folks aren't demanding the same thing of politicians in Wisconsin as they are of the teachers.

[Pliny]

That's a damned silly argument. You want to create a school system. You hire a bunch of people to teach. You negotiate salaries and benefits with them. Then you scream that they're taking it unfairly? How does THAT work?

In the beginning, as it is in any ponzi scheme, the first through the gate get the most benefit for the least cost. Over time, those paying into the system are getting progressively less for their money, it becomes unsustainable and eventually it collapses.

What you say all makes sense if Education were run privately, except a private education system wouldn't create a "school system" per se. 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. Also there were would be an ability in a private system to do cost benefit analyses; something lost in the public school system.

Because the people you voted to represent you in the negotiations were idiots? So then you voted for them again?!

So my vote decides it all for me?

And also, how is it their efforts are now undeserving and worthless just because they work for the people you elected to represent your interests instead of some private corporation?

Hardly undeserving and worthless, just not what I would want in a school system for the investment.

Unfortunately, it's monopolistic nature precludes any chance of real change. Some politicians would have to take away some bargaining rights and that wouldn't be popular - except maybe in Wisconsin - but not likely a winner in Canada or other western social democracies.