Union Busting in Wisconsin

[Pliny]

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

Keep your boots polished, Jack. I heard a union leader calling for some blood in the streets the other day.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Pliny

[Shady]

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

The issue I have is with public sector unions, not private sector unions. The private sector unions actually negotiate under economic reality. Their compensation, benefits, and pensions are based on a finite revenue stream they're directly involved in creating. Unfortunately public sector unions negotiate without any regard for economic reality. Their revenue stream is whatever amount of everyone elses revenue they see fit in confiscating. And if that amount doesn't happen to work for them, they simply propose to take more. With little regard on how that effects the people and businesses which earn the money they take in the first place.

And this system of greed and disregard is described as, and passed on as so-called rights. To these neo-socialist/communists, having access to the manifestion of other people's labour in order to fund their own labour, pension, and benefits is a human right. It's a concept devoid of logic, and so perverse, that a cross-dressing, transvestite would be jealous.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Shady

[GWiz]

Walker's Republicans at the federal level GIVE $700 BILLION to well off and RICH Americans and then turns around and goes after LOWER middle class income earners earning for the most part under $50,000.00 annually to make up for a budget deficit in Wisconsin?

Give me a break, how bad is the US education system already? Now YOU know, they can't do that math...

[pinko]

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

The link you provided confirms the right to collective bargaining for Federal Government employees subject to statutory law on certain terms. I acknowledge these rights are limited.

Edited March 1, 2011 by pinko

[Michael Hardner]

Their compensation, benefits, and pensions are based on a finite revenue stream they're directly involved in creating. Unfortunately public sector unions negotiate without any regard for economic reality. Their revenue stream is whatever amount of everyone elses revenue they see fit in confiscating. And if that amount doesn't happen to work for them, they simply propose to take more. With little regard on how that effects the people and businesses which earn the money they take in the first place.

That's not accurate. How do union member set tax rates ? That's for the government to do, not civil servants. And if the situation is as bad as you say, why have Wisconson's public servants taken less than inflation wage rates over the past ten years or so ?

[Pliny]

The link you provided confirms the right to collective bargaining for Federal Government employees subject to statutory law on certain terms. I acknowledge these rights are limited.

Sounds like a difficult thing to say straightforwardly. Wages and benefits for federal employees are determined by statutory law.

Federal employees have no "right" to collectively bargain for wages and benefits - isn't that a "right"? Funny how the "land of the free" tramples on these rights. You know what though, there's a delicate balance of power. The federal government recognizes that this power is ok in the private sector and grants those "rights" to workers but looks at it is an entitlement and not a "right" otherwise it would be a blanket law applicable to all sectors of employment, private and public.

The interesting thing is that Jimmy Carter brought in that legislation and FDR wrote that collective bargaining as it is usually understood cannot be transplanted into the public service.

I think that these left wing politicians recognize it as a threat to government power and sharing power is soooo difficult for those who believe they must have the "right" to govern. Whomever they deem a threat to the centralized power must be limited. Unions, being of the same ilk, demand their power as a "right". Presidents Carter and Roosevelt understood the far-left mentality quite well. So did Stalin - absolutely no unions in Communist Russia - workers already have all the power, no need for unions. There can only be one plenipotentiary power. All other powers, that is to say "rights", exist at the discretion of the State. I suppose the German national socialist worker's party felt the same. If I looked it up I bet it would say something to the effect that unions were replaced by something called the German Labour Front controlled by the NSDAP.

[jbg]

That's not accurate. How do union member set tax rates ? That's for the government to do, not civil servants. And if the situation is as bad as you say, why have Wisconson's public servants taken less than inflation wage rates over the past ten years or so ?

THe problem is not that union members set tax rates (they clearly don't) but that there is no immediate restrction on the generosity of their employer. A private employer is limited by the need to write a paycheck. Private employers have somewhat of the same incentives to "kick the can down the road" and offer pensions in lieu of raises, but there need for access to credit markets imposes somewhat of a restraint on that impulse. Public employers less so, since often officeholders will be long gone by the time the obligations come due.

[Pliny]

That's not accurate. How do union member set tax rates ? That's for the government to do, not civil servants. And if the situation is as bad as you say, why have Wisconson's public servants taken less than inflation wage rates over the past ten years or so ?

We are talking about public unions here, are we not, Michael?

Because public unions don't operate in a competitive market if they go on strike then the services are not available to the public. In the private sector if employee's in a store go on strike, I can go to another store. If the garbageman's public service union goes on strike the garbage piles up until the public gets sick of it and the politicians look like idiots so generally the Union gets its way or a "compromise" to their demands is reached. The demands are high so there is "bargaining room" and politicians can look like heroes when they can cut those demands. It's just a big game with little concern for things like the economy or levels of taxation. We are never taxed enough in the minds of - guess who - the public sector, among others.

Does it sound right that Wisconsin's public servants have taken less than inflation wage rate "increases" over the past ten years "or so". It doesn't to me. But still, over a ten year period that adds up to soemwhere between a 20 and 30 percent increase and you aren't giving any consideration for benefits and entitlements over that period. Maybe from this you can see how inflation is a hidden tax. Meanwhile fixed incomes, and the private sector has lost purchasing power to inflation. The private sector, except maybe for Unions with the entitlment in their agreement, doesn't have it's wages adjusted to inflation. It is adjusted on how much they can produce and create a demand for their product or services - a very risky scenario with no guarantees. Still it seems Americans prefer that. Canadians, being more cautious, prefer government jobs with job security and adjustments for inflation. It isn't hard to understand that unions are more popular in Canada where an NDP party can even exist.

Socialist concepts aren't preferred in the States and Obama is having a tough slog in implementing them, even though he had a Democrat majority in Congress and the Senate. They need a worker's party in the States to give power to the people, sharing is such a fundamental part of it's existence. Ha Ha.

[Pliny]

THe problem is not that union members set tax rates (they clearly don't) but that there is no immediate restrction on the generosity of their employer. A private employer is limited by the need to write a paycheck. Private employers have somewhat of the same incentives to "kick the can down the road" and offer pensions in lieu of raises, but there need for access to credit markets imposes somewhat of a restraint on that impulse. Public employers less so, since often officeholders will be long gone by the time the obligations come due.

...when obligations come due? In the private sector that is called....ummm...aah...errr....I think...a paunchy...er...no....pencil...umm...oh yeah...Ponzi scheme, isn't it?

[pinko]

Sounds like a difficult thing to say straightforwardly. Wages and benefits for federal employees are determined by statutory law.

Federal employees have no "right" to collectively bargain for wages and benefits - isn't that a "right"? Funny how the "land of the free" tramples on these rights. You know what though, there's a delicate balance of power. The federal government recognizes that this power is ok in the private sector and grants those "rights" to workers but looks at it is an entitlement and not a "right" otherwise it would be a blanket law applicable to all sectors of employment, private and public.

The interesting thing is that Jimmy Carter brought in that legislation and FDR wrote that collective bargaining as it is usually understood cannot be transplanted into the public service.

I think that these left wing politicians recognize it as a threat to government power and sharing power is soooo difficult for those who believe they must have the "right" to govern. Whomever they deem a threat to the centralized power must be limited. Unions, being of the same ilk, demand their power as a "right". Presidents Carter and Roosevelt understood the far-left mentality quite well. So did Stalin - absolutely no unions in Communist Russia - workers already have all the power, no need for unions. There can only be one plenipotentiary power. All other powers, that is to say "rights", exist at the discretion of the State. I suppose the German national socialist worker's party felt the same. If I looked it up I bet it would say something to the effect that unions were replaced by something called the German Labour Front controlled by the NSDAP.

You are mistaken. Federal employees have collective bargaining rights with certain caveats. I might check with one of the public sector unions down there to get a better idea of the manner in which those rights are enforced.

[Michael Hardner]

A private employer is limited by the need to write a paycheck. Private employers have somewhat of the same incentives to "kick the can down the road" and offer pensions in lieu of raises, but there need for access to credit markets imposes somewhat of a restraint on that impulse. Public employers less so, since often officeholders will be long gone by the time the obligations come due.

True.

Maybe from this you can see how inflation is a hidden tax. Meanwhile fixed incomes, and the private sector has lost purchasing power to inflation.

That's a fact of private vs public employment, but there are also benefits to working in the private sector as there's more of an open market for your services.

[pinko]

THe problem is not that union members set tax rates (they clearly don't) but that there is no immediate restrction on the generosity of their employer. A private employer is limited by the need to write a paycheck. Private employers have somewhat of the same incentives to "kick the can down the road" and offer pensions in lieu of raises, but there need for access to credit markets imposes somewhat of a restraint on that impulse. Public employers less so, since often officeholders will be long gone by the time the obligations come due.

Good morning Jim. Does the Wisconsin governor have a quorum yet?

Do you belong to the New York Law Society?

[Pliny]

That's a fact of private vs public employment, but there are also benefits to working in the private sector as there's more of an open market for your services.

Nothing is guaranteed in the private sector.

Congratulations on your new status as facilitator.

[Michael Hardner]

Congratulations on your new status as facilitator.

Not sure what this refers to ?

[pinko]

I called the AFGE office (http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=ContactAFGE). From what I could gather from the woman I spoke with federal civil servants in the USA enjoy collective bargaining rights not unlike those in Canada. According to the person I spoke with there is a process similar to our dues checkoff provisions in both federal and provincial spheres here in Canada.

As for contract administration there is a grievance arbitration procedure available for the enforcement of rights and interpretation of the collective agreement.

I am hoping to speak with someone in the a/m organization conversant with the pension scheme for federal employees in the USA.

Edited March 1, 2011 by pinko

[Pliny]

Not sure what this refers to ?

Oh...I may have jumped the gun here.

I know there is an opening for one and thought it had been settled. I guess your admonishment of that poster who had cross-posted from another forum made me think you had accepted the position plus I don't think, as far as tolerating differing opinions goes, there is anyone more even-keeled here than yourself.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh...I may have jumped the gun here.

I know there is an opening for one and thought it had been settled. I guess your admonishment of that poster who had cross-posted from another forum made me think you had accepted the position plus I don't think, as far as tolerating differing opinions goes, there is anyone more even-keeled here than yourself.

No, I'm a self-appointed hall monitor. Reading the description of 'facilitator' it seems like what I do already.

Anyway, now I will punish myself for thread drift... Bad Michael ! Bad ! Bad !

[pinko]

Part of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's union-busting agenda is including a "right to work" rule for public-sector employees. Several other Republican governors are considering similar measures for both the public and private sectors. Insofar as they succeed, these right-to-work measures will seriously weaken the bargaining power of workers.

"Right to work" is a great name from the standpoint of proponents, just like the term "death tax" is effective for opponents of the estate tax, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is widely believed that in the absence of right-to-work laws workers can be forced to join a union. This is not true. Workers at any workplace always have the option as to whether or not to join a union.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/right-to-work-representat_b_829180.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=030111&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief

[Jack Weber]

Part of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's union-busting agenda is including a "right to work" rule for public-sector employees. Several other Republican governors are considering similar measures for both the public and private sectors. Insofar as they succeed, these right-to-work measures will seriously weaken the bargaining power of workers.

"Right to work" is a great name from the standpoint of proponents, just like the term "death tax" is effective for opponents of the estate tax, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is widely believed that in the absence of right-to-work laws workers can be forced to join a union. This is not true. Workers at any workplace always have the option as to whether or not to join a union.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/right-to-work-representat_b_829180.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=030111&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief

That is the fallacy of RTW...

1.That workers are forced to join any union...They are not!

2.That RTW is about "individual freedom"...It is not!!

It's about a divide and conquer method used by employers to maintain,(or regain) the power and control dynamic in the workplace...

And,of course,it's about money...And in the private sector,that means profit and shareholder value...

The point about the scheme of RTW is to break the financial backs of individual union locals through legislated forced representation of non dues paying members...

In otherwords,"Free Ride" employees benefitting from representation,but never paying for it..

Edited March 1, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Mr.Canada]

These so called greedy companies are not, for the most part, owned by one man who controls everything. They are controlled by a board, which is made up of citizens like you and me. So in fact there is no one man at the top controlling all the money a corporation takes in. Plus people here seem to be under the illusion that there is a big room some place with a huge pile of money in it that they shovel around. This is not how the world economy works at all.

The sooner some of these union types understand that the sooner their demands will slow down.

[Jack Weber]

Keep your boots polished, Jack. I heard a union leader calling for some blood in the streets the other day.

The anti-union Indiana AG called for the same thing....

[punked]

The Police have left the capital building stating and I quote "I refused to put deputy sheriffs in a position to be palace guards.". Wow that is a hit.

BTW Walker has closed off the building the public which is in violation of the state Constitution but Walker hates the Constitution anyway. Today after a Constitutional challenge a Judge ordered the building opened up however because Walker and his goons also hate the law and courts they haven't done that either.

Edited March 1, 2011 by punked

[GWiz]

The anti-union Indiana AG called for the same thing....

Didn't Walker "consider that" too?

[punked]

Didn't Walker "consider that" too?

No Walker wanted to put people in the crowd try and make them look bad. Supports of his that could do and say terrible things acting like labor.

[GWiz]

No Walker wanted to put people in the crowd try and make them look bad. Supports of his that could do and say terrible things acting like labor.

That's what I said...

Please try and keep up...