New Wisconsin governor tries to bust unions

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisco...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDdGhvdXNhbmRzcHJv

I thought I would see a thread on this with all you right wingers masterbating like never before.

Well, if Wisc ever hopes to get any manufacturing back in the state, its the best thing they can do. Start with the government unions and keep hacking at them. The part I really agree with is the part where people are not forced to pay dues and there is an annual vote on whether to keep the union. This insures that what unions there are, actually do something for their members.

Typical union behavior. We don't care where you get the money or how disasterous the budget situation becomes, but we sure as hell won't be making any sacrifices. We'll ride that gravy train all the way down the shitter first.

Here's the thing.

Public employees aren't put to work in dangerous conditions. They aren't exploited. They aren't overworked. They're paid higher and receive higher benefits than those with equivalent jobs in the private sector. The costs associated with their jobs are borne directly on the backs of the taxpayer. These are facts, yes?

My question: how can you justify this? Other than just giving unions POWER to command concessions FAR OUT OF STEP with the market, why would you AS A TAXPAYER want government employees to be unionized? Their union serves no other purpose than to grab itself more of your tax dollars.

I'd really like a serious answer to this.

This study doesn't jive with the claim of public workers being paid better than private workers, but since it doesn't support the groupthink here, I'm sure it'll be dismissed as a liberal lie. Of course, this study is about Michigan so I'm sure the claim will be that Wisconsin employees are paid much better.

"Public employees do get much better health care benefits than private-sector employees get, but they pay for it through lower wages," said the study's author, Jeffrey Keefe, a labor and employment relations associate professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey. "Public employees in the state of Michigan are ... neither overpaid nor overcompensated."

LINK

No Paladin, those are not facts. In reality, public employees are paid about 6-9% less than public employees including benefits.

Plus, public employees are not held accountable in any way to produce.

Paid better? No. Receive better health and retirement benefits? Yes. But I would say that the health and retirement benefits are balanced out by lower wages and no employee ownership options.

All depends. If you have a relative thats higher up on the food chain that may be true just like in the private sector. If not then you have to produce.

Even if you take exception to the claim that public employees are paid/compensated higher than those in the private sector with similar job duties, please answer my question.

(BTW, I can GUARANTEE you that my statement on pay/benefits for public employees is a fact here in California. And there was an article very recently [I'll try to dig it up] that showed the gap was even worse for FEDERAL public employees.)

ABC News linkage

Let's count some of the places where the public payroll is destroying the status quo, and where the trendline shows that fat from public sector is unsustainable.

Wisconsin in today's press.

Gov Christie in NJ upsetting teachers to no end.

Egypt has around 35% of the population employed by gubmint, good luck meeting those payrolls if its economy takes any more hiccups.

The usual, on-schedule, moderate crisis in the developed-world uber-economies, Germany, France, Japan, pick one, at meeting their respective swollen obligations for retirees, or the public payroll, or both.

Florida considers whether declaring bankruptcy can help shake off some bad pacts with unions.

New York and California both continue to face insolvency, seeking drastic attempts including de-funding some defined benefit pension promises to unions.

Conseratives initiatives on a federal level to take spending back to 2008 levels.

Good times, good times.

I'll be in my bunk.

Depends on the agency. I've worked for two state agencies, one the work got done...period. The other you were still on time if you were 9 months behind on getting a project done and then took maternity leave for 6 months and you are not the woman. I was told I would not be allowed to leave if my project wasn't completed before I left that job. To which I was incredulous, that they even though my project wouldn't be done on time. It was and I left.

OK Ill answer the question. If all the employees were not union they would all get canned during every administration change and replaced with new cronies. Knowing this what kind of person would seek public service as a career? Not anyone any good knowing the job only lasts as long as the governor does. With unions in place we as taxpayers get a core group of dependable people who get the work done. Without them we will have revolving group of politicians friends and relatives who do nothing. Granted there is quite a bit of corruption in government service jobs but that is the fault of the politicians who hire them, not the unions. The unions are there to protect workers jobs but if management clearly documents their case they can fire an employee for just cause. Also on another note most of the waste fraud and abuse that is reported to the Inspector Generals office comes from union employees. If these employees didnt have union backing they could easily lose their jobs and reputations by reporting it.

Ah the Cato institute, a well respected balanced site. What happened over the last decade? Can we say Homeland Security?

This thread is about taking away the right for workers to organize. If the Wisconsin governor needs workers concessions, which I may add those unions offered to give up $100,000,000 in concessions but were rejected by the governor, he could go back to the barganing table with those unions instead of trying to strip their right to organize could he not idiot?

I'm reading a lot about this in the sort-of local news.

A lot of the protesters are smugly likening themselves to the Egyptians.
Oh, the new governor with an R after his name - for shame! - isn't cowing to our every wish! The dictator!

As I predicted, the link I posted was ignored. It contains the inconvenient fact that the so called that "proved" civil service workers make so much more was skewed for several reasons. If you want to read it go ahead. I'm not going to cite it.

Every jurisdiction must deal with the union menace in it's own way. No, strike that, not menace, the "problem."

There is actually a growing debate underway in America about whether a state can declare bankruptcy (it can't under the current federal code, but there's a growing perception that leaders must find some means to bust up the most egregious and unsustainable pacts with unions).

They were rioting in Greece for losing gubmint jobs or the threat of reduced pensions. Wisconsin is just the latest headline. Now, I don't believe it will get that far here, but if you'd asked me 2 years ago if California citizens would ever be paid with state-issued IOUs, I'd have laughed at you. It's actually a similar problem everywhere, like the bad joke goes, de nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

If I thought blowing up the unions would solve all our problems I'd pull the switch myself. Unfortunately, I think farting and tap dancing is more likely to work.

Actually what I've said was that the unsustainable pacts with public unions must be abrogated, somehow.

I don't think busting the unions is the answer, that's just a simple and glib way of expressing the underlying point - that there's no place for unions in government workforces, and that taxpayers should've revolted decades ago when the problems started surfacing. C'est la vie. We'll pay for it now, and lots of gubmint workers will probably get a lot less to retire on than current commitments.

Yes, those damn evil unions...

Easy, tiger, we're talking public unions.

The other ones are past any importance anyway, and generally self-correct until a public bailout is needed (ship builders, steel workers, airlines, automakers).

For the condition you cited there are many causes, but unions are almost never an optimal solution.


I'm quite pleased at how America kept growing over the past 3 decades while our inferiors across the pond and elsewhere have stagnated and shriveled.

1980
#15 United States: $12,185.72 per capita

1990
#10 United States: $23,063.58 per capita

2000
#4 United States: $34,599.47 per capita

2006
#7 United States: $44,155.00 per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita&date=2006

2010
$47,400 (2010 est.)


Personally, I'd prefer the larger pie, and an equal shot at my slice of it, than a smaller pie for all just so that the slices are more evenly distributed. Fuck that, imo, unless the opportunities are few and scarce, and the average joe doesn't have a shot at a good life if he works hard.

And if two yahoos like you and I can become lawyers I'd say that America still has opportunities aplenty. You know what I'm talking?

I never thought one way or another about unions until I had first hand, working experience with them. When some lazy fuck files a grievance against you for refilling a copy machine, it tends to pop your eyes wide open. Unions and HOA's tend to be run by the same type of miserable, counterproductive antagonists.

Every teacher, firefighter, police officer? Who would take the jobs? I don't think this is remotely realistic. Besides, doesn't this then automatically assume that all of the people working in public service now are aligned with one party. I mean, they're all going to get fired, right?

Anyone who thinks so little of their own value and contribution that they imagine they'd be fired without union protection...is probably right.

The same kind as those in the private sector--who have no such "protection"--those who want to earn a living.

Your conclusions are suspect because I doubt your premises are true. Do you REALLY think that all public employees would be canned when an administration changes? Even if this were the desire (and I have no reason to believe it is)...how would one actually accomplish it without engendering absolute chaos?

Is the new governor going to have people vet every clerk at the DMV? Every toll taker at the bridges? Every public transit mechanic? NO. WAY.

Because, as we all know, unions and government workers have great reputations for being as productive as they can be. Right?

Again, for every job in the union?

Because unions could never, ever wield undue influence on account of their size and power? Why, labor union corruption is just unthinkable!

We've certainly heard lots of horror stories about how difficult it is to fire some public workers. The documentary 'Waiting for Superman' showed in shocking detail just how nearly impossible it is to get rid of an incompetent teacher.

Where the employees are all union members, this would seem inevitable.

Not really. The government has all sorts of whistle-blowing protections in place for public employees.

^ Refuting Eightball is an exercise in futility. He's only here to troll, and doesn't care what is actually said. Besides, the poor guy can't even manage proper spelling and punctuation; can you expect him to acually understand logic?

This is the first indication of something we are going to see a LOT more of in the near future.

The bottom line is this: voters everywhere are crying "Cut! Cut! Cut! We have to get the budget under control! We can't afford the deficits!"

Then, it's: "WAIT! Whaddya mean you're gonna cut my shit! NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL!"

You can't have it both ways. You think it's bad now? Wait until Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare get gutted and you have millions descending on DC. Then you are going to see things get UGLY, people. It'll be the acid test this nation hasn't seen the like of since 1861.

Keep your powder dry!!