Union Busting in Wisconsin

[pinko]

My problem with "collective bargaining" for public sector workers is the inability to hire or fire based on merit.

How did you reach that conclusion, Jim?

As you may know I was a full-time union representative working for a public sector union. I am here to tell you that collective agreements take into account merit in the case of hiring and that a public sector employer has the capacity to dismiss a person subject to establishing just cause.

If you wish we can explore this issue further.

Edited March 6, 2011 by pinko

[Scotty]

I have no problem with people wanting to be paid a fair wage, of coarse people should be paid enough to live on and then some. These people in the union are paid much more than the average person and their benefits and pension are amazing.

Really? Please tell us about these amazing benefits and pensions.

[Scotty]

My problem with "collective bargaining" for public sector workers is the inability to hire or fire based on merit.

If it is difficult to dismiss a worker for cause it's not because of the union, but rather, because of the immensely complex policy framework developed and administered by the employer and his HR department.

As a comparison, if an obviously guilty person is set free by the court, do you blame his lawyer, or the immense complexity of the legal system and it's often arcane and byzantine rules and procedures?

[Scotty]

And I'm still waiting to hear from the anti-union people about how workers in RTW states have things so much better than their counterparts in Scandinavia or Germany.

[jbg]

If it is difficult to dismiss a worker for cause it's not because of the union, but rather, because of the immensely complex policy framework developed and administered by the employer and his HR department.

In the U.S. at least the problem is rigid "last hired first fired" rules that are largely the unthought out consequence of collective bargaining. Competence aside, it also forces much deeper cuts in services than would be needed if more expensive senior workers could be laid off.

As a comparison, if an obviously guilty person is set free by the court, do you blame his lawyer, or the immense complexity of the legal system and it's often arcane and byzantine rules and procedures?

Criminal matters (not my area of law) are entirely different. There the English language countries have a presumption of innocence that is deliberately hard to overcome.

[jbg]

As you may know I was a full-time union representative working for a public sector union. I am here to tell you that collective agreements take into account merit in the case of hiring and that a public sector employer has the capacity to dismiss a person subject to establishing just cause.

Without exposing our own "local issues" it can take years to get rid of a teacher, even one who threw objects at people.

[pinko]

In the U.S. at least the problem is rigid "last hired first fired" rules that are largely the unthought out consequence of collective bargaining. Competence aside, it also forces much deeper cuts in services than would be needed if more expensive senior workers could be laid off.

Criminal matters (not my area of law) are entirely different. There the English language countries have a presumption of innocence that is deliberately hard to overcome.

I am wondering if you can identify the specific public sector employer that adopts the "last hired first hired" rule. Secondly you appear to be conflating workforce reductions (layoffs) with dismissal.

[pinko]

Without exposing our own "local issues" it can take years to get rid of a teacher, even one who threw objects at people.

Unless you have a specific example I challenge your assertion. I would think that you might be aware of the concept of progressive discipline. If not maybe we can explore that idea too.

[Scotty]

In the U.S. at least the problem is rigid "last hired first fired" rules that are largely the unthought out consequence of collective bargaining. Competence aside, it also forces much deeper cuts in services than would be needed if more expensive senior workers could be laid off.

Let's be honest and admit the reason for such rules is that certain employers would like nothing better than to rid themselves of more senior employees on a continuing basis, regardless of the enterprise' profitability, specifically because they earn more and have better benefits. A collective agreement which guarantees you an extra week vacation once you've been there ten years is of limited utility if the employer fires everyone after nine years and eleven months.

Criminal matters (not my area of law) are entirely different. There the English language countries have a presumption of innocence that is deliberately hard to overcome.

That's really beside the point. You and I both know that if we had a streamlined, simplified system most of these criminal cases would be dealt with in a few minutes of a judge's time. Instead they take months, even years, to wind their way through the system. That's not because of the client's lawyer but because of the immense complexity of the system.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Scotty

[Shady]

Unless you have a specific example I challenge your assertion. I would think that you might be aware of the concept of progressive discipline. If not maybe we can explore that idea too.

LOL, yeah, "progressive discipline." Quite Orwellian.

Teachers in trouble spending years in 'rubber room' limbo that costs $65M

A rare look inside the city's network of "Rubber Rooms" reveals an unprecedented backlog in the teacher discipline system that has bloated the population to twice the size of four years ago - and is costing taxpayers at least $65 million a year.

The roughly 700 workers accused of various wrongdoings collect their full salaries for spending seven hours a day in low-ceilinged, over-heated rooms, playing cards, doing puzzles, reading magazines and sleeping.

NDN

Only in a public sector union, could you sit around playing cards, etc, and collect your full salary on someone else's dime. I guess this is what they call "progressive discipline." It's absolutely disgusting.

[blueblood]

And I'm still waiting to hear from the anti-union people about how workers in RTW states have things so much better than their counterparts in Scandinavia or Germany.

Much lower taxes and the ability to keep more of what they make for starters. The worker in an rtw state has the ability to work without fear of thuggery and intimidation from union reps. How come there isn't a union movement for japanese car manufacturers that the caw conveniently despises?

Germany has the advantage of having the ability to export to lazy neighbours while enjoying the most protectionist environment to operate from. As a result europe suffers while germany for now is succeeding. I wonder how many eu contries germany can bail out before they have a problem of their own. As for scandinavia, high taxes has put a cap on their economic potential. Much harder to get rich in scandinavia than the usa, but much easier to fail.

[Michael Hardner]

Conclusion: This is a rather convoluted effort that essentially negates the claim Unions have been the driving force in raising living standards in America. It has been the private sector. Whoda thunk it!

Not in America overall - in the public sector.

Not only are the unions responsible for the high standard of living in America they suffer with lower compensation. Awwwwww!!!

This is about public sector salaries. I'm not sure how much of this is about union wages - I will have to check back.

If you have read this study, it is a study in statistics and attempts to make compensation for inconsistencies in simple wage and benefit comparisons, such as including education level.

I read some of it but not all and what I read didn't seem to contain itself to public employee unions but included all public employees and we know there are lots of lawyers, Engineers of all stripes and Managerial staff that aren't members of the public union but are generally compensated less than the private sector as there is a statutory salary for the positions in government and few bonuses given.

Right.... so.... you agree then...

[Michael Hardner]

The article cited by Michael Harder is informative in that it demonstrates that teachers in the private sector generally fare better than their unionized counterparts in the public sector when it comes to compensation.

Sorry, Pinko - I just searched for 'teacher' in the document and found nothing.

Where do you get that conclusion ? I think that unionized (public school) teachers make more than private school teachers who are not unionized, but this study is across the board and (as Pliny pointed out) includes non-union public professionals.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Michael Hardner

[CANADIEN]

Much lower taxes and the ability to keep more of what they make for starters.

Never mind that they make a lot less than unionized workers, with fewer protection.

The worker in an rtw state has the ability to work without fear of thuggery and intimidation from union reps.

Workers in all American states have the capacity to choose to work in an non-unionized workplace. To argue they are not free to work because there are unions is akin to the argument that the definition opposite-sex marriage ceased to exist the day same-sex marriage became legal. As for thuggery, workers in unionized environment has better protection against shady practices, intimidation, bullying, and violation of employment standards by their employer.

[pinko]

Sorry, Pinko - I just searched for 'teacher' in the document and found nothing.

Where do you get that conclusion ? I think that unionized (public school) teachers make more than private school teachers who are not unionized, but this study is across the board and (as Pliny pointed out) includes non-union public professionals.

Are you suggesting it doesn't include teachers?

Edited March 6, 2011 by pinko

[Michael Hardner]

Are you suggesting it doesn't include teachers?

I'm suggesting that while the overall conclusion about compensation is supported by this study, specific professions are not borken out as per your point:

The article cited by Michael Harder is informative in that it demonstrates that teachers in the private sector generally fare better than their unionized counterparts in the public sector when it comes to compensation.

See if you can find a cite for your specific example.

[Scotty]

Much lower taxes and the ability to keep more of what they make for starters.

You have lower taxes, I suppose, but do you get to keep more once you've paid your health care bills, then put money into your 401k, and paid for your kid's very expensive education (unless they go to public school)? I think not. Not to mention income is higher to begin with. Let's not even discuss the absolute minimum 5 week vacation you'll get in Sweden vs --- what is the minimum required paid vacation in the US again? Oh right - NOTHING.

The worker in an rtw state has the ability to work without fear of thuggery and intimidation from union reps.

He just has to worry about thuggery and intimidation by unprincipled management, right? Now which group is likely to be treating the workers worse, their own union, or management?

Edited March 6, 2011 by Scotty

[bloodyminded]

Much lower taxes and the ability to keep more of what they make for starters. The worker in an rtw state has the ability to work without fear of thuggery and intimidation from union reps.

"Thuggery" is the new go-to talking point descriptor, I see.

So...what are we to do about the thuggery and intimidation that people regularly receive from their employers?

And why would you not consider such a thing to be an issue?

Much harder to get rich in scandinavia than the usa, but much easier to fail.

But in some parts of Europe--not to mention in "Canuckistan" itself--upward mobility is now easier and more common than in the United States.

[bloodyminded]

Workers in all American states have the capacity to choose to work in an non-unionized workplace. To argue they are not free to work because there are unions is akin to the argument that the definition opposite-sex marriage ceased to exist the day same-sex marriage became legal. As for thuggery, workers in unionized environment has better protection against shady practices, intimidation, bullying, and violation of employment standards by their employer.

Ah, you beat me to it, I see.

And yes, your first point here is one I've been making repeatedly; because whenever I've mentioned lousy employers who mistreat their workers--say, WalMart--I'm always (without exception) informed that "they are free to look for employment elsewhere."

Exactly the same applies here. And it's their argument!

Edited March 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[punked]

New Poll out shows Walker is losing the battle. Unions are betting him back. The other numbers we have sen before Walker is -20 on his favorablity rating and has lost independent voters.

The big numbers are that 70% of the State wants him to sit down and negotiate with the Democrats and Unions instead of what he has been doing. Walker can't read numbers though because he has rocks for brains maybe his Senate Republicans will figure it out.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117472988.html

Also it looks like the Cities and Counties are looking at Walkers proposal and can't find the savings he is promising. Apparently Walker is freezing their right to change taxes on residents and saying though getting rid of collective bargaining he is making it so these Cities and Counties can save the cuts he is making to their budgets. However Walker Exempted Police and Fire Fighters who make up 65-75% of the workers for these places.

More lies and bad math from Mr. Rocks for Brains. He better pass this budget soon or the whole State will be against him not just 60% of it.

Edited March 6, 2011 by punked

[pinko]

I'm suggesting that while the overall conclusion about compensation is supported by this study, specific professions are not borken out as per your point:

See if you can find a cite for your specific example.

I understand. Point taken.

[Shady]

Here's another example of public sector union "efficiency."

The county of Manitowoc wants to close it's juvenile detention center and pay another county to house the inmates. Or should I say inmate!

Yep, that's right, they have one inmate. One inmate, and 6 full time public sector detention officers to look after him. But because of union contracts, the county can't do the logical thing, and house the inmate at another location.

Top 10 stories of 2010: Juvenile Detention Center remains open

A collective bargaining agreement approved in 2004-05 prohibits subcontracting while Manitowoc County employees are laid off, according to personnel director Sharon Cornils. That means the county could not transport juvenile offenders to out-of-county facilities if the JDC were closed due to staff layoffs.

Link

[WIP]

My problem with "collective bargaining" for public sector workers is the inability to hire or fire based on merit.

The problem comes in when the discussion is about teachers - who decides what the basis of merit is? There seems to be a bi-partisan attack on public schools in America, based on the policies of the Obama Administration and some of the people he's hired, who make their intentions known that they want to gut public schools in favour of charter schools and private schooling. I haven't read enough on the subject to give much informed commentary, but I am aware of objections to merit-based hiring and pay schemes that are acting as incentives for schools and teachers to remove poor-performing students so that test scores will be higher. And of course there seem to be a lot of issues regarding what the authorities are testing for. They are encouraging schools to shift focus from educating young people to training them to pass math and english tests....and forgetting about subjects that will provide a well-rounded education like history, geography, science, music, arts etc. Many critics of merit pay see it as an unintended incentive to both streamline and dumb down the average student.

[blueblood]

Never mind that they make a lot less than unionized workers, with fewer protection.

Workers in all American states have the capacity to choose to work in an non-unionized workplace. To argue they are not free to work because there are unions is akin to the argument that the definition opposite-sex marriage ceased to exist the day same-sex marriage became legal. As for thuggery, workers in unionized environment has better protection against shady practices, intimidation, bullying, and violation of employment standards by their employer.

That's a bogus argument. Mandatory union membership is akin to the jim crow era in the southern usa. The minority african american population had to submit to white thuggery if they wanted to stay there, but those african americans were free to move elsewhere. Like some african americans moving north to escape the tyranny of the majority of crazy people, a large proportion of american workers have left union places of employment from about 1 in 3 in the fifties to around 1 in 10 today. Keeping with the analogy, legislation was passed in order to establish civil rights for african americans and the same goes for RTW for those workers who can't find other work/want to be in that job but don't want to be part of a union. Outstanding!!!

You have to take into account that those are average wages. In some cases there is a premium paid to not be unionized and for performance as well with penalties. The union doesn't have that kind of flexibility. As for employers, they risk the money, it is their business. Just like wage earners are in the business of getting the most money they can just like their employers. As for employers being cruel, it appears non union workplaces are consistently rated the best places to work. Hmmm...

[bloodyminded]

That's a bogus argument. Mandatory union membership is akin to the jim crow era in the southern usa. The minority african american population had to submit to white thuggery if they wanted to stay there, but those african americans were free to move elsewhere. Like some african americans moving north to escape the tyranny of the majority of crazy people, a large proportion of american workers have left union places of employment from about 1 in 3 in the fifties to around 1 in 10 today. Keeping with the analogy, legislation was passed in order to establish civil rights for african americans and the same goes for RTW for those workers who can't find other work/want to be in that job but don't want to be part of a union. Outstanding!!!

I'm slightly surprised that you begin with the words "bogus argument" and then analogize using the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement.