Eliminating Government Unions..It's about time

[Dr.Who]

As usual, irrelevant, and an ad hominem logical fallacy.

Comrade Stalin

Hmmm? I am not so sure this is an ad hominem in this case.

First lets be clear the attack was on Joseph Stalin (since the word scumbag was in front his nickname) not the HOP member here called Stalin. That's the way I read it anyway. But the "scumbag" was inferred to be the members uncle (mentor). Did Gipper mean that the members argument made no sense because his mentor was Joseph Stalin? That would be an ad hominem.

Second calling Joseph Stalin a scumbag is probably more a reflection that he was a mas murderer rather than an argument against his political point of view. It would appear to be an attack but not an ad hominem designed to win an argument since no argument was made.

Lastly, if an attack against a person is relevant to the conversation then it is no longer a logical fallacy. Is it relevant that Joseph Stalin favored unions? Gipper, care to explain? Is it relevant that the member Stalin's mentor favored unions? If Stalin only backs unions BECAUSE Joseph Stalin backed them then, yes, that would be relevant. But I suspect that the member would have reasons to back unions other than Joseph Stalin's opinion.

 

[Stalin]

And Comrade Stalin, he was a union man right?

Indeed he was - in the USSR, unions had a power unimaginable in the US

"..Like the CPSU, the trade unions operated on the principle of democratic centralism, and they consisted of hierarchies of elected bodies from the central governing level down to the factory and local committees.

Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized "socialist competitions" and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas. They also distributed welfare benefits, operated cultural and sports facilities, issued passes to health and vacation centers, oversaw factory and local housing construction, provided catering services, and awarded bonuses and prepaid vacations.

Although unions in the Soviet Union primarily promoted production interests, they had some input regarding production plans, capital improvements in factories, local housing construction, and remuneration agreements with management. Unions also were empowered to protect workers against bureaucratic and managerial arbitrariness, to ensure that management adhered to collective agreements, and to protest unsafe working conditions. However, strikes were illegal.

...

The trade union system in the late Soviet Union consisted of thirty unions organized by occupational branch. Including about 732,000 locals and 135 million members in 1984, unions encompassed almost all Soviet employees with the exception of some 4 to 5 million kolkhozniks. Enterprises employing twenty-five or more people had locals, and membership was compulsory. Dues were about 1% of a person's salary. The All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (Всесоюзный Центральный Совет Профессиональных Союзов, ВЦСПС) served as an umbrella organization for the thirty branch unions and was by far the largest public organization in the Soviet Union.

Union membership influenced union operations only at the local level, where an average of 60 % of a union's central committee members were rank-and-file workers.

After the Polish trade union movement, Solidarity, had achieved some success in Poland Soviet trade unions became more vocal in protecting workers' interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union

Comrade Stalin

 

[Dr.Who]

Indeed he was - in the USSR, unions had a power unimaginable in the US

"..Like the CPSU, the trade unions operated on the principle of democratic centralism, and they consisted of hierarchies of elected bodies from the central governing level down to the factory and local committees.

Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized "socialist competitions" and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas. They also distributed welfare benefits, operated cultural and sports facilities, issued passes to health and vacation centers, oversaw factory and local housing construction, provided catering services, and awarded bonuses and prepaid vacations.

Although unions in the Soviet Union primarily promoted production interests, they had some input regarding production plans, capital improvements in factories, local housing construction, and remuneration agreements with management. Unions also were empowered to protect workers against bureaucratic and managerial arbitrariness, to ensure that management adhered to collective agreements, and to protest unsafe working conditions. However, strikes were illegal.

...

The trade union system in the late Soviet Union consisted of thirty unions organized by occupational branch. Including about 732,000 locals and 135 million members in 1984, unions encompassed almost all Soviet employees with the exception of some 4 to 5 million kolkhozniks. Enterprises employing twenty-five or more people had locals, and membership was compulsory. Dues were about 1% of a person's salary. The All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (Всесоюзный Центральный Совет Профессиональных Союзов, ВЦСПС) served as an umbrella organization for the thirty branch unions and was by far the largest public organization in the Soviet Union.

Union membership influenced union operations only at the local level, where an average of 60 % of a union's central committee members were rank-and-file workers.

After the Polish trade union movement, Solidarity, had achieved some success in Poland Soviet trade unions became more vocal in protecting workers' interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union

Comrade Stalin

That sounds monstrously worse than the unions we have here.

 

[OreEle]

OrEle, welcome aboard

Thank you.

The article I read said that the unions agreed to increase health care contributions IF the gov did not restrict collective bargaining rights. It would seem that his stance is creating an advantage in negotiations.

That is true, the union (or unions, not sure if it is plural, or if it really matters) has agreed to that comprimise, however, the governer is not wanting to comprimise.

I would like to hear more about these tax cuts you oppose. Do you have any links? I suspect that the tax cuts would be good for the budget and would increase freedoms. I also suspect that they would be passed on as I see no reason that cuts could not be passed on immediately and then not passed on as soon as they expire. But I could know more with more information.

http://www.fox6now.com/news/politics/witi-20110131-walker-tax-bill,0,6398564.story

The state had a surplus before he took office. He gave that surplus away in tax credits to companies.

Namely (I had the number wrong at first), any company that moves into Wisconsin gets 2 years of free income tax. So long as either 51% of their payroll (by dollar amount, not heads) is moved to Wisconsin, or $200,000 in payroll (meaning, they could move just a legal office with a few people to get the benefit).

Why this will not get passed to employees.

One would think that the market would push wages up for these companies, however, once the tax credits wear off in two years (and you cannot maintain a 0% tax rate forever, so they will eventually wear off), the market would then push wages down. No company ever wants to cut employee pay, as that is horrible for employee morale.

It is better to pay $15 an hour indefinately, then to pay $17 an hour for 2 years, then cut it to $15 an hour later.

 

[nobull]

The unions said that they would agree to paying 1/2 of the healthcare costs, so that point is moot.

Also, if you think that by taking all this away from them is going to put money back in the pockets of the average tax payer, you're wrong. The tax cuts he signed earlier (which caused the budget deficit to begin with, Wisconsin was in a surplus) only apply to businesses, and only delay the taxes (not perminately reduces them, so they cannot pass the savings on to employees).

So the money that would be taken from the government workers, isn't going to private sector workers who are struggling to make ends meet, but to businesses.

Hooray for cutting schools so some businesses can get 3 years of TAX FREE benefits.

They are public sector employees and their pension s are paid by taxpayer funds.

Get your head out of your a##.

They were paying a symbolic 0.2% of their wages to their pensions. Now they will pay 5.8%.

They were paying about 6% of their wages for healthcare. Now they will be paying about 12%.

This is life. the public sector pays far more for their 401K and health insurance. They still will be.

This is what happens when business isn't good and budgets are broken.

facts do matter
doug

 

[Rick]

A teacher is not the same as a teacher's union. Many teachers do so because they love to teach, they are passionate about what they do, they work overtime regularly, they use their own money to do their job, and they do it well. Many of them do not even want to be in a union but have no choice but to join and to pay dues that largely go to political campaigns they would rather not fund.

Some of the faults with the US educational system are clearly the fault of unions, a minority the result of bad teachers, and a whole lot the result of whole neighborhoods in inner cities where seemingly none of the parents has the skills or interest to make sure that their own kids learn to even read much less excel.

The teacher's unions, and implicitly what they do, were certified by their members when teachers voted the unions to represent them. A majority could at any time hold a de-certification election supervised by the NLRB.

They get a 9 month salary that is bigger than private education teachers who teach 12 months. In california, illinois, and other states, they get benefits that are long gone in the private sector. Their poor results as compared to educators in other countries is a matter of record.

 

[Gipper]

The teachers unions are responsible for much of the decades of failures by the p-schools to educate America's children. How can anyone not recognize this? When will someone stand up and demand changes? And when someone does, the Left will work over time to condemn and marginalize them.

Two-Thirds of Wisconsin Public-School 8th Graders Can’t Read Proficiently—Despite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - Two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin public schools cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more per pupil in its public schools than any other state in the Midwest.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g

 

[PLC1]

Most Americans agree with the employees:

Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights

MADISON, Wis. — Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

Probably most people who don't have right/left sdc goggles on can see that the budget is just an excuse for taking away bargaining rights. Of course, people who have a Pavlovian response to the word "union" will be in favor of any sort of excuse to eliminate unions.

 

[Rick]

Most Americans agree with the employees:



Probably most people who don't have right/left sdc goggles on can see that the budget is just an excuse for taking away bargaining rights. Of course, people who have a Pavlovian response to the word "union" will be in favor of any sort of excuse to eliminate unions.

You have leftwing goggles on. As carefully explained by me elsewhere here, the rationale that supports union bargaining rights in the case of private employers falls flat when applied to government workers, whose "employers", state legislatures, can sign a blank check at no cost to themselves, to be covered by taxpayers. This is one of they key reasons states are near bankruptcy.

 

[Dr.Who]

Thank you.

You're welcome.

That is true, the union (or unions, not sure if it is plural, or if it really matters) has agreed to that comprimise, however, the governer is not wanting to comprimise.

And why would he? When negotiating always ask for much more than you are willing to accept.

http://www.fox6now.com/news/politics/witi-20110131-walker-tax-bill,0,6398564.story

The state had a surplus before he took office. He gave that surplus away in tax credits to companies.

Namely (I had the number wrong at first), any company that moves into Wisconsin gets 2 years of free income tax. So long as either 51% of their payroll (by dollar amount, not heads) is moved to Wisconsin, or $200,000 in payroll (meaning, they could move just a legal office with a few people to get the benefit).

If the company was not in Wisconsin before how were they contributing to the tax base? Giving a tax break to a company that would be in another state were it not for the tax break would not reduce state income in the slightest. You cant give away something you don't have. What it would do is bring in new companies that would hire people.

If there was a surplus (the link you provided did not say there was a surplus) and it is now gone it is not as a result of giving away income the state never had. And just to be clear about the language used: the money collected in taxes belongs to the people not to the government. If the government does not collect it that is not an example of an expense as the article said. What it would be is an example of a reduced income for the state. The result is the same (well it would be if the state ever were collecting the money in the first place but since the companies were in other states it was not).

In addition to hiring people the companies are unlikely to move after three years and will then add to the state revenue.

You might want to rethink that part about moving just a legal office. Payroll is generally mostly given to rank and file employees despite execs earning more.

Why this will not get passed to employees.

The people would not have been hired without the tax break so by virtue of them getting a job at all they will be well off. Some of them will have been unemployed but others will have moved from other companies it that will drive up wages in general. A company that paid 51% of its payroll to execs would be in serious trouble. Though if it did work out that way at least the state would get the income tax on those people.

One would think that the market would push wages up for these companies, however, once the tax credits wear off in two years (and you cannot maintain a 0% tax rate forever, so they will eventually wear off), the market would then push wages down. No company ever wants to cut employee pay, as that is horrible for employee morale.

It is better to pay $15 an hour indefinately, then to pay $17 an hour for 2 years, then cut it to $15 an hour later.

And yes the savings will be passed on to employees (and customers) in a variety of ways.

All companies experience pressure to use the funds they have to hire the best people they can get. If they fail to use their funds to get good employees then other companies will and they will suffer a competitive disadvantage. I agree that a company would be reluctant to reduce wages in the future. Fortunately their accountants are perfectly capable of both amortizing the increased pay over three years and of giving the employees a variety of compensations that are flexible enough to be changed as needed.

 

[Dr.Who]

The teacher's unions, and implicitly what they do, were certified by their members when teachers voted the unions to represent them. A majority could at any time hold a de-certification election supervised by the NLRB.

I wish it were that easy. You know me from my posts and you can be sure that could my wife have any influence in changing the nature of the union she is a part of we would. It is rigged so that we don't even know the positions of the candidates and the positions that are even mentioned never include any sort of mention of anything political one way or another. She has been threatened by union reps for making even the most innocuous comments and requesting information about political standpoints would be career suicide.

They get a 9 month salary that is bigger than private education teachers who teach 12 months. In california, illinois, and other states, they get benefits that are long gone in the private sector. Their poor results as compared to educators in other countries is a matter of record.

Every teacher I know (quite a lot) works well beyond the 9 months. In the private sector the average number of days worked is 264. The ISBE requires teachers to work 185 days with students. The difference is 79 days. But all good teachers work setting up their classrooms for about 2-3 weeks before school starts and for about a week after school ends and about 4 hours each day during the school year grading papers or making lesson plans. That means that good teachers work about 297 days per year or about 33 days MORE per year than private sector workers. On top of that un-tenured teachers who take personal days or excessive sick days or dare to think the word "vacation" during the school year will not be hired back. I agree that bad teachers could abuse the system and if they are tenured the union would protect them. That is a problem with the tenure system not with the amount of time worked per year.

Teachers do get benefits that are better than the private sector on average. Just as those in the private sector often had no raises or even pay cuts so too can teachers have their compensation negotiated. Additionally, the unions who do that negotiation should not have any unfair legal advantage, but it should have the ability to negotiate fairly. (let market forces determine salaries without unfair legal coercion either way and fair salaries will be paid) I see talk of Wisc teachers having their salaries cut about 20% and it scares me personally to think that that could come to Ill. As an employee in the private sector when times got tough I simply did not get raises. That is much more palatable than a 20% cut. After a few years the lack of raises catches up to equal a cut but it is not as painful. A 20% cut would decimate the schools as too many of the best teachers left for other work. The schools cannot afford to have their best leave. Bureaucrats don't know and cannot know what is fair and what will work. But if individuals or unions and management can negotiate salaries without laws that unfairly favor one side or another I won't be afraid for my wife's salary because I know she earns it.

 

[PLC1]

I wish it were that easy. You know me from my posts and you can be sure that could my wife have any influence in changing the nature of the union she is a part of we would. It is rigged so that we don't even know the positions of the candidates and the positions that are even mentioned never include any sort of mention of anything political one way or another. She has been threatened by union reps for making even the most innocuous comments and requesting information about political standpoints would be career suicide.



Every teacher I know (quite a lot) works well beyond the 9 months. In the private sector the average number of days worked is 264. The ISBE requires teachers to work 185 days with students. The difference is 79 days. But all good teachers work setting up their classrooms for about 2-3 weeks before school starts and for about a week after school ends and about 4 hours each day during the school year grading papers or making lesson plans. That means that good teachers work about 297 days per year or about 33 days MORE per year than private sector workers. On top of that un-tenured teachers who take personal days or excessive sick days or dare to think the word "vacation" during the school year will not be hired back. I agree that bad teachers could abuse the system and if they are tenured the union would protect them. That is a problem with the tenure system not with the amount of time worked per year.

Teachers do get benefits that are better than the private sector on average. Just as those in the private sector often had no raises or even pay cuts so too can teachers have their compensation negotiated. Additionally, the unions who do that negotiation should not have any unfair legal advantage, but it should have the ability to negotiate fairly. (let market forces determine salaries without unfair legal coercion either way and fair salaries will be paid) I see talk of Wisc teachers having their salaries cut about 20% and it scares me personally to think that that could come to Ill. As an employee in the private sector when times got tough I simply did not get raises. That is much more palatable than a 20% cut. After a few years the lack of raises catches up to equal a cut but it is not as painful. A 20% cut would decimate the schools as too many of the best teachers left for other work. The schools cannot afford to have their best leave. Bureaucrats don't know and cannot know what is fair and what will work. But if individuals or unions and management can negotiate salaries without laws that unfairly favor one side or another I won't be afraid for my wife's salary because I know she earns it.

Having taught for many years, I can second what you say about teachers and the time that they put in. Teaching only looks like an easy job when you're on the outside looking in. Try it, and you quickly find out that it is much more difficult than it appears.

As for negotiating salaries, you have that right, too, except that individuals can't negotiate salaries effectively. It takes a group to stand up to management and demand just compensation. Should the teachers in Wisconsin take a 20% cut, some of them will try to leave. In good times, they would leave. Now, with unemployment being acknowledged to be nearly 10% and most likely nearly double that in reality, not many are going to be able to change jobs now.

 

[GenSeneca]

It takes a group to stand up to management and demand just compensation.

In the case of public sector unions, standing up to management means fleecing the taxpayers. It's like having BigRob (public employee) come to me (management) asking for more money, I say yes and hand you (the taxpayer) a bill for the agreement. And by the way, since my management firm (government) has a monopoly and can use legal force to coerce money from you (the taxpayer), you have to bend over and take it.

Good luck trying to get me fired, I have the support of my management firm (government) who gets campaign donations and support from the same unions that I shower with your (taxpayer) money.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Such as police and firemen.

Comrade Stalin

actuly those unions supported the Gov...so where left out of the law...odd...but its about finances not politics!

though many of them are still pissed as they know they are next

 

[PLC1]

In the case of public sector unions, standing up to management means fleecing the taxpayers.

It's not about fleecing anyone. The government has its representative, and the employees have theirs. There is a balance of power here, in which the management has to come up with a contract that works withing the budget it has, and the union representative (usually a volunteer who is also a worker) has to come up with an agreement that will make his fellows if not happy, at least not ready to revolt. If there is no bargaining, then all of the power goes to the management, who still has to live withing the budget that the taxpayers' representatives have presented, but can then spend it on perks or whatever floats his boat. If you think that said management is going to give back the tax money saved by being able to dictate wages and working conditions, then you haven't ever worked in a public sector job.