Union Busting in Wisconsin

Michael Hardner · February 28, 2011

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

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

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

I don't get this - are you calling Oshawa stupid ?

Your post is a jumble of generalizations and insults - not helpful.

Michael Hardner · February 28, 2011

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

http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=civil+liberties+act+of+1978&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=a8b9d67b39b162ea

Google search for "civil liberties act of 1978" doesn't return anything meaningful.

Pliny · February 28, 2011

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

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

Yep. Sorry. The Civil Service Reform act of 1978. I had mentioned it bfore in an earlier post and cited an article by Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal.

Here's the link to her article.

pinko · February 28, 2011

Yep. Sorry. The Civil Service Reform act of 1978. I had mentioned it bfore in an earlier post and cited an article by Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal.

Here's the link to her article.

The link you provided requires a login. I am aware of Ms. Strassel's views. What I am looking for is the actual legislation which, if, as Michael Hardner's google search revealed, is not what you have stated.

I would ask that you either acknowledge your error or produce the actual link/text of the legislation as previously requested.

Pliny · February 28, 2011

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

You don't see a conflict of interest?

Is a Public Service Union member and/or the Union Executive likely to support politician A who promises entitlements to the Union or politician B who thinks that public service unions have a direct conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed.

The private sector has a built in means to check the demands of Unions it is called competiton. There is a means to judge the cost of labour because there is a product or service involved. If the labour is too costly then the product is too pricy for the consumer and the sales of their product or service disappear and the company goes under. Consequence = no job. There is no such means to check a public service union. The politician promises them cake and they vote for him. There will either have to be an increase in taxes to pay for that cake or government deficit spending will have to cover it.

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

Yes. No subsidies, no bailouts for corporations. A national government must concern itself with the country as a whole not play special interests against each other. Therefore it should only have the broadest of mandates so it's laws can be applied equally to all. It should not cater to special interests that stand to gain at the expense of taxpayers.

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

No. The conditions of employment are a contractual agreement. In the case of the public service the contract is with the taxpayer. When politicians make promises of better pay, benefits and entitlements the public service union should not have the power to vote itself those favours out of the public coffers.

A government job in the fifties did not pay as well as in the private sector. The trade off was security. Companies come and go but government is expected to be around for awhile so job security was the big factor. Today a public sector union job pays far better than the private sector equivalent with far better benefits and with job security. More and more people wish to be employed by government or on the public payroll, in Canada that would include teachers, nurses, doctors, and all employees in the healthcare and education industries. They are less likely to take their chances in the risky capitalist market, although big corporations are attractive employers - they just don't have quite the level of job security as the public sector.

Pliny · February 28, 2011

The link you provided requires a login. I am aware of Ms. Strassel's views. What I am looking for is the actual legislation which, if, as Michael Hardner's google search revealed, is not what you have stated.

I would ask that you either acknowledge your error or produce the actual link/text of the legislation as previously requested.

The link is the Civil Service Reform act of 1978. Let me get it for you. I'll be right back.

Pliny · February 28, 2011

Ahhh....here we are... title seven of the Civil Services Reform act.

You will have to read it yourself. I can't read it to you. So just google it.

But here is a summary of some of the content:limits of Federal civil service union.

Among them are:

1.Federal employees are denied by statute the right to strike.

3. The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of work, and employee benefits are instead subject to statutory provisions.

jbg · February 28, 2011

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

The difference is that in the U.S. Senate the dissenting senators are at their desks, working, and arguing. That is quite different from leaving the jurisdiction and tying up all money bills.

ToadBrother · February 28, 2011

You don't see a conflict of interest?

Is a Public Service Union member and/or the Union Executive likely to support politician A who promises entitlements to the Union or politician B who thinks that public service unions have a direct conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed.

How is this any different than any other special interest?

The private sector has a built in means to check the demands of Unions it is called competiton. There is a means to judge the cost of labour because there is a product or service involved. If the labour is too costly then the product is too pricy for the consumer and the sales of their product or service disappear and the company goes under. Consequence = no job. There is no such means to check a public service union. The politician promises them cake and they vote for him. There will either have to be an increase in taxes to pay for that cake or government deficit spending will have to cover it.

So the problem isn't with workers, it's with politicians. Why not do something about the politicians? Why create a lower class of worker because politicians give into special interests? And why stop at public sector unions? Why not go after corporate interests, environmental interests, senior citizens interests... the list goes on and on.

Yes. No subsidies, no bailouts for corporations. A national government must concern itself with the country as a whole not play special interests against each other. Therefore it should only have the broadest of mandates so it's laws can be applied equally to all. It should not cater to special interests that stand to gain at the expense of taxpayers.

Ah, I see, a Libertarian. Has it entered your whooly head that groups of taxpayers can be special interests too? And let's call taxpayers by their proper name here, voters, and believe me, no special interest gets more pork barreling than voters.

No. The conditions of employment are a contractual agreement. In the case of the public service the contract is with the taxpayer.

No it is not. It is with the government. There is a critical difference. Beyond that, government is there to represent citizens, not taxpayers alone.

When politicians make promises of better pay, benefits and entitlements the public service union should not have the power to vote itself those favours out of the public coffers.

I don't even understand this sentence. Politicians make promises to spend money on all kinds of things. I'm still not clear why you find unions so offensive on this regard.

A government job in the fifties did not pay as well as in the private sector. The trade off was security. Companies come and go but government is expected to be around for awhile so job security was the big factor. Today a public sector union job pays far better than the private sector equivalent with far better benefits and with job security. More and more people wish to be employed by government or on the public payroll, in Canada that would include teachers, nurses, doctors, and all employees in the healthcare and education industries. They are less likely to take their chances in the risky capitalist market, although big corporations are attractive employers - they just don't have quite the level of job security as the public sector.

Security doesn't put food on the table. I see no reason than a public sector receptionist should not seek similar wages to a private sector receptionist. As to security, maybe 50 or 100 years ago a civil servant could hope for longevity in their position, but that kind of security evaporated a long time ago.

As to teachers, nurses and dcotors, well these are professions, why should they not receive compensation commensurate to their training and experience? Would you like to have poorly paid doctors and nurses? Is this what you think will create some sort of an optimal system?

WIP · February 28, 2011

Here's why the Wisconsin Governor's claim that he needs to bust the unions to close the deficit is a total fraud:

Wow: Texas Deficit Estimate Comes In Worse Than The Worst Expectations

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-budget-shortfall-2011-1#ixzz1FHOTERV5

Texas doesn't have any state public service unions, not even police and fire department...so why have they got a 27 billion dollar deficit? And, let's not forget the fact that rightwing spindoctors keep trying to plow over every day: Scott Walker cut corporate taxes for his corporate buddies by a greater amount than the State's projected deficit. Now, can all of you rightwing supporters figure it out yet?

Mr.Canada · February 28, 2011

I'll pray that they will outright ban the unions.

ToadBrother · February 28, 2011

I'll pray that they will outright ban the unions.

There aren't a lot of freedoms you actually like at the end of the day.

pinko · February 28, 2011

Ahhh....here we are... title seven of the Civil Services Reform act.

You will have to read it yourself. I can't read it to you. So just google it.

But here is a summary of some of the content:limits of Federal civil service union.

Among them are:

1.Federal employees are denied by statute the right to strike.

3. The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of work, and employee benefits are instead subject to statutory provisions.

Thank-you for the link. For ease of reference here is what the opinion offered states:

The Federal Civil Service Reform ActBy Robert P. Hunter | Aug. 24, 1999

Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978132 governs federal employer and employee labor relations. It specifically declares labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service to be "in the public interest." Accordingly, the act provides federal employees with legal rights similar to private-sector workers' Section 7 rights under the NLRA. The act states that employees of the federal government have "the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and each employee shall be protected in the exercise of such right."

The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only.The Civil Service Reform Act created the Federal Labor Relations Authority133 (FLRA) to "establish policies and guidance" for the administration of the labor-management relations provisions of the act. The FLRA

•determines the composition of employee bargaining units;

•supervises or conducts union representation elections;

•conducts hearings to resolve complaints of unfair labor practices;

•resolves issues involving the duty to bargain in good faith; and

•resolves any exceptions (appeals) to arbitrators' awards.

The unfair labor practice provisions of Title VII are similar to those of the NLRA; however, there are five major differences between private-sector employees under the NLRA and federal employees under the Civil Service Reform Act as follows:

1.Federal employees are denied by statute the right to strike.

2.The right of federal employees to picket is limited to informational picketing only. It is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to picket a federal agency in a labor-management dispute if such picketing interferes with an agency's operations.

3.The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of work, and employee benefits are instead subject to statutory provisions.

4.Union and agency contract provisions as well as all other forms of compulsory union support are prohibited in the federal civil service.

Recognition of labor organizations as exclusive employee representatives occurs only by a majority vote of employees through a secret-ballot election.

GWiz · February 28, 2011

Thank-you for the link. For ease of reference here is what the opinion offered states:

The Federal Civil Service Reform ActBy Robert P. Hunter | Aug. 24, 1999

Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978132 governs federal employer and employee labor relations. It specifically declares labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service to be "in the public interest." Accordingly, the act provides federal employees with legal rights similar to private-sector workers' Section 7 rights under the NLRA. The act states that employees of the federal government have "the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and each employee shall be protected in the exercise of such right."

The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only.The Civil Service Reform Act created the Federal Labor Relations Authority133 (FLRA) to "establish policies and guidance" for the administration of the labor-management relations provisions of the act. The FLRA

•determines the composition of employee bargaining units;

•supervises or conducts union representation elections;

•conducts hearings to resolve complaints of unfair labor practices;

•resolves issues involving the duty to bargain in good faith; and

•resolves any exceptions (appeals) to arbitrators' awards.

The unfair labor practice provisions of Title VII are similar to those of the NLRA; however, there are five major differences between private-sector employees under the NLRA and federal employees under the Civil Service Reform Act as follows:

1.Federal employees are denied by statute the right to strike.

2.The right of federal employees to picket is limited to informational picketing only. It is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to picket a federal agency in a labor-management dispute if such picketing interferes with an agency's operations.

3.The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of work, and employee benefits are instead subject to statutory provisions.

4.Union and agency contract provisions as well as all other forms of compulsory union support are prohibited in the federal civil service.

Recognition of labor organizations as exclusive employee representatives occurs only by a majority vote of employees through a secret-ballot election.

Can't really be much FAIRER than that can it? Well, not unless you want to BUST ALL UNIONS that is...

POWER to the PEOPLE!

pinko · March 1, 2011

Can't really be much FAIRER than that can it? Well, not unless you want to BUST ALL UNIONS that is...

POWER to the PEOPLE!

Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them. Those surveyed said they opposed, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits, breaking down along similar party lines. A majority of respondents who have no union members living in their households opposed both cuts in pay or benefits and taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?_r=1&hp

punked · March 1, 2011

Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them. Those surveyed said they opposed, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits, breaking down along similar party lines. A majority of respondents who have no union members living in their households opposed both cuts in pay or benefits and taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?_r=1&hp

Looks like Republicans are handing Democrats a winning issue.

BTW saw a study today that put public workers in WI earning 4% less then their private counter parts. Another argument out the window.

Oh and I just read this apparently Rocks for brains Walker included a clause in this bill that would allow the WI government to sell public utilities to anyone they want for any price they want with out a bidding process. Now maybe you are for privatization that is a fine right wing thing to be for but no one here is stupid enough to defend selling it with out getting the most for it......are they? Shady? A no bid process?

http://www.jsonline.com/business/116965798.html

Edited March 1, 2011 by punked

Shady · March 1, 2011

Texas doesn't have any state public service unions

Actually they do. And you'll find that even in Texas, the public sector unions still don't pay in, what they take out. Which is why there's a 17% shortfall in public pensions. It seems like they too look to Joe Q Taxpayer to fund their retirements as well. Sad.

punked · March 1, 2011

Actually they do. And you'll find that even in Texas, the public sector unions still don't pay in, what they take out. Which is why there's a 17% shortfall in public pensions. It seems like they too look to Joe Q Taxpayer to fund their retirements as well. Sad.

Actually they don't. They have the Texas Public Employees Association which has in their mandate that they are NOT A UNION.

Unless you are counting the TSEU which has a huge membership of a whole 10000 people out of 650000 public employees. That is Actually .1% of the workforce. There he goes again Shady actually believes .1% of public workers in Texas and roughly .04% of the Texas population has caused a pension shortfall of 17%. Does he get crazier? OHHHH NO Shady go hide from facts as we all laugh at you. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Edited March 1, 2011 by punked

Scotty · March 1, 2011

You don't see a conflict of interest?

Is a Public Service Union member and/or the Union Executive likely to support politician A who promises entitlements to the Union or politician B who thinks that public service unions have a direct conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed.

This might be a topic worthy of discussion were it not for the fact most of the House and Congress are already in the pockets of industrial and special interest lobby groups. So why do you want to hamstring one of the only pressure groups which represents workers as opposed to big business?

But of course, all those politicians will tell you that no matter how much money they get this doesn't affect their positions on issues. :rolleyes:

Scotty · March 1, 2011

I'll pray that they will outright ban the unions.

As a Franco admirer I would think you would instead be praying they all get taken away to concentration camps...

Scotty · March 1, 2011

Actually they do. And you'll find that even in Texas, the public sector unions still don't pay in, what they take out. Which is why there's a 17% shortfall in public pensions. It seems like they too look to Joe Q Taxpayer to fund their retirements as well. Sad.

I'm not an expert in pensions, but isn't it normal that the employer also makes a contribution?

punked · March 1, 2011

I'm not an expert in pensions, but isn't it normal that the employer also makes a contribution?

It doesn't matter because there are basically no public employees in Unions in Texas.

Pliny · March 1, 2011

Thank-you for the link.

So the point that US federal employees cannot baragain collectively for wages and benefits is made.

Jack Weber · March 1, 2011

There aren't a lot of freedoms you actually like at the end of the day.

How 'bout the freedom to Goose Step in public???

Pliny · March 1, 2011

Here's why the Wisconsin Governor's claim that he needs to bust the unions to close the deficit is a total fraud:

Wow: Texas Deficit Estimate Comes In Worse Than The Worst Expectations

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-budget-shortfall-2011-1#ixzz1FHOTERV5

Texas doesn't have any state public service unions, not even police and fire department...so why have they got a 27 billion dollar deficit? And, let's not forget the fact that rightwing spindoctors keep trying to plow over every day: Scott Walker cut corporate taxes for his corporate buddies by a greater amount than the State's projected deficit. Now, can all of you rightwing supporters figure it out yet?

You have to look at the figures, WIP.

Every State has suffered a loss of revenues and they have to cut somewhere. Wisconsin isn't in debt because of Public unions. It is in debt because no one thought there would be an economic recession like this.

The public unions have won big in Wisconsin and education is about 40% of the budget. They have a budget of about $14B I think so their economy is pretty small.

In comparison Texas has an annual budget of about $90B so it is about six times bigger than Wisconsin's and the estimate is 18 to 27B in debt depending on who's figures you are using. I would say that it is closer to the $18B figure as that is about 6 times Wisconsins budget.

One has to look at where the revenue losses were and a lot of things before he jumps to conclusions about Unions and their role.

Texas also spends about 40% of its budget on education. So you can bet there will be cuts there as well.

This little item about Wisconsin is interesting: "State employees are unhappy with the governor's proposal that they contribute 5.8% of their salary toward their pensions, and also pay 12.6% of their health insurance premiums." not asking much I don't think. However he does want to end their collective bargaining privileges as regards wages and benefits. Something similar to Federal employees.

I am not sure of the claims of no State public service unions in Texas. Well, I did a quick goolge and it is a RTW state. There are public employee unions but no collective bargaining. I'll have to read more about RTW legislation.

Interestingly, FDR wrote this: Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote, ‘the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”