Public Service Unions

[IDBillzFan]

You're not right as often, or you don't profess it as often?

Don't profess it...

[1billsfan]

Union is willing to concede benefits but want to keep collective bargaining.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116470423.html

 

Can anyone here explain what that actually means? What are the pros/cons of collective bargaining both from the state and from the employee/union perspective? I don't really know enough about it.

 

Although this quote really pisses me off:

 

"but we will not be denied our God-given right to join a real union . . .  we will not - I repeat we will not - be denied our rights to collectively bargain," Beil said in a statement."

 

Since when is joining a union a God given right...?

 

 

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the head of the National Federation of Federal Employees. In the private sector, organized employees and the employer meet across the bargaining table as (theoretical) equals. But in the public sector, said FDR, "the employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress." Allowing public-employee unions to engage in collective bargaining would mean opening the door to the manipulation of government policy by a privileged private interest."

 

FWIW, I got this from the comment section on this page...

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116475883.html

Edited February 18, 2011 by 1billsfan

[Chef Jim]

Don't profess it...

 

But you are more right than he is. Waaaaay more right to be exact.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Chef Jim

[Fastback]

Don't worry...Jesse is on the scene and calm will be restored soon!

 

http://www.wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=14058089

[OCinBuffalo]

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the head of the National Federation of Federal Employees. In the private sector, organized employees and the employer meet across the bargaining table as (theoretical) equals. But in the public sector, said FDR, "the employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress." Allowing public-employee unions to engage in collective bargaining would mean opening the door to the manipulation of government policy by a privileged private interest."

 

FWIW, I got this from the comment section on this page...

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116475883.html

Yes, FDR, the "creator of the middle class", the man every Democrat bases their entire argument on....

...said public employee unions represent a fundamental inequitable problem...because they do, morons.

 

What FDR says here is logical, and in then proper context for then, and today.

 

How else can you describe the current state of affairs other than "the manipulation of government policy by a privileged private interest"?

 

FDR predicted this "manipulation" word for word. So who's wrong Democrats, FDR, or you?

[pBills]

I love all of the people who are ok with the Gov. doing this. FACT is NON of you would ever want to lose benefits, lose a percentage of your pension/retirement funds. The Gov. should dig a bit deeper to fix the budget than attack the unions in the name of balancing the budget. OH and by the way, I know some of this can help that... taking away their right to collective bargain is disgusting.

[RkFast]

I love all of the people who are ok with the Gov. doing this. FACT is NON of you would ever want to lose benefits, lose a percentage of your pension/retirement funds. The Gov. should dig a bit deeper to fix the budget than attack the unions in the name of balancing the budget. OH and by the way, I know some of this can help that... taking away their right to collective bargain is disgusting.

 

bull ****.

 

I benefit directly from the UFT health care plan right now. And if I had to sart contributing to that plan, I would. I would not kick and scream and carry on like these petulant spoiled !@#$s are doing.

 

With that said, I dont agree that govts. should go back on their word and renegotiate in the middle of a collectively bargained contract.

 

But once that contract expires......times up and time for these public unions to face reality.

[Nanker]

But you are more right than he is. Waaaaay more to the right to be exact.

 

 

Fixed it for ya.

 

I love all of the people who are ok with the Gov. doing this. FACT is NON of you would ever want to lose benefits, lose a percentage of your pension/retirement funds. The Gov. should dig a bit deeper to fix the budget than attack the unions in the name of balancing the budget. OH and by the way, I know some of this can help that... taking away their right to collective bargain is disgusting.

 

Then why are you okay with the FEDERAL government !@#$ing with everyone's health care coverage and periodically threatening to truncate/confiscate our private retirement savings plans? I get it. If the government gives everyone something by taking more from everyone it's okay. If people do it on their own - it's elitist and selfish. Just raise taxes. Keep raising taxes. Dig a little deeper. Well, when you dig, dig, dig the fiscal hole just keeps getting deeper in case you hadn't noticed.

The governor has proposed having the public sector employees contribute more to their pension/retirement from their own pockets. Most people in the private sector get bupkus from their employers for their retirement. Nada.

 

I'd love to see Wisconsin make the public sector employees cut checks to their unions for their union dues instead of the unions getting automatic payments from the state. Public sector employees should never have been given the right to join a collective bargaining unit.

[Fezmid]

I love all of the people who are ok with the Gov. doing this. FACT is NON of you would ever want to lose benefits, lose a percentage of your pension/retirement funds. The Gov. should dig a bit deeper to fix the budget than attack the unions in the name of balancing the budget. OH and by the way, I know some of this can help that... taking away their right to collective bargain is disgusting.

 

Well of course nobody WANTS to lose benefits. But the simple fact of the matter is that people ARE losing benefits in the private sector. Or they're losing jobs (my company just cut 9% of the workforce this week... Including one guy who had worked here for 17 years.). Why should the public sector be sitting pretty without a care in the world?

 

Fact of the matter is this is what Walker campaigned on. He won the election by a wide margin. What's the problem?

[Chef Jim]

I love all of the people who are ok with the Gov. doing this. FACT is NON of you would ever want to lose benefits, lose a percentage of your pension/retirement funds. The Gov. should dig a bit deeper to fix the budget than attack the unions in the name of balancing the budget. OH and by the way, I know some of this can help that... taking away their right to collective bargain is disgusting.

 

Let's see. Lose my job....lose benefits. Lose my job......lose benefits. I'll get back to you on my answer.

[pBills]

Let's see. Lose my job....lose benefits. Lose my job......lose benefits. I'll get back to you on my answer.

 

 

The labor movement in this country is just as important as the civil rights movement, women's rights, and dare I say the fight for independence. What is happening in Wisconsin is a slap in the face to our nation's history and to those whose legacy lives in within the organized labor movement.

 

I do not like the many professions and their unions being made the scapegoat for the financial plight of this nation when Wall Street gets bailed out and its employees get huge bonuses, the oil industry is netting tremendous profits while it is being subsidized by taxpayer dollars, sketchy foreign policy, the environment, and the blood of our soldiers. Those things are not acceptable to me.

 

Daily in the paper I also read of poor athletes crying poor and the owners of the teams threaten relocating teams unless their for-profit businesses are also subsidized with taxpayer funded stadiums/arenas and event support.

 

The Buffalo News today reports that Erie Country will be seeking bids for new turf while that old fart Ralph Wilson won't allow for naming rights of the stadium or even give a hint of what might happen to the team in the event of his passing.

 

The public employees unions have been giving concessions for several years now. I've contributed to my pension and my health care. I realized that unions have lived off of the fatten calf for sometime and their is room for negotiation and compromise, but what the Governor of Wisconsin is proposing is an outrage.

 

Every worker should have the right to organize and negotiate in good faith for benefits. If a contract is agreed upon then it should be respected and not have the rules changed after the game is started. It is that principal I want to believe our nation was founded on even though our history time and time again proves otherwise.

 

You know who gets lifetime benefits? Many politicians at all levels and many are only "part-timers".

 

The public employee unions and unions in general are here for the middle class rights and protections. Once they are dismantled where does it stop. Consumer protections? Environmental protections?

 

I feel the these leaders are trying to balance the budget on the backs of the middle-class who do real work, create real products, and spend real dollars on a daily basis.

 

Public employee union members are not getting wealthy are their day jobs. They, unlike the politicians who bang the "we are doing the work of the people" drum are truly doing the work of the people. They are the highway maintenance workers, social workers, teachers, counselors, nurses, etc. that keep this country moving forward. They are not wealthy politicians who think that they know what is best for me. Many people say the corporate leaders/executives, top talent and politicians are the ones we need to protect the most... sorry but what keeps the higher ups moving and stable? The Middle-Class Back Bone.

 

There. I think that I said everything that has been stewing for the last couple of days.

Edited February 19, 2011 by pBills

[Nanker]

Things simply cannot go on the way they have in the past. There is no more money to be had. The runaway gravy train named "entitlements" has to be stopped. Everyone has to have some skin in the game. I agree with you regarding the politicians. But they've simply been buying reelections with taxpayer money that they shower on their districts and funding everything from free condoms, needles and abortions to defense systems that are unwanted, exorbitantly priced and useless against the post modern threat that faces us most keenly.

 

Most people in the private sector aren't getting rich in their day jobs either. But they do have to pony up much if not all of their own retirement and health care costs. And there are a lot of public sector workers on the gravy train that have it knocked, and the rest of us know it. That's where the resentment comes from. Why should I take seriously a 27 year old school teacher in Wisconsin who calls out sick because her boss wants her to contribute 5% to her retirement when I have to pay 100%? Should I sympathize with her because she's being asked to contribute 2.5% to her healthcare costs or simply view it as the whining of a nincompoop that has an effete sense of entitlement?

[pBills]

Things simply cannot go on the way they have in the past. There is no more money to be had. The runaway gravy train named "entitlements" has to be stopped. Everyone has to have some skin in the game. I agree with you regarding the politicians. But they've simply been buying reelections with taxpayer money that they shower on their districts and funding everything from free condoms, needles and abortions to defense systems that are unwanted, exorbitantly priced and useless against the post modern threat that faces us most keenly.

 

Most people in the private sector aren't getting rich in their day jobs either. But they do have to pony up much if not all of their own retirement and health care costs. And there are a lot of public sector workers on the gravy train that have it knocked, and the rest of us know it. That's where the resentment comes from. Why should I take seriously a 27 year old school teacher in Wisconsin who calls out sick because her boss wants her to contribute 5% to her retirement when I have to pay 100%? Should I sympathize with her because she's being asked to contribute 2.5% to her healthcare costs or simply view it as the whining of a nincompoop that has an effete sense of entitlement?

 

 

We all know that is this Gov. gets his way, it is simply the tip of the iceberg. The full assault on the Labor Movement will come soon after. Then it will be take even more concessions, lose your pensions, cut your salaries even more. Politicians will bash unions and the labor movement all day long, knowing full well they themselves are in the pockets of special interest. If they truly wanted to save money, they work like a business and get the most bang for their buck. Especially when it comes to supplies for agencies, over spending on projects, etc., etc.

[Acantha]

Let's see. Lose my job....lose benefits. Lose my job......lose benefits. I'll get back to you on my answer.

This happened in Hawaii a couple years ago. The school district said they were out of money and came up with the forced holiday (can't remember the term used) plan where the schools shut down for on Friday every few weeks without pay (17-18 days total through the year if I remember right). The teachers went nuts, protested and started doing the organized sick day crap.

 

Finally the school board came out and said, "Okay, we understand why you wouldn't want this. Instead, starting next school year, we will be cutting XXX number of jobs to get us inside our budget."

 

It wasn't 24 hours before the teachers signed off on the monthly holiday.

 

Of course then the parents protested because they had to hang out with their kids for an extra day each month (just kidding...child care issues did become a problem).

Edited February 19, 2011 by Faustus

[pBills]

This happened in Hawaii a couple years ago. The school district said they were out of money and came up with the forced holiday (can't remember the term used) plan where the schools shut down for on Friday every few weeks without pay (17-18 days total through the year if I remember right). The teachers went nuts, protested and started doing the organized sick day crap.

 

Finally the school board came out and said, "Okay, we understand why you wouldn't want this. Instead, starting next school year, we will be cutting XXX number of jobs to get us inside our budget."

 

It wasn't 24 hours before the teachers signed off on the monthly holiday.

 

Of course then the parents protested because they had to hang out with their kids for an extra day each month (just kidding...child care issues did become a problem).

 

 

 

To me, I think the easiest thing for those in power to do is threaten to reduce salaries, benefits and state that jobs will be lost if they don't agree. The hard part is actually going through their budgets and actually finding better ways to do business. The funny part is that none of those "decision makers" would EVER agree to take a pay cut, lose benefits, etc. They would offer concessions, just like the unions do.

[Fezmid]

The school district said they were out of money and came up with the forced holiday (can't remember the term used) plan where the schools shut down for on Friday every few weeks without pay

I think the word you're looking for is "furlough:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furlough

 

Walker is saying that if the bill isn't passed, he will have to lay off 6,000+ employees. He also promised no increase in furlough days, along with some other things I can't remember offhand.

 

The funny part is that none of those "decision makers" would EVER agree to take a pay cut, lose benefits, etc. They would offer concessions, just like the unions do.

If a pay cut or reduction in benefits is not a concession, what would you call it....?

 

And as I keep saying - this was not a surprise, it's what he ran on and was overwhelmingly elected for.

 

How is this any different than Washington forcing the Healthcare reform bill through without any support from Republicans? And what would the media have said if Republicans just walked out and made it so nobody could vote? They'd be pissed and the "party of no" comments would be flowing. How come I haven't heard anything about the Dems being the "party of no" in this case?

[boyst]

I love all of the people who are ok with the Gov. doing this. FACT is NON of you would ever want to lose benefits, lose a percentage of your pension/retirement funds. The Gov. should dig a bit deeper to fix the budget than attack the unions in the name of balancing the budget. OH and by the way, I know some of this can help that... taking away their right to collective bargain is disgusting.

At my last job every year they would cut a few benefits, and increase costs. The 2nd to last year I was there they increased the middle tier coverage to just under $2.50 from the highest. This was the most popular health insurance. Instead of $14.xx a week it went up to $22.xx. The highest insurance, which very few had, was $24.xx. The average hourly employee there earned $11/hr. The last year I was there they "had" to cut costs, they took out the mid tier insurance out. They were a self insured company. You had two choices, a PPO option, or what became a $27/week coverage option.

 

This happened in Hawaii a couple years ago. The school district said they were out of money and came up with the forced holiday (can't remember the term used) plan where the schools shut down for on Friday every few weeks without pay (17-18 days total through the year if I remember right). The teachers went nuts, protested and started doing the organized sick day crap.

 

Finally the school board came out and said, "Okay, we understand why you wouldn't want this. Instead, starting next school year, we will be cutting XXX number of jobs to get us inside our budget."

 

It wasn't 24 hours before the teachers signed off on the monthly holiday.

 

Of course then the parents protested because they had to hang out with their kids for an extra day each month (just kidding...child care issues did become a problem).

This will never happen. As the Union, they care about everyone. As individuals, they'll accept that many will be laid off. The Unions are pretty much anti-revolution. The strong survive in the real world but in a Union or Tenured position you can limp along. The pack becomes weaker for this.

 

If you mean to tell me that the average teacher in WI actually gives a crap about a teacher 2 school districts away then you just do not know human psychology.