Public Employee Unions

[GP1]

Let me say this first. I'm completely in favor of private labor unions being legal.

Before I tell all of you why public unions should be illegal, I'll let each of you take a shot if you wish. Try to include in your discussion the role of a member of a private union vs a public union. It's very simple if you think about it. I'm sure Z.I.P. will have something smart and interesting to say as he always does on these matters.

[zip37]

When I signed on w/the Fed. Gov., and the Military, I signed and initaled a seperate statement stating I would/could not strike against the Agency/Air Force [Gov.] the penalty was IMMEDIATE fiiring/court martial. That's how RWR was able to fire the striking PATCO FAA employees. I had no problem signing/initaling the paper. I don't think any public employee should be abe to strike/call in sick, and keep their job.

I don't know if the same paper is required to be signed/initaled today.

With that being said, I did join a Federal union to try to stop some hanky panky the Agency was trying to do to us, but zI would never strike/call in sick.

[Z.I.P.]

Let me say this first. I'm completely in favor of private labor unions being legal.

Before I tell all of you why public unions should be illegal, I'll let each of you take a shot if you wish. Try to include in your discussion the role of a member of a private union vs a public union. It's very simple if you think about it. I'm sure Z.I.P. will have something smart and interesting to say as he always does on these matters.

GP1 Buddy, the only "smart" comment you are going to get on this issue is liable to sound like a smart alecky one. The idea that you give up constitutional rights by working for the democratic sector is laughable. Unless there is some national security/public safety context involved (which is the reason why I as a military civilian worker and health and safety workers are prevented from striking -- not from collectively bargaining pay and privileges) it's unbelievable that some hot-headed pol like the newly enshrined Gov of Wisconsin would use budgets as an opportunity to destroy basic rights and responsibilities of government. Period.

[skip-zip]

I don't have a problem with unions. I just have a problem with someone making $100,000 a year to sweep floors. It's been way out of whack for way too long.

Beyond that, it's very compelling when you hear that employees that work for private companies pay about 3 times as much for their benefits as public employees.

It's simple....we can't afford to keep going on like this. This day was inevitable.

[Dave in Green]

..... it's unbelievable that some hot-headed pol like the newly enshrined Gov of Wisconsin would use budgets as an opportunity to destroy basic rights and responsibilities of government. Period.

Nothing unbelievable about it at all. The far right has been openly talking about doing this for a long time. It was inevitable this would happen when the far right got swept into office. Either those who went to the polls to vote really wanted this to happen, or they weren't paying close attention to what was likely to happen when they voted for these folks.

[RowdyZip]

I don't have a problem with unions. I just have a problem with someone making $100,000 a year to sweep floors. It's been way out of whack for way too long.

Beyond that, it's very compelling when you hear that employees that work for private companies pay about 3 times as much for their benefits as public employees.

It's simple....we can't afford to keep going on like this. This day was inevitable.

It's a shame that so many people can stereotype a public employee as being overpaid to do menial jobs. As a public employee (a non-union one), I can assure you that the majority of the time that is incorrect. Do these unions protect some people who are worthless as workers at the expense of the new blood? In some cases yes, but this isn't limited to the public sector. Would we be better off without public sector unions? In some instances, maybe. In others, absolutely not. The rush to judgment that's being forced down the throats in some now GOP-controlled states is astounding. As far as the pension contributions and health care premiums, that was formerly an incentive to pursue a stable career in the public sector rather than a higher pay/higher premium private sector job. Still today, on average, public employees on the state and local levels are paid around 25% less in salary than their private party counterparts. I'm not sure the right way to get intelligent and hard-working public employees is to decrease benefits. There's no easy answer, but certainly the correct one isn't to jam it down the throats of thousands of taxpayers just because your political party happens to control the legislative and executive branches of the government.

[GP1]

Let me say this first. I'm completely in favor of private labor unions being legal.

Before I tell all of you why public unions should be illegal, I'll let each of you take a shot if you wish. Try to include in your discussion the role of a member of a private union vs a public union. It's very simple if you think about it. I'm sure Z.I.P. will have something smart and interesting to say as he always does on these matters.

GP1 Buddy, the only "smart" comment you are going to get on this issue is liable to sound like a smart alecky one. The idea that you give up constitutional rights by working for the democratic sector is laughable. Unless there is some national security/public safety context involved (which is the reason why I as a military civilian worker and health and safety workers are prevented from striking -- not from collectively bargaining pay and privileges) it's unbelievable that some hot-headed pol like the newly enshrined Gov of Wisconsin would use budgets as an opportunity to destroy basic rights and responsibilities of government. Period.

Good answer, but not the right one. Public employees will still have much better benefits than the rest of us. Maybe they need to be reminded who they work for and who is paying the bill.

A private employee union (ie: UAW) is fighting for how much of the profits the rank and file will get as a result of their hard work. These types of unions share in the risk associated in business. If they are getting too much and the company can't afford it, the company goes out of businss. They all lose their jobs and there isn't a member who wants that.

What risk does a public employee union share if they bankrupt the government? The answer is nothing. The govt just borrows more money if the can't pay the bill. Public employee unions are fighting for how much tax money they can put in their pockets, not over the value added to society through the production of goods.

The corruption is a real issue as well. Basically, Democrats repay these unions with HUGE benefits programs for their votes. We are watching a bubble burst just like we saw the housing bubble burst. Just like we can't afford to throw money at stadiums, yet another hall of fame or any of the things we have in the past, we can't afford to have people work for 30 years and retire forever while we pay for them to go fishing for 30 years. The party is over.

Public employee unions need to be smart here. There is talk of allowing states to file bankruptxy. If that happens, a judge may take a hatchet to their benefit programs.

[Buckzip]

Unions had there time and place.

Right now all unions are for is corruption, laziness, greed and to feed the Democrat machine.

Look at Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, Y-Town. If unions were strong there, the cities are now filled with empty manufacturing buildings.

As for public sector unions, they are even worse.

[RowdyZip]

Unions had there time and place.

Right now all unions are for is corruption, laziness, greed and to feed the Democrat machine.

Look at Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, Y-Town. If unions were strong there, the cities are now filled with empty manufacturing buildings.

As for public sector unions, they are even worse.

Another brilliant rebuttal. Full of in-depth analysis, facts, and no generalizations whatsoever.

[GP1]

Unions had there time and place.

Right now all unions are for is corruption, laziness, greed and to feed the Democrat machine.

Look at Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, Y-Town. If unions were strong there, the cities are now filled with empty manufacturing buildings.

As for public sector unions, they are even worse.

Corrupt, lazy and greedy business leaders are just as much to blame for the conditions in Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pitt and Ytown as unions.

[zippy5]

Unions had there time and place.

Right now all unions are for is corruption, laziness, greed and to feed the Democrat machine.

Look at Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, Y-Town. If unions were strong there, the cities are now filled with empty manufacturing buildings.

As for public sector unions, they are even worse.

While I think unions aren't the greatest ideas (especially public ones like GP notes), at least get your facts straight

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11053/1127102-53.stm

[zip37]

Greed? Well, I have some work to do, that my arthritis won't allow me to do without significant pain. Any volunteeers to do it free? Nope I have to hire it done, does that make the payee greedy? Nope, that's how the Capitalist system works.

As for DET, YNG, CLE, PIT etc. having high unenployment, check the taxes and regulations needed to conduct industry, and REASON with the brain, not emotion and the answer should be clear. [No gurantuee there, though.] The greed is on the Govs part, look at the taxes on gasoline, for instance, aand the Gov has no clue as to how to obtain, refine, market, and deliver a drop of gasoline, but their cut is around 30%.

And remember, businesses/industry pay no taxes-- the consumer does!

[RootforRoo44]

Unions had there time and place.

Right now all unions are for is corruption, laziness, greed and to feed the Democrat machine.

Look at Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, Y-Town. If unions were strong there, the cities are now filled with empty manufacturing buildings.

As for public sector unions, they are even worse.

Another brilliant rebuttal. Full of in-depth analysis, facts, and no generalizations whatsoever.

But 100% right. Amen Buckzip.

[Dave in Green]

I finished my professional working career without ever belonging to a union. But I've seen enough over the years to develop an appreciation for the rightful place of unions as an appropriate check and balance against big business and the wealthy controlling everything.

The principle of checks and balances is a critical element of the U.S. government that the founding fathers put into place to keep one element of government from attaining undue power. The same principle is applicable to business. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When big business has excessive power, corruption is more likely to occur. The same applies when unions have excessive power. A balance of business and labor tends to keep everyone more honest and less corrupt.

Make no mistake about it. This is not just about government unions. The far right has targeted all unions because the far right represents big business and big business wants to eliminate all checks and balances. Non-government unions are already weaker than they've been in decades. Busting government unions would put non-government unions on death watch. With unions gutted, there would be no checks and balances against big business.

Anyone who sees the wisdom in the principle of checks and balances will not want to see either business or labor be made totally subservient to the other.

America and its citizens are best served by strong, healthy businesses and unions, and a neutral and impartial government that favors both equally and allows neither to develop excessive power over the other.

[skip-zip]

Let me say this first. I'm completely in favor of private labor unions being legal.

Before I tell all of you why public unions should be illegal, I'll let each of you take a shot if you wish. Try to include in your discussion the role of a member of a private union vs a public union. It's very simple if you think about it. I'm sure Z.I.P. will have something smart and interesting to say as he always does on these matters.

GP1 Buddy, the only "smart" comment you are going to get on this issue is liable to sound like a smart alecky one. The idea that you give up constitutional rights by working for the democratic sector is laughable. Unless there is some national security/public safety context involved (which is the reason why I as a military civilian worker and health and safety workers are prevented from striking -- not from collectively bargaining pay and privileges) it's unbelievable that some hot-headed pol like the newly enshrined Gov of Wisconsin would use budgets as an opportunity to destroy basic rights and responsibilities of government. Period.

Good answer, but not the right one. Public employees will still have much better benefits than the rest of us. Maybe they need to be reminded who they work for and who is paying the bill.

A private employee union (ie: UAW) is fighting for how much of the profits the rank and file will get as a result of their hard work. These types of unions share in the risk associated in business. If they are getting too much and the company can't afford it, the company goes out of businss. They all lose their jobs and there isn't a member who wants that.

What risk does a public employee union share if they bankrupt the government? The answer is nothing. The govt just borrows more money if the can't pay the bill. Public employee unions are fighting for how much tax money they can put in their pockets, not over the value added to society through the production of goods.

The corruption is a real issue as well. Basically, Democrats repay these unions with HUGE benefits programs for their votes. We are watching a bubble burst just like we saw the housing bubble burst. Just like we can't afford to throw money at stadiums, yet another hall of fame or any of the things we have in the past, we can't afford to have people work for 30 years and retire forever while we pay for them to go fishing for 30 years. The party is over.

Public employee unions need to be smart here. There is talk of allowing states to file bankruptxy. If that happens, a judge may take a hatchet to their benefit programs.

The best statement in the entire thread

[Dr Z]

Unions had there time and place. Look at Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, Y-Town. If unions were strong there, the cities are now filled with empty manufacturing buildings.

Corrupt, lazy and greedy business leaders are just as much to blame for the conditions in Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pitt and Ytown as unions.

When is the last time you guys have been to Pittsburgh?

[UAZipster0305]

Unions had there time and place. Look at Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, Y-Town. If unions were strong there, the cities are now filled with empty manufacturing buildings.

Corrupt, lazy and greedy business leaders are just as much to blame for the conditions in Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pitt and Ytown as unions.

When is the last time you guys have been to Pittsburgh?

Yeah, it's a beautiful city here. The bike trails are wonderful and the culture is great (especially during football and hockey seasons). Relative to the other cities, I would say Akron trails Pittsburgh, but is far ahead of the others.

[GP1]

Unions had there time and place. Look at Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, Y-Town. If unions were strong there, the cities are now filled with empty manufacturing buildings.

Corrupt, lazy and greedy business leaders are just as much to blame for the conditions in Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Pitt and Ytown as unions.

When is the last time you guys have been to Pittsburgh?

Yeah, it's a beautiful city here. The bike trails are wonderful and the culture is great (especially during football and hockey seasons). Relative to the other cities, I would say Akron trails Pittsburgh, but is far ahead of the others.

I agree with DrZ and trimy10. Pittsburgh is a great place and I should have left it off my list. Oh well....

[Hilltopper]

Here's a nice little piece that sums up my feelings on public unions pretty well.

Paul Krugman's Third World fantasy

According to Nobel laureate and raconteur Paul Krugman, Gov. Scott Walker and "his backers" are attempting to "make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a Third World-style oligarchy."

Democracy, naturally, can only be saved by public sector unions, which attain their political power and taxpayer-funded benefits by "negotiating" with politicians elected with the help of unions who use, well, taxpayer dollars. And you know, that doesn't sound like an oligarchy at all.

While Walker, who won office using obnoxious Third World oligarchic tactics like "getting more votes than the other candidate," is a cancer in the heart of democracy, union- funded Democrats evading their constitutional obligation to cast votes are only protecting the integrity of representative government by completely avoiding democracy

.

In this world, when you tax a citizen a bit less to try to generate economic growth, you are not taking less from the taxpayer but "stealing" from a third party who at some point in his life was told he had an indelible right to your wallet, no matter the cost.

Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner dispatched Krugman's claim that unions were a "counterweight to the political power of big money" by pointing out that "every one of the top ten industries contributing to the 2010 elections gave more money to Democrats."

If some public union rollbacks are a harbinger of rebirth of the robber barons, why is it that the Service Employees International Union boss — who represents a sliver of the American workforce — has been the most frequent guest at the White House after he handed Barack Obama $28 million and used tens of million more to campaign for him and his policies?

Is it a sign of pending Third World oligarchy that the president, in turn, uses that money to fund Organizing for America and deploys its activists to agitate for unions in Wisconsin?

Is it impending oligarchy when the president employs the coercive power of government to stick taxpayers (and GM stakeholders) with the bill for a Detroit union bailout, or appoints a rigid union booster to the National Labor Relations Board without as much as a Senate hearing to allow "democracy" to have its say in the matter?

Because, despite the chilling fairy tales of Krugman and others, public union employees aren't revolting against corporations, power brokers, Kochs or any other villains. Right or wrong, public employee unions can only revolt against the public.

[GP1]

Here's a nice little piece that sums up my feelings on public unions pretty well.

Paul Krugman's Third World fantasy

We are becoming a third world country for a lot better reasons than the fall of public employee unions.

I always wanted to own a bar in a third world country when I turn 60. I may not have to leave the US in 20 years to do so.