Jump to content

Unions


das1330

Recommended Posts

As many of you may know, the states of Wisconsin , Indiana, Ohio and several others are all in the process of passing bills which would essentially eliminate collective bargaining rights for government workers; a story about this process is available here. Obviously such a significant hit to public sector unions is unprecedented, so what does TIF think about this proposal? What will it do for the states? Do you support it?

 

 

Personally I welcome these bills and think their introduction is long overdue. Monopolistic unions have for too long dictated unfair and unreasonable terms of employment to their employees, damaging the efficiency of government and (in education at least) seriously hurting the quality of education available to children.These bills are a briliant idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a doubled bladed knife:

 

On the 1 hand government workers not being able to unionise and strike maeans they can be paid less and no strikes. But it will mean [cabbage]e rates of pay for those under-appreciate roles.

On the other letting them strikes ensures they get a fair deal but can cause public disturbances and result in some overpaid ppl.

Plv6Dz6.jpg

Operation Gold Sparkles :: Chompy Kills ::  Full Profound :: Champions :: Barbarian Notes :: Champions Tackle Box :: MA Rewards

Dragonkin Journals :: Ports Stories :: Elder Chronicles :: Boss Slayer :: Penance King :: Kal'gerion Titles :: Gold Statue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't like it. It seems as though it's taking more power from the public sector than it should. Limiting their bargaining power to negotiating wages? Fine. But cutting pensions means you're effectively halving or if my math is wrong, even quartering retirement pay in essence which shouldn't happen, and they shouldn't need to pay for health care in the first place, as that should be universal and free to the public with a private option available to those who can afford it. Mind, the public side of this should prioritize groups like smokers last to be sure that those that need it get it first, but still.

 

I don't like it one bit. This seems more like a move to give more power to the corporations than it is limiting the worker. It's essentially a double-edged sword aimed at the public.

I was going to eat hot dogs for dinner tonight. I think I will settle for cereal.

 

OPEN WIDE HERE COMES THE HELICOPTER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As everyone says, it's a double edged sword, although I generally dislike unions, and some I completely resent. I don't think there's never ever been a union representative that I've ever warmed to or generally agreed with.

 

I'll admit I don't know very much about the public sector as I have no intention to go into it, but can someone explain to me the logic behind public sector pensions? Wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper and require far less commitment on the government's behalf to simply pay the equivalent amount in wages and let the people who work in the public sector set up a pension or let them do with the money as they see fit?

~ W ~

 

sigzi.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Power to the people. I think unions can be a good thing, but I don't think that they should be overpaid or given too many benefits (as in the case with WI). I know many of my friends that teach in WI would hate me for saying that haha. As long as the unions retain their collective bargaining rights, they should take some cuts along with the rest of the working class. Aren't unions supposed to be all about equality? I'd wager to say a lot of those union guys are part of the "from each according to his ability" mindset...shouldn't they feel bad that while many other workers in the state are and have been suffering they have been prospering?

 

It's really a tough call on unions when it comes down to it. The federal government now protects many workers' rights that unions established years ago so, in a way, unions are obsolete. But at the same time, there is nothing preventing those rights from being stripped away by the federal government as long as the votes are there. Somewhat of a slippery slope, but it is possible.

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering why that guy at the train station was passing out stickers for 'save the bargaining rights'...

 

I'm pro-striking and negotiating, so...I guess I'm against this bill?

Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my experience, most unions need some major overhauling. I have a friend who is in a labor union, and they keep screwing him over on jobs; he worked at a lumber mill for over 12 years, got laid off and now keeps getting sent to crap jobs that he's not qualified to do. But he's a "journeyman" within the union, so the pencil-pushers assume that means he can do anything, I guess. Oh, did I mention that he has to wait 3-4 months between jobs? He pays his dues on time every month and meets his other union obligations, but they keep failing him.

From what I understand, that's a common story in that area too.

Back in the day, unions were a great idea in that they protected workers' rights from evil corporations and a corrupt government, but these days it seems the unions have taken on the mantle of "evil corporation" and the workers (not to mention the public) need government protection from them!

cube347.jpg

Part of the Star Traks network. (^^Clicky!)

 

Irony: An amnesiac rediscovering they have an eidetic memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being from the home of auto-unions, I have to say that while I don't like them in general, they are unfortunately necessary. I don't think $80/hr to put doors on cars is a fair wage to the management while treating a worker like [cabbage] is unfair to the workers. If anything, the unions need to have some power taken from them, but most certainly not all of it.

 

Sure, unions did some amazing things in the past (weekend, 40 hour work week, 8 hour day, minimum wage, etc), I highly doubt that those will be taken away any time soon (inb4someone works 41+ hours per week/longer than 8 hours per day and feels the need to tell me). If anything, collective bargaining needs to be kept legal for the sake of maintaining the dignity of the worker. Some cases, however, where factories are overstaffed and workers take more breaks than they work and they begin to get in each other's way, "unfair" lay offs need to be done for the sake of keeping the company alive so we can avoid a crisis like what happened to GM and Chrysler (NOT blaming the unions, there's plenty of blame to go all around [inb4uninformed "greedy" CEO {after donating millions to charity yearly} comments]).

Player since 2004. All skills 1M+ XP.

Hamtaro.png

"If it were possible to cure evils by lamentation..., then gold would be a less valuable thing than weeping." - Sophocles

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the teachers in Wisconsin are getting paid on average $100,000, if you include their benefits. In my opinion, a public sector union is the definition of political corruption. Candidates that support them get huge amounts of donations from the union, and they in turn increase the union's benefits and pay. Even if the members of the union disagree with the candidates they support, the members virtually have no voice in the process, and they can't do anything about it.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the teachers in Wisconsin are getting paid on average $100,000, if you include their benefits. In my opinion, a public sector union is the definition of political corruption. Candidates that support them get huge amounts of donations from the union, and they in turn increase the union's benefits and pay. Even if the members of the union disagree with the candidates they support, the members virtually have no voice in the process, and they can't do anything about it.

I'm not sure if I agree with the $100,000 mark but I can't be bothered to find anything to disprove it right now.

 

Wisconsin actually puts relatively heavy restrictions on their campaigns. You can read about them here.

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even know anything about unions, we don't really have them in Texas. My history teacher says that in quite a few places (he used Massachusetts and Wisconsin as examples, I think) teachers doing the same exact thing as him, or even less, make more than triple his salary. Hrm.

 

But I don't know current union situations in the Midwest, so I'm ducking back out.

catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions are necessary in order to guarantee worker's rights: especially in developing countries. However, as other posters have said they can, like any organisation, have a little too much power. In the balance of things, I'd certainly prefer to have more powerful unions than ineffective ones, as the ideal they represent: collective bargaining, empowers the masses and in a world with a rapidly growing gap between rich & poor, such action will become more and more necessary in the coming years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisconsin actually puts relatively heavy restrictions on their campaigns. You can read about them here.

Looks like the union can form about 20 PAC's, funnel as much money into them as they please, and then let the PAC's donate their maximum amount to the candidate.

Either way, organizations receiving or looking to receive government contracts should not be able to donate to political campaigns. I understand there is a freedom of speech issue, but how corrupt is it when the company awarded a billion dollar contract kicks back a few million to the politicians that supported them, or will support them in the future? Same thing for unions - we're taking our government awarded contracts to give money to the politicians that will give us more.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how most posters above me never bothered to research any of their numbers.

#1 - Wisconsin teachers make an average of $45,000 USD a year, http://teacherportal.com/salary/Wisconsin-teacher-salary which is on PAR with the national average http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary

#2 - Under the bill, they loose 10% - 20% of that

#3 - State workers (unionized, non-teaching) in WI makes 12% less than non-union workers right now. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134085454

**********

One of the old guard of RS.

RS birthday = Feb - 27 - 2002

Proud member of the original forum.

**********

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how most posters above me never bothered to research any of their numbers.

#1 - Wisconsin teachers make an average of $45,000 USD a year, http://teacherportal.com/salary/Wisconsin-teacher-salary which is on PAR with the national average http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary

#2 - Under the bill, they loose 10% - 20% of that

#3 - State workers (unionized, non-teaching) in WI makes 12% less than non-union workers right now. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134085454

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Milwaukee Public Schools - Average Teacher Hourly Rate - $36.98, with benefits - $59.24

MPS public school rates

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same thing we saw in Greece with the budget cut riots and the UK with the university protests. People think they should be entitled to what those before got or better, when their governments just can't afford it. It's worse in America, because the people expect this and then go crazy when someone even suggests raising taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisconsin actually puts relatively heavy restrictions on their campaigns. You can read about them here.

Looks like the union can form about 20 PAC's, funnel as much money into them as they please, and then let the PAC's donate their maximum amount to the candidate.

Either way, organizations receiving or looking to receive government contracts should not be able to donate to political campaigns. I understand there is a freedom of speech issue, but how corrupt is it when the company awarded a billion dollar contract kicks back a few million to the politicians that supported them, or will support them in the future? Same thing for unions - we're taking our government awarded contracts to give money to the politicians that will give us more.

While this is true, the governor's campaign (which has the highest limits) is only allowed a little over one million in total.

 

This bill is ridiculous in WI. It is not about balancing the budget. Before Walker came into office there was a SURPLUS in the budget. He gave tax breaks to businesses, creating the shortfall. That coupled with the unnecessary removal of collective bargaining rights equates a direct attack on unions. He has been trying to bust unions since he was a peon in Milwaukee county.

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisconsin actually puts relatively heavy restrictions on their campaigns. You can read about them here.

Looks like the union can form about 20 PAC's, funnel as much money into them as they please, and then let the PAC's donate their maximum amount to the candidate.

Either way, organizations receiving or looking to receive government contracts should not be able to donate to political campaigns. I understand there is a freedom of speech issue, but how corrupt is it when the company awarded a billion dollar contract kicks back a few million to the politicians that supported them, or will support them in the future? Same thing for unions - we're taking our government awarded contracts to give money to the politicians that will give us more.

While this is true, the governor's campaign (which has the highest limits) is only allowed a little over one million in total.

 

This bill is ridiculous in WI. It is not about balancing the budget. Before Walker came into office there was a SURPLUS in the budget. He gave tax breaks to businesses, creating the shortfall. That coupled with the unnecessary removal of collective bargaining rights equates a direct attack on unions. He has been trying to bust unions since he was a peon in Milwaukee county.

 

Is union busting really a bad thing though? Unions have led to the downfall of many otherwise strong American businesses such that eliminating them would strengthen the state as a whole (and hopefully improve education)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisconsin actually puts relatively heavy restrictions on their campaigns. You can read about them here.

Looks like the union can form about 20 PAC's, funnel as much money into them as they please, and then let the PAC's donate their maximum amount to the candidate.

Either way, organizations receiving or looking to receive government contracts should not be able to donate to political campaigns. I understand there is a freedom of speech issue, but how corrupt is it when the company awarded a billion dollar contract kicks back a few million to the politicians that supported them, or will support them in the future? Same thing for unions - we're taking our government awarded contracts to give money to the politicians that will give us more.

While this is true, the governor's campaign (which has the highest limits) is only allowed a little over one million in total.

 

This bill is ridiculous in WI. It is not about balancing the budget. Before Walker came into office there was a SURPLUS in the budget. He gave tax breaks to businesses, creating the shortfall. That coupled with the unnecessary removal of collective bargaining rights equates a direct attack on unions. He has been trying to bust unions since he was a peon in Milwaukee county.

 

Is union busting really a bad thing though? Unions have led to the downfall of many otherwise strong American businesses such that eliminating them would strengthen the state as a whole (and hopefully improve education)

Like I said earlier, I believe that they should take some cuts like everyone else. The cuts should not be too drastic, though, and here's why. I would argue that the money should NOT come from some of the poorest paid PROFESSIONALS in the state. We are talking about people whose equals (degree-wise) in the private sector make about 2 times more money. On top of money, we are talking about quality of education. It has been proven that for every $1 spent on early education, society will see $11 back over the life of that child (source). I would include teacher salaries in this discussion. If this bill passes, what reason would any good WI educator have to stay in the state? Without unions to protect their pay, these teachers can and should seek jobs elsewhere. Republican lawmakers are claiming that this will lead to 'competition', but how can we compete when we offer teachers less than anywhere else? (this is assuming the bill gets passed)

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same thing we saw in Greece with the budget cut riots and the UK with the university protests. People think they should be entitled to what those before got or better, when their governments just can't afford it. It's worse in America, because the people expect this and then go crazy when someone even suggests raising taxes.

 

Great irony of uk university one thou:

 

1) Universitys had budget cut (save government money) and can make it up from the fees

2) Student loans company does the tuition loans etc but are gonna need like triple the budget to do this (which is more than cut from unis in first place)

3) With new scheme you earn higher than before (£21k) b4 you start paying back and then you pay back LESS a month than current scheme (like £5 a month at £21k) but it gets written off at same date if you not paid it back.

 

All in all this means government gonna lose more money on it than before short term and have less graduates long term which make up the difference as by graduating to better jobs they pay bk more tax.

Plv6Dz6.jpg

Operation Gold Sparkles :: Chompy Kills ::  Full Profound :: Champions :: Barbarian Notes :: Champions Tackle Box :: MA Rewards

Dragonkin Journals :: Ports Stories :: Elder Chronicles :: Boss Slayer :: Penance King :: Kal'gerion Titles :: Gold Statue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier, I believe that they should take some cuts like everyone else. The cuts should not be too drastic, though, and here's why. I would argue that the money should NOT come from some of the poorest paid PROFESSIONALS in the state. We are talking about people whose equals (degree-wise) in the private sector make about 2 times more money.

According to this site, they don't make half as much as the private sector, its about 4.8% less.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier, I believe that they should take some cuts like everyone else. The cuts should not be too drastic, though, and here's why. I would argue that the money should NOT come from some of the poorest paid PROFESSIONALS in the state. We are talking about people whose equals (degree-wise) in the private sector make about 2 times more money.

According to this site, they don't make half as much as the private sector, its about 4.8% less.

Okay I read the numbers COMPLETELY wrong from the site I was on when I made my first post, I went back and checked. Ignore that two times crap I said.

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is union busting really a bad thing though? Unions have led to the downfall of many otherwise strong American businesses such that eliminating them would strengthen the state as a whole (and hopefully improve education)

 

Full disclosure: I am not necessarily pro-union, as people who have been on these boards should know, despite the fact that I am very far left. However, any person who has studied American political history knows that due to the "free rider" issue, only three groups have ever gained any true political power: 1.) Corporations 2.) Unions 3.) Agriculture and Farming (this is why the insurance company "State Farm" got its name). With the basic demise of agriculture and its formation with corporations, we generally now have two powerplayers in unions and corporations. Republicans are going after unions because they know this. In the wake of Citizens United, they know that if they destroy unions, they will have destroyed the Democrats main fundraising and organizational backbone. This isn't about "efficiency" and you know it. This is about destroying the Democratic Party even more than it already has been. I say "already has been" because ever since union power was basically destroyed in the late 1970's and 1980's, both parties have had to rely on fundraising from the rich, wealthy and corporations. How can anyone with half of a brain put some made-up "efficiency" over this simple fact: without unions, our elections are owned by corporations. I say I am not pro-union because they are basically a cartel, and I am against all cartels (including the American Medical Association, which imposes high health care costs on American families by keeping the ability to become a doctor limited -- free market indeed). Due to these established facts, however, I cannot allow corporate power to go unchecked; I therefore support unions. Also, too, it has been a well established RIGHT that we can organize, something that workers in this country [bleep]ing died for; something Ronald Reagan, the famous union buster, recognized. Before I go into the rest, let me just say that Sweden has a workforce that's 85% unionized, and they just overtook the US in "competitiveness":

 

Sweden is the world’s second most competitive country, the World Economic Forum said in its annual ranking, hailing the Scandinavian country for its transparent institutions, efficient financial markets and the world’s strongest technological adoption.

 

Switzerland topped the overall ranking in The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011. Sweden overtook the US and Singapore this year to be placed 2nd overall.

 

http://current.com/news/92999633_sweden-overtakes-the-us-in-competitiveness.htm

 

Also, there's something else not being pointed out on this thread: the fact that Scott Walker also included "no bidding necessary" for the sale of public assets (named powerplants). He's basically trying to give away the store to the Kochs:

 

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

 

The bill would allow for the selling of state-owned heating/cooling/power plants without bids and without concern for the legally-defined public interest. The attempt to break labor is part of the same continuous motion as saying that the crony, corporatist selling of state utilities to the Koch brothers and other energy interests is the new “public interest.”

 

This is class warfare, the rich are waging it against the middle class, and they're winning. So many useful idiots help push their agenda along while the plebes fight over the crumbs; it's the same as nationalism and patriotism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So my argument in favor of unions is probably not one often argued. In fact, my argument has an appeal to libertarians, and why they should support a unionized workforce. It's also not my preference, but given the history of America my preference does not have any viability. Before I go into my argument, I'll discuss the two types of liberalism that I see in this context: a liberal vision of the future as expressed by progressives or market liberals (or whatever other term of art) is based on government redistribution through social programs; and then there are types who argue for less redistribution, but more power to unions and their bargaining power. In an ideal world I am sympathetic to the former, as it maximizes growth for all actors, redistributes wealth among the world, and it seems a natural order that as economies grow more developed they are more service oriented especially as technology and globalization advances; thus our workers have no means of competing with cheap labor despite the need for higher wages (I have shown that the median income in America has been stagnant for 30 years in the past on these boards).

 

Unfortunately, as I stated, this is not what we've seen historically. For example, just take the health care debacle. The health care bill we got sucks. It's corporate welfare with a few goodies for the people; it was a Republican health care bill written by the Heritage Foundation. So how exactly do market liberals expect to win any concessions from the government if they have no negotiating power against well-moneyed interests? If I were dictator, I'd argue for a French health care system; I'd like the British model but that would be too disruptive, as doctors are agents of the state. Yet despite electing a fairly moderate president with huge majorities, we got a center-right neo-liberal health care bill. That system is rife with compromise and filled with cracks, and it might not survive the year thanks to legal assaults. This is the reality under which working people are asked to labor: under the constant threat of governmental takeovers by libertarians and conservatives who will do anything to undercut the programs that support the working class, and in a cyclical political system that ensures that such a takeover will eventually take place. Wealth redistribution by government might provide for the people in the lower socioeconomic classes under ideal conditions, but it will never resolve the power imbalance.

 

So how exactly, or why, rather, should libertarians support unions? I think that libertarians could support invigorated unions for a practical reason: strong labor unions could represent an alternative to government. Social safety nets are paid for by value captured from taxpayers, which means that they are funded through the arbitrary, Byzantine machinations of our tax code– a code that corporate entities have found myriad ways to avoid and exploit. Despite the stereotypes I've seen here, corporations generally have an advantage if the need to re-negotiate wages and compensation arises. Just look at Wisconsin for goodness sake! The unions have agreed to take cuts in wages and pension -- a pension that they fully fund with their wages, by the way.

 

It should be an accepted reality that government grows, the question is only how fast and "large" it will grow. Unionism represents an alternative to government social programs that can slow the growth of government and act as a third force to counterbalance both government and the corporation.

 

I believe in power, I believe that it is unevenly distributed, and I believe that it is necessary for democracy to work on establishing countervailing forces so that no one power rises to exploit the people. A strong labor movement can act as a counterbalance not only on corporate power, which is desperately needed in a context where so much money has ended up in the hands of so few, but also on government.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Going on to talk about the contract negotiation, I do notice a certain irony here. Wasn't it just 2 years ago where a contract was sacrosanct?

 

We Can’t Break AIG Bonus Contracts But Worker Pensions? No Problem!

Edited by meol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions are good. If there were none, people could be picked on for no apparant reason and there would be nothing they could do about it. However, if they start demanding unreasonable things that is obviously a different matter. The right to strike though, in the case of emergency workers, is another matter altogether though. I'm not sure who this bill encompasses - it seems to be teachers etc? They, like all other workers, should have the right to form unions, again so long as rediculous demands are not made. Unions are definatly a good thing for the workers though.

RIP TET

 

original.png

 

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like one of the ironies of a union is that they usually would rather have their members be laid off than take a benefit cut.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.