Union Busting in Wisconsin

[SF/PF]

It won't be that easy to get an agreement.

By "difficult" I mean not economically practical and efficient.

In public unions where economic practicality plays little if any role there is no economic incentive to act and if dismissal is not an economic imperative then little will be done.

Do unions bear responsibility for the organizational structure implemented by management?

...and it is being dealt with now in Wisconsin. It is a matter of responsibility. Yes Management should be responsible but economic practicality in a public union is not the their responsibility. If anything it is to acquire as much resources as possible. The larger the budget the better. The limits the taxpayer will tolerate will make them the final arbiter in the public realm. Economics is the ultimate decision maker.

Management in government departments has a responsibility to ensure that their departments run as efficiently as possible. That includes only spending as much money as is required to fulfill the obligations of government to the standards established by that government.

What you describe, in terms of trying to acquire as many resources as possible, is a perfect example of mismanagement.

Management may be loath to deal with labour relations and office politics play a part but that irresponsibility will eventually show up on the bottom line costing both management and labour and possibly the enterprise.

Indeed. But surely you must agree that it is management that has the power to rectify the situation.

Would you feel justified in arguing against replacement? It is much easier in management to be replaced, isn't it? It's because you have a responsibility. Workers have less responsibility which is why management is there.

Workers have the responsibility to maximize their productivity. Management has the responsibility to ensure that workers are maximizing their productivity. Both management and workers should be progressively disciplined if they are not meeting their obligations.

Management has it's tools and it is it's job to get production. Using that "excuse" would mean one doesn't understand his job, can't or isn't doing it and would never be in management in the first place.

Quite right. Which makes me wonder why I've seen so many posters in this thread harping about how unions are to blame for low productivity when it is obvious to any observer that in any such situation, management has also failed spectacularly.

Yes, and the shareholders in WI have stepped in and voted out the board of directors.

And by all accounts they are actively working to acheive a refund, feeling that they have not received what they believed they were purchasing.

Avoidance of a problem eventually gets to the level where something will get done. If nothing is done that's the end of the pay cheque for everyone and it's start over from scratch with; hopefully, a lesson learned.

I agree. Are you aware, though, that the bill passed doesn't address at all the "emergency" it was instituted to resolve?

[Pliny]

Do unions bear responsibility for the organizational structure implemented by management?

You are expecting my answer should be, "No."?

They need to realize the organizatinal structure is designed to accommodate them so they do have some responsibility to it. They are not supposed to be but are too often, oppositional and that is not a negligible factor in organizatinoal structure. If Unions were about exploitation and abuse, of which I believe there is only a shell of that old purpose today there are enough laws outside of Unions to protect them, then they would have a reason for their existence. I do not deny there are some instances even today that a collective effort is required to make a correction.

Labour is a cost to production. It is not the reason for production and, in my view, considers itself to be the entire purpose of an enterprise. I believe that government actually promotes this concept.

The profits of a company are the profits of a company. After taxes and costs the shareholders, share the profits. Labour, under Union guidance, attempts to be a shareholder in profits. I don't begrudge them attempting to be rewarded with as much compensation as they can get but some years there may not be any profits and they are unwilling to share equally in that responsibility.

There are several things wrong with the basic concept of Unions as they exist today. As I said, there are enough laws regarding labour rights outside of Unions, and they are rather redundant in most instances. I suppose that is why their popularity is such that is only represents 7% of the private labour force in the US.

It needs to take a new look at it's realtionship in the organizational structure of business enterprise.

Management in government departments has a responsibility to ensure that their departments run as efficiently as possible. That includes only spending as much money as is required to fulfill the obligations of government to the standards established by that government.

What you describe, in terms of trying to acquire as many resources as possible, is a perfect example of mismanagement.

And I would say mismanagagement is embedded in the structure.

A government department is generally allocated a budget. It must spend it's budget or expect budget cuts. The budgets have a general annual increase to compensate for inflation and other foreseeable increased costs or necessity for expansion. Every spring, there is a rush to spend anything that is left from the allocated budget which results in unnecessary, wasteful spending and the expected increase in the allocation for the next year.

You are probably aware of the fact that in some departments "cuts" to budgets are not really cuts to the budget but cuts to the annual increase in the budget. Calling these "cuts" to the budget is really misleading.

Management may be loath to deal with labour relations and office politics play a part but that irresponsibility will eventually show up on the bottom line costing both management and labour and possibly the enterprise.

Indeed. But surely you must agree that it is management that has the power to rectify the situation.

Management has that as a responsibility. It is managements job. Organized Labour will definitely not assume any of that responsibility. It assumes no responsibility outside the scope of a job description.

Workers have the responsibility to maximize their productivity. Management has the responsibility to ensure that workers are maximizing their productivity. Both management and workers should be progressively disciplined if they are not meeting their obligations.

Organized labour, as opposed to workers, only has a reposnsiblity to meet the level of productivity set by management or described in their contract. Management ensures the expected levels and standards are met. Efficiency is one of the concerns of management and is a matter of planning and development.

Quite right. Which makes me wonder why I've seen so many posters in this thread harping about how unions are to blame for low productivity when it is obvious to any observer that in any such situation, management has also failed spectacularly.

Especially, at the bargaining table. Wages, benefits and entitlements are expected to improve and, for the most part, the problem of productivity is left to management outside the bargaining process.

Part of the fault lies in the economic policy of government of controlling wages and prices in it's continuous attempt to "stabilize" the economy through inflation.

And by all accounts they are actively working to acheive a refund, feeling that they have not received what they believed they were purchasing.

I don't know how many believe that but it is part of it I'm sure.

I agree. Are you aware, though, that the bill passed doesn't address at all the "emergency" it was instituted to resolve?

I think the "emergency" was loss of control over the budgetary process and the conflict of interest that public Unions present in the process. It does address that to a degree but not enough, in my view.

It is politically difficult and a vote killer to take responsibility for limiting or rescinding any benefits of any special interest.

[Shady]

Another glorious example of the "greatness" of public unions.

A drunk city bus driver can't be fired.

[pinko]

Judge blocks Wisconsin law that curbs collective bargaining

Los Angeles Times | March 18, 2011 | 9:37 a.m. PT

A Wisconsin state judge today issued a temporary restraining order blocking the new law that curbs collective bargaining rights for most public employees in that state.

Judge Maryann Sumi granted the temporary order blocking the law signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker after weeks of protests and a boycott by Senate Democrats that turned Wisconsin's state capital, Madison, into a national political battleground.

The judge was acting on a request filed by a district attorney who contends that a legislative committee had violated Wisconsin's open meetings law by pushing the measure onto the floor. That maneuver was key to unblocking the legislative stalemate and allowing the bill to be signed by Walker.

More soon at http://www.latimes.com/.

[bush_cheney2004]

Judge blocks Wisconsin law that curbs collective bargaining

Los Angeles Times | March 18, 2011 | 9:37 a.m. PT

Yep...just like we said would happen. What a wonderful American civics lesson for our neighbours to the north. Stay tuned...now this message from Labatt's!

[pinko]

Yep...just like we said would happen. What a wonderful American civics lesson for our neighbours to the north. Stay tuned...now this message from Labatt's!

I look forward to the recall votes. I am hoping there will be less Republican senators when the dust settles.

[Shady]

I look forward to the recall votes. I am hoping there will be less Republican senators when the dust settles.

Don't hold your breath.

[Pliny]

Yeah. Canadians will not be allowed to vote. Is that a bad undemocratic thing?

[SF/PF]

They need to realize the organizatinal structure is designed to accommodate them so they do have some responsibility to it. They are not supposed to be but are too often, oppositional and that is not a negligible factor in organizatinoal structure.

I am unaware of any collective agreement that dictates the terms of organizational structure except those levels in the structure that include the workers. Sometimes these levels are the problem. Most of the time, problems in companies exist at a much higher level.

If Unions were about exploitation and abuse, of which I believe there is only a shell of that old purpose today there are enough laws outside of Unions to protect them, then they would have a reason for their existence. I do not deny there are some instances even today that a collective effort is required to make a correction.

You may have a point if it was possible for workers to have those laws enforced without incurring cost to themselves. Someone that has been unlawfully dismissed often does not have the option of hiring a lawyer, since they're unemployed and facing mortgage and bill payments.

Collective agreements, for the most part, do not include protections for workers beyond those already enshrined in law. The important difference is that a union provides a means for workers to enforce those protections. Items such as seniority protections are often the only additional benefits contained in agreements.

Labour is a cost to production. It is not the reason for production and, in my view, considers itself to be the entire purpose of an enterprise. I believe that government actually promotes this concept.

Labour is also a form of investment in a company made by workers.

The profits of a company are the profits of a company. After taxes and costs the shareholders, share the profits. Labour, under Union guidance, attempts to be a shareholder in profits. I don't begrudge them attempting to be rewarded with as much compensation as they can get but some years there may not be any profits and they are unwilling to share equally in that responsibility.

They seek maximum return on the investment of their labour.

There are several things wrong with the basic concept of Unions as they exist today. As I said, there are enough laws regarding labour rights outside of Unions, and they are rather redundant in most instances. I suppose that is why their popularity is such that is only represents 7% of the private labour force in the US.

Again, you make the leap from "There exists a law against companies doing X" to "Workers are protected from companies doing X." An important difference.

It needs to take a new look at it's realtionship in the organizational structure of business enterprise.

Perhaps. In the meantime, well run companies will continue to ensure that management is not negligent in its duties by not buying into the "blame the labour!" rhetoric.

And I would say mismanagagement is embedded in the structure.

A government department is generally allocated a budget. It must spend it's budget or expect budget cuts. The budgets have a general annual increase to compensate for inflation and other foreseeable increased costs or necessity for expansion. Every spring, there is a rush to spend anything that is left from the allocated budget which results in unnecessary, wasteful spending and the expected increase in the allocation for the next year.

You are probably aware of the fact that in some departments "cuts" to budgets are not really cuts to the budget but cuts to the annual increase in the budget. Calling these "cuts" to the budget is really misleading.

I agree completely. A very well documented example of ineffectual management.

Management has that as a responsibility. It is managements job. Organized Labour will definitely not assume any of that responsibility. It assumes no responsibility outside the scope of a job description.

Nor should it. Workers do not fill that role within any well run organization.

Organized labour, as opposed to workers, only has a reposnsiblity to meet the level of productivity set by management or described in their contract. Management ensures the expected levels and standards are met. Efficiency is one of the concerns of management and is a matter of planning and development.

So if management has set the bar too low, we'll just blame that on the union? Management has the responsibility to determine and enforce reasonable standards of productivity. If they fail to do so, or set the standard too low, they bear sole responsibility.

Especially, at the bargaining table. Wages, benefits and entitlements are expected to improve and, for the most part, the problem of productivity is left to management outside the bargaining process.

Well, yeah. If they don't "improve" they actually end up reduced, due to inflation.

Part of the fault lies in the economic policy of government of controlling wages and prices in it's continuous attempt to "stabilize" the economy through inflation.

I don't know how many believe that but it is part of it I'm sure.

The alternative is considerably worse.

I think the "emergency" was loss of control over the budgetary process and the conflict of interest that public Unions present in the process. It does address that to a degree but not enough, in my view.

They never lost control of the budgetary process. They merely neglected to use the controls they always had.

It is politically difficult and a vote killer to take responsibility for limiting or rescinding any benefits of any special interest.

Another excuse for management neglecting their duty. "It's too hard!" or "It's not good for my career!" are not very compelling defenses.

[Pliny]

I am unaware of any collective agreement that dictates the terms of organizational structure except those levels in the structure that include the workers. Sometimes these levels are the problem. Most of the time, problems in companies exist at a much higher level.

The responsibility of management.

You may have a point if it was possible for workers to have those laws enforced without incurring cost to themselves. Someone that has been unlawfully dismissed often does not have the option of hiring a lawyer, since they're unemployed and facing mortgage and bill payments.

Collective agreements, for the most part, do not include protections for workers beyond those already enshrined in law. The important difference is that a union provides a means for workers to enforce those protections. Items such as seniority protections are often the only additional benefits contained in agreements.

Not counter to anything I have said and once again the problem of management.

Labour is also a form of investment in a company made by workers.

They seek maximum return on the investment of their labour.

I see that but only if labour takes some responsibility for production. Once again you point out that it is management making the responsible investment.

Again, you make the leap from "There exists a law against companies doing X" to "Workers are protected from companies doing X." An important difference.

Unions are policemen?

Perhaps. In the meantime, well run companies will continue to ensure that management is not negligent in its duties by not buying into the "blame the labour!" rhetoric.

That's management's responsibility.

I agree completely. A very well documented example of ineffectual management.

Management is entirely repsonsible.

It (Labour) assumes no responsibility outside the scope of a job description.

Nor should it. Workers do not fill that role within any well run organization.

They only have a responsibility to themselves. No responsiblity to their employer. It is management's responsiblity to look after the interests of the employer.

So if management has set the bar too low, we'll just blame that on the union? Management has the responsibility to determine and enforce reasonable standards of productivity. If they fail to do so, or set the standard too low, they bear sole responsibility.

Managment is responsible.

They never lost control of the budgetary process. They merely neglected to use the controls they always had.

Management's responsibility.

Another excuse for management neglecting their duty. "It's too hard!" or "It's not good for my career!" are not very compelling defenses.

Management's responsibility.

Well, you point out that management has neglected it's responsibilities for a long time now. It seems you would prefer they irresponsibly continue on?

We can bat responsiblity back and forth all day but the problem is systemic and it lies in the inability of both management and labour to realize the impossible guarantees of economic stability by government or that government will provide jobs and/or create jobs and/or save jobs. By itself, it does none of these things and creates a sort of "moral hazard" in society neglecting the future in exchange for entitlements now. And labour and management are both guilty. Economic reality will set in either way and be the final arbiter. Either both parties recognize that economic reality and work on it together or they remain divided and scrumming for the best deal for themselves neglecting the long term entirely. We can only continue to live on the promises of jobs and prosperity from politicians and the credit of future generations for a short period. It is not us who will pay the piper, we will live the good life.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Pliny

[Shady]

Well, you point out that management has neglected it's responsibilities for a long time now. Are they trying to get a handle on that or are they going to irresponsibly continue on?

We can bat responsiblity back and forth all day but the problem is systemic and it lies in the inability of both management and labour to realize the impossible guarantees of economic stability by government or that government will provide jobs and/or create jobs and/or save jobs. By itself, it does none of these things and creates a sort of "moral hazard" in society neglecting the future for entitlements now. And labour and management are guilty. Economic reality will set in either way and be the final arbiter. Either both parties recognize that reality and work on it together or they remain divided and scrumming for the best deal for themselves neglecting the long term entirely. We can just live on the promises of jobs and prosperity from politicians and the credit of future generations.

Exactly. But as usual, these pro-union types continue to conflate public sector unions with private sector unions. Even though they're very different creatures. It's obviously some kind of perverse strategy on their part. Too many people continue to make the same "mistake" too many times. Which begs the question. Is their argument so weak that they need to base it on a lie? The answer is a resounding yes!

[BubberMiley]

Exactly. But as usual, these anti-union types continue to try to make an imaginary distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions. Even though they're the same creature. It's obviously some kind of perverse strategy on their part. Too many people continue to make the same "mistake" too many times. Which begs the question. Is their argument so weak that they need to base it on a lie? The answer is a resounding yes!

[Pliny]

Exactly. But as usual, these anti-union types continue to try to make an imaginary distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions. Even though they're the same creature. It's obviously some kind of perverse strategy on their part. Too many people continue to make the same "mistake" too many times. Which begs the question. Is their argument so weak that they need to base it on a lie? The answer is a resounding yes!

There is a difference between public and private unions. It is not imaginary. It has to do with their economic relationship with their employer and, that being understood, the obvious conflict of interest.

[Shady]

Exactly. But as usual, these anti-union types continue to try to make an imaginary distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions. Even though they're the same creature.

But they're not the same creaure. Why do you people continue to deny?

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.

Anyone suggesting that there's no distinctions between private unions and public unions, is being completely disingenuous. Or just straight up lying. One or the other, because facts are facts.

[Shady]

There is a difference between public and private unions. It is not imaginary. It has to do with their economic relationship with their employer and, that being understood, the obvious conflict of interest.

Exactly. But it's part of the blood libel that's been continually pushed in this thread since the beginning. They intentionally blur the lines.

[BubberMiley]

Blood libel? I smell a tangent.

[pinko]

http://exiledonline.com/vanity-fair-profiles-the-exile/

[Pliny]

http://exiledonline.com/vanity-fair-profiles-the-exile/

Lovely site. Doesn't it just get your heart aflutter. I didn't see a thing they were promoting besides hatred. First to expose the Tea party as Astroturf - ha ha ha. I believe that Nancy Pelosi was the first to label the movement that. The left is familiar with Astro turf since they lay lay it and like you to believe it isn't any different than real grassroots.

I don't believe you are supposed to post anything without comment but anyway I expect "exiled" to keep moving - perhaps Venezuela next.

[Scotty]

Where is Teaxs? You still don't have a clue about the USA, eh?

Texas is the northernmost state of Mexico, right?

Well, soon maybe.

[no1ninja]

GE will not pay taxes on 5.1 Billion profits earned in its US operations, that is it will pay "nil" or "zilch". Thanks in part to its aggressive lobbying effort not to have to pay its fair share. Guess who heads Obama's economic panel? The GE chief himself.

Americans are busting the wrong UNION's. There are no bigger leechfucks in that economy than the corporate sector. The gap is widening for a reason.

Edited March 26, 2011 by no1ninja

[punked]

Signatures collected for First recall, guess what? He is a Republican, the signatures for Randy Hopper are all ready to go a month and half ahead of when they are due.

[pinko]

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

A Wisconsin judge ruled Thursday the state's divisive new collective bargaining law had not taken effect, and officials in Republican Gov. Scott Walker's administration say he plans to comply with the ruling and to halt preparations to begin deducting money from public workers' paychecks.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued her declaration a day after Walker's aides said they believed the law was processed correctly and that they would continue efforts to enact it, despite the judge's warning to halt such efforts.

Two Walker administration officials who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the governor hadn't publicly announced his plans said he would announce later Thursday that he would comply with Sumi's ruling.

The law would require most public sector workers to contribute more to their health care and pensions, changes that amount to an average 8 percent pay cut. The measure also strips them of their right to collectively bargain any work conditions except wages.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/wisconsin-judge-declares-_n_843024.html

[bush_cheney2004]

No...it will be breaking news when you actually post some original content.

[Pliny]

GE will not pay taxes on 5.1 Billion profits earned in its US operations, that is it will pay "nil" or "zilch". Thanks in part to its aggressive lobbying effort not to have to pay its fair share. Guess who heads Obama's economic panel? The GE chief himself.

Americans are busting the wrong UNION's. There are no bigger leechfucks in that economy than the corporate sector. The gap is widening for a reason.

A lot of Union workers have jobs there.

GE is taking a big gamble by trying to lobby for green enrgy while it gears up for the "legislated" demand.

The fact it doesn't pay any corporate taxes certainly isn't endearing to the taxpayer but it is one of the faults of a redistributive society. By it's nature it is about privilege and favour for some over others and the politicians get to decide. It isn't fair but it is what the left wants. It wants it's politicians to decide who should receive and who should pay. Who are the rich and who are the poor. Who should be rewarded and who should be penalized. When you do that they often don't divvy it up right, giving some to friends and associates or special interests they may have. Once the power to grant favour and privilege is given you get some inconsistencies. One is that corporations can pay no taxes. They do however, provide jobs for hundreds of thousands and that means payroll taxes and people with money to spend. Government revenues. GE's promise is to be technologically positioned to create thousands more "green" jobs. Of course coroporations and politicians are fickle. The corporation might move to China and/or the government may change it's policies.

[pinko]

No...it will be breaking news when you actually post some original content.

The article speaks for itself. It would seem Governor Walker has reluctantly recognized the role the courts play in determining this particular issue.