Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
das1330

Unions

Recommended Posts

I think unions are good for private corporations but for government workers I welcome limits on their union rights, any raise they ask for is money out of every tax payers pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

I won't comment on the truth of this, as I do not know whether this is true or not scientifically and statistically speaking, but isn't one of your right wing talking points that "teachers are so hard to fire which is why education sucks!" ? How does that level out with that often heard claim? Bit of cognitive dissonance, no?

 

And a corporation will lay off people if it means a quarter of a percentage point increase in their stocks; they will also lay off and discriminate against the older people who have been with them for years for a slight increased efficiency (I'm not talking bottom feeders here). Or the Very Serious People and Supreme Rulers of the Universe will "Go John Galt" if you touch their bonuses despite being bailed out by taxpayers and banks of last resort. Iceland was smart.

 

Speaking of which, what with all of the talk about cutting Social Security and pensions, it would be nice to know how we're going to deal with a section of the population that will more than likely not find another job for as long as they live (people who were laid off in this recession aged 55-65) with cut benefits. If anything, we should be talking about temporarily lowering the retirement age from 67 to 62 or something.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

I won't comment on the truth of this, as I do not know whether this is true or not scientifically and statistically speaking, but isn't one of your right wing talking points that "teachers are so hard to fire which is why education sucks!" ? How does that level out with that often heard claim? Bit of cognitive dissonance, no?

Teachers are hard to fire, firing a teacher is not the same as laying bunches of generic union workers off. I'll come back to a thought experiment in a bit.

To the talking points about why education sucks, there are many reasons that I'd rather not go into right now. I'd say the events happening in Wisconsin right now are relatively unrelated to the quality of education, I'd like to believe that it really is a budget issue. There are a few statistics that are interesting, I believe that Wisconsin teachers automatically have $1000 per year deducted from their salaries that go straight to the union. Part of this bill will remove that requirement.

 

And a corporation will lay off people if it means a quarter of a percentage point increase in their stocks; they will also lay off and discriminate against the older people who have been with them for years for a slight increased efficiency (I'm not talking bottom feeders here).

The purpose of a corporation is to make money. The reason people go to work is to make money. Most of the time, people's interests and the corporations they work for will share similar interests, in the fact that both want to profit. Sometimes, unfortunately, an individual's motivation, their interest, does not align with the corporation's interest. Usually when that happens, they either quit, the corporation fires them, or they get laid off. I don't have a problem with this, and I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this.

 

Speaking of which, what with all of the talk about cutting Social Security and pensions, it would be nice to know how we're going to deal with a section of the population that will more than likely not find another job for as long as they live (people who were laid off in this recession aged 55-65) with cut benefits. If anything, we should be talking about temporarily lowering the retirement age from 67 to 62 or something.

You should tax me more. This year I had to pay directly 22% of my income to support the government, even though I'm not yet out of college. What's another 18% among socialists? Tax me high enough and I might just go on welfare, I'll get more for free.

 

 

Anyhow - the union thought experiment. You're the leader of a large union, and you have to negotiate with management. Management tells you that they can't afford all the hard fought things you've worked for, the benefits for your members. They tell you they'll have to cut everything by 10%. What would you rather have them do, lay off 10% of the workforce, or cut everyone's salary and benefits by 10%? The question to you is, would you rather have 100% of people complaining about losing 10%, or would you rather have 10% complaining about 100%? Oh, and here's the kicker. That 10% that lose their jobs will likely go elsewhere to find work, they're not likely to stick around or be in your union in the near future.


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 ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cuts that WI wants to enact on it's public workers barely amount to half the cuts that workers in the private sector are taking.

 

Entitled union [kitties] need to grow the f**k up and shut the f**k up. Our budgets are heading to Greece, and this debate is one of the stupidest parts of why that's happening. Public workers aren't entitled to any more pay than private workers in these tough times. F**king children is what there people are. Christ.


[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cuts that WI wants to enact on it's public workers barely amount to half the cuts that workers in the private sector are taking.

That is completely made up.


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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could just not be a [bleep] and say "source?". No, actually, be a [bleep]. That way I would actually have found a way for caring less than zero about someone's opinion, a phenomenon I once thought impossible.

 

I checked through the wsj.com database and couldn't find the article that stated that (I read it a week ago in the Wallstreet Journal). It was an article analyzing the benefits received by Wisconsin Union workers, their toll on the taxpayers, and how they compared to private sector benefits. If anyone else reads the WSJ, it was in there about a week ago, so if you know what I'm talking about help me out with the link please.

 

Edit: Found it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html

 

I'm sorry, I meant that public sector employees receive triple what private sector employees do in benefits for every dollar that they receive in salary. And ya that $100,005 figure for teacher salaries is in their too.


[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could just not be a [bleep] and say "source?". No, actually, be a [bleep]. That way I would actually have found a way for caring less than zero about someone's opinion, a phenomenon I once thought impossible.

 

I checked through the wsj.com database and couldn't find the article that stated that (I read it a week ago in the Wallstreet Journal). It was an article analyzing the benefits received by Wisconsin Union workers, their toll on the taxpayers, and how they compared to private sector benefits. If anyone else reads the WSJ, it was in there about a week ago, so if you know what I'm talking about help me out with the link please.

 

Edit: Found it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html

 

I'm sorry, I meant that public sector employees receive triple what private sector employees do in benefits for every dollar that they receive in salary. And ya that $100,005 figure for teacher salaries is in their too.

I want to get this straight. Which private sector occupations are you comparing teachers' salaries to? The only thing I got from that article was how much a Milwaukee teacher made annually (which I already knew).


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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private sector jobs as a whole in the United States.

 

And let me get get this straight, I really don't feel like taking more time out of my day to look up documents for you. I read both the half-cuts fact and that article in the WSJ. If you believe me and you trust the WSJ's credibility, then hey, you learned something. If you dont, go research the comparisons for yourself. I'm not doing it for you.


[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private sector jobs as a whole in the United States.

 

And let me get get this straight, I really don't feel like taking more time out of my day to look up documents for you. I read both the half-cuts fact and that article in the WSJ. If you believe me and you trust the WSJ's credibility, then hey, you learned something. If you dont, go research the comparisons for yourself. I'm not doing it for you.

Well, if you're comparing non-four year jobs' salaries to those which teachers' salaries, then you're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not asking you to do research for me. I've lived in WI my entire life and am pretty well-informed about the subject on the whole which is more than I can say for you. You came on this topic cussing and ranting and haven't proved how your argument is even relevant to the discussion. Teachers make more money than burger-flippers? God, I never would have guessed.


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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wis. GOP bypasses Dems, cuts collective bargaining

 

Even as a traditionally anti-union guy, I feel this has been taken much too far. Granted, I'm not from Wisconsin, but this always has the possibility of spreading elsewhere. On a certain level, I agree (guys who sit on their assess for 8 hours because there are too many workers hired or teachers who can't be fired after holding a job for 4 years even if they don't teach well should be able to be fired), but stripping unions of collective bargaining rights just seems, well, scary. America was founded for its lack of a class system, and this seems like it will help in bringing such a horrible system in the past back. I really hope this doesn't spread to Michigan, considering we're home of the UAW. Any long period of striking would (if only temporarily) cripple our economy.

 

Didn't think I'd ever say this, but I wish the Wisconsin protesters the best of luck.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a double-edged blade really. I know that even here unions have become far too powerful and have resulted in enormous pay rises for their workers. Sure it's alright and all, but when teachers get paid like $80-90,000 while having three months off is a bit scary. My family doctor barely makes $100,000. The only problem with removing it is can you really trust employers to do the right thing?


j0xPu5R.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you really trust employers to do the right thing?

When their employer is the state government, if the answer is anything but a resounding yes they're already in trouble.

 

Anyhow, this piece of legislation is only for public sector employees, and exempts police and firemen. The U.S. federal government doesn't allow its workers to unionize, I don't understand why the cheeseheads think they should be so special.


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 ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you really trust employers to do the right thing?

When their employer is the state government, if the answer is anything but a resounding yes they're already in trouble.

 

Yeah, fair enough. I meant it as towards the issue as a whole. :razz:

 

If it's just for federal employees then yeah, it should be fine.


j0xPu5R.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source

 

But there's another explosive provision in the bill that's received little attention: The bill authorizes state officials to fire any state employee who joins a strike, walk-out, sit-in, or coordinated effort to call in sick.

 

According to an analysis (PDF) of the Senate bill by Wisconsin's Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB), the legislation gives state officials the power to fire workers during a "state of emergency" declared by the governor under several conditions. If a state employee misses three working days without an approved leave of absence, that's grounds for being fired. State workers can also be dumped if, according to the LFB's analysis, they participate in a "strike, work stoppage, sit-down, stay-in, slowdown, or other concerted activities to interrupt the operations or services of state government, including mass resignations or sick calls."


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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you think its wrong if the state fired teachers that called in sick to go protest at the capital? You know, because they love their kids so much.


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 ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sick of the scapegoat of "the kids" being harmed because of this. We all know that the days which they do not have school will be made up during the summer. The bill that was passed eliminates the workers' right to strike. I believe workers should be able to strike if they believe they are being treated or paid unfairly. I have doubts as to whether we will ever agree on this point.


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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before, I'm against unions in theory -- economic theory should tell you why. I'm very cerebral; I follow the facts to their reasonable conclusion (and this tends to put me on the center to center-left of the spectrum in Sweden and on the very far left in America). Strictly in theory, unions are a net negative. Unfortunately, we don't live in that kind of world. So Ezra Klein makes my point:

 

Political power matters. There are many outcomes that are economically efficient in the short term but lead to a dangerous imbalance of political power in the long term — which is, incidentally, not economically efficient at all. This has particular implications for how a lot of economists view unions.

 

I also don't think American workers are necessarily more important than other workers, which is why I tend to have favorable views on "free trade." That doesn't mean I support free trade agreements in practice, though (although I'd say I'm more pro-NAFTA than against).

 

In any case, it was obvious from the beginning that Walker would get his way if he really went there. He decided to do that (he also seems to think he's on a mission from God in doing so...). What makes him an idiot, though, is why he waited so long to do what could have been done from the beginning. So in that sense, thanks, Scott Walker, for awakening people to the fact that electing anyone to the right of the most conservative Democrat is pretty damn stupid. He could have pushed the Window to the right (he could have stopped at collective bargaining and taken their cuts in pension...but like a good corporatist he wanted it all), but instead chose to drag it out. Enjoy being re-called.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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