Interesting Times in Wisconsin..........

[Aruba50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR It's like really, really scary if you say "communism" over and over again...

HFWR: Sorry. I really did overuse the word. That was not really my main point although I think that it is an apt description.

[rescueme]

My parents were "union people", who both lived the "union life" and always voted with the Democrats. Although I did not follow them in their w*rk lifestyle, I was a non-union white-collar guy that wound up spending a lot of years in a company where the majority of employees were represented by a union, since I was bought up in one of the strong labor areas of the country.

Did I have better income/benefits due to the union? Of course I did. I also know of folks I worked with that were paid less than union positions, even though having more responsibility overall. Why did they stay? Because even with their lower pay, they still had better pay than most local non-union companies.

As far as the public union question? I have a problem from a standpoint of funding the union folks "requirements". In the company I w*rked for, the customer made the decision if they wished to buy the product, which included the cost of the union labor to make it. In public unions, the "cost" of the public union employee will be extracted from me via taxes. I have no say in the matter.

That's the difference in speaking about the Wisconsin situation (and others that are coming about) vs. private company unions.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fisherman You described them to a tee here. Its the I have got mine and the H*ll with everyone else attitude.

You've just described most public employee union members. It's all about cutting slices out of the pie. You're hungry. The pie is delicious. You want a bigger piece and you want it bad. The fact that your larger slice results in a smaller slice for someone else is of no concern to you.

My DW, my dad and many extended family members are (or were) public employee union members in the Chicago area. I've benefitted. I liked it. I've gotten over fretting that it might not have been fair to others....... If and when the public employee union situation no longer gives members an advantage in life, then it's time to go look for another advantage. But for the moment, even for cheesehead public union members and the new changes to their situation, there are advantages to working for the public sector and belonging to the union so people will stay and go on.

[GregLee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet You've just described most public employee union members. It's all about cutting slices out of the pie. You're hungry. The pie is delicious. You want a bigger piece and you want it bad. The fact that your larger slice results in a smaller slice for someone else is of no concern to you.

Although I agree with your characterization, I don't at all disapprove of unions. In our economic system, it is not just unionized workers that act first of all to further their own interests. How about those fat cat company bosses smoking their black cigars, plotting how to raid pension funds to cheat the widows of faithful long time employees? We have made a creditable attempt to create a system of institutions and laws to let everyone compete and play their own games while not becoming too enraged when, from time to time, they lose a hand.

[nwsteve]

Listened to a discussion of unions and appropriateness for public employees on NPR earlier this week. One comment that really resonated was that in the case of unions of private sector employees, the employers are discussing divsions of enterprise profits and the employees' contributions to achieving those profits.
In the case of public employees, the negotiations are about the division of taxpayer taxes, which no elected official actually produces or has any direct stake in (at least beyond their own taxes).
Pretty well captures for me why public employees unions have questionable basis for their existence--other than extracting as much of the pie for themselves for the least amount of effort. Add the featherbedding and resistance to change and technology, you can pretty quickly see why public employee unions probably create a drag on the effectiveness of govt of all types.
Nwsteve

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregLee Although I agree with your characterization, I don't at all disapprove of unions. In our economic system, it is not just unionized workers that act first of all to further their own interests. How about those fat cat company bosses smoking their black cigars, plotting how to raid pension funds to cheat the widows of faithful long time employees? We have made a creditable attempt to create a system of institutions and laws to let everyone compete and play their own games while not becoming too enraged when, from time to time, they lose a hand.

I don't at all disapprove of unions either. I hope there was nothing in my post which would have given you that impression. I'm just not naive about the union vs. management rhetoric and propaganda commonly dispursed. Both sides are out for themselves. It's not that teachers are for the children and school boards are against the children. It's that teachers want more money for doing the same thing they're doing now and school boards are trying to avoid going to the taxing authorities for more money to buy the same services they're getting now.

Yep, every decade or two or three things have to come to a head. Just as with Mafia families, a good war clears the air and allows for fresh beginings. Public unions have, in general - some exceptions of course, been winning the battles for some time. Now employers (in this case governments) are using the results of the recession on state and local economies to reel things back in a tad. The pendelum will swing...... and it will swing back. We saw similar when GM went bankrupt and the UAW was forced to make concessions.

In Wisconsin, public employees will give up very little in the next 3+ years until the next election for govenor. If the public doesn't like what they have created, new politicians can easily and rapidly undo what has just been done. Wisconsin citizens will have adequate opportunity to improve pay and benefits for public workers to whatever extent they want to tax themselves to pay for it.

That is the good that will come out of this. If citizens want to undo this, they can. But by undoing it via electing politicians who promise to give rights and higher pay and benefits to public union members, they'll be choosing their own higher tax level. Today, there seems to be more of a tendency for the pro-union folks to want to keep their advantage in bargaining for "more" but without wanting to be involved in the "pay for it" side of the equation.

I'm looking forward to future elections in Wisconsin. And, if pro-union politicians are elected, how they will come up with the money in ways that are acceptable to their supporters.

[M Paquette]

It's really annoying when people start insisting that they have some sort of right to free association, isn't it? Especially when a bunch of them decide to delegate authority to some one of them.

This will end badly.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette It's really annoying when people start insisting that they have some sort of right to free association, isn't it? Especially when a bunch of them decide to delegate authority to some one of them. This will end badly.

What sort of ending do you foresee?

-ERD50

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 What sort of ending do you foresee? -ERD50

Oh, the usual. Political whinging, screaming, the usual sources connecting unions to Code Pink to the coming New World Order Global Caliphate. Lots of bashing, finger pointing, and whatnot.

What's really funny is how one group of people can get together, pool their resources, and appoint a front man to negotiate for them, under the name of prudent management, while if another group less well off as a whole tries to do the same thing, they are dirty unionistas trying to Destroy Our Way Of Life.

Sooner or later the folks doing the Happy Happy Joy Joy dance over whacking public employee unions are going to slip in a bit of legislative fun, under a name like, oh, say "The National Right To Work Act" to force dirty unionistas out of all workplaces. With unions broken we can much more readily get to work on removing the excessive burden of various federal wage and payroll mandates from the backs of our businesses, and Make America Competitive, just like in the Good Old Days.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Oh, the usual. Political whinging, screaming, the usual sources connecting unions to Code Pink to the coming New World Order Global Caliphate. Lots of bashing, finger pointing, and whatnot. What's really funny is how one group of people can get together, pool their resources, and appoint a front man to negotiate for them, under the name of prudent management, while if another group less well off as a whole tries to do the same thing, they are dirty unionistas trying to Destroy Our Way Of Life.

OK, thanks for the explanation. We all look at things from different reference points, but from mine, that seems a bit overstated.

Let me break that down:

Quote:

What's really funny is how one group of people can get together, pool their resources, and appoint a front man to negotiate for them,

Are you referring to the Governor? I don't think he can do much alone. This was a bill brought up to the State Congress. It seems like it went through what we call the democratic process - a bill is written, voted on and signed (or not). It's not 'one man'. It was an action by a majority group of elected representatives. And who is the "one group of people" you refer to? Do you mean "the people who vote"? Isn't that how our system works - even when the person elected isn't the person you voted for?

Quote:

while if another group less well off as a whole tries to do the same thing, they are dirty unionistas

I'm having trouble seeing the public unions as "a group less well off". Isn't one core of the issue that this group is getting raises and benefits that are better than the general public, and being paid for by the general public?

Sorry, maybe I lost something in translation, but that's how I read your comments.

-ERD50

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Sorry, maybe I lost something in translation, but that's how I read your comments. -ERD50

Probably lost in translation. On the Wisconsin fuss, the public employees union seems to have gotten everything they asked for in past negotiations with little pushback from the management. Since the management has done so poorly at negotiation, it looks like part of the executive and legislative folks decided to handicap the union side to even the playing field.

They were able to play on the overall politicization of anti-union sentiment to accomplish this. The outcome is being seen as a huge win for the anti-union movement, and will shortly be extended to attempts to curb the unions in all workplaces, with particular focus on cutting of their source of funds, the union dues paid by workers.

Playing off of the "I got mine, the hell with you" attitude now common in America, the passage of a national 'Right to Work' bill ending closed 'union-only' workplaces (agency shops) will result in most workers not joining, or dropping out of unions. This will effectively end the negotiating power of unions in the workplace, and more importantly, will greatly reduce the political power of unions in the election process and influence through political support.

It remains to be seen if anti-union sentiment can be whipped up and maintained long enough to end the influence of unions in America.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Oh, the usual. Political whinging, screaming, the usual sources connecting unions to Code Pink to the coming New World Order Global Caliphate. Lots of bashing, finger pointing, and whatnot. What's really funny is how one group of people can get together, pool their resources, and appoint a front man to negotiate for them, under the name of prudent management, while if another group less well off as a whole tries to do the same thing, they are dirty unionistas trying to Destroy Our Way Of Life. Sooner or later the folks doing the Happy Happy Joy Joy dance over whacking public employee unions are going to slip in a bit of legislative fun, under a name like, oh, say "The National Right To Work Act" to force dirty unionistas out of all workplaces. With unions broken we can much more readily get to work on removing the excessive burden of various federal wage and payroll mandates from the backs of our businesses, and Make America Competitive, just like in the Good Old Days.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

[samclem]

The individual state "Right to Work" laws haven't forced unions out of the workplace. These laws forced unions to prove their relevance and worth to workers, who could make individual decisions about whether to join or not. It turns out the unions do "less well" when they can't use the power of the government to guarantee their monopoly.

It seems to me that government should neither be in the business of preventing people from freely associating nor forcing them to associate. If an employee thinks he can do better for himself and his family by negotiating directly with his employer to get what he's worth, there should certainly be no government policies to prevent that (freedom to associate. . . ).

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem The individual state "Right to Work" laws haven't forced unions out of the workplace. These laws forced unions to prove their relevance and worth to workers, who could make individual decisions about whether to join or not. It turns out the unions do "less well" when they can't use the power of the government to guarantee their monopoly.

Correct. It's difficult to root unions out of a large corporation spread across many states, and particularly difficult when the unions are tied into interstate commerce and railroads. A national law might be handy, particularly if it doesn't neglect to alter the old railroad and transport worker legislation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem It seems to me that government should neither be in the business of preventing people from freely associating nor forcing them to associate. If an employee thinks he can do better for himself and his family by negotiating directly with his employer to get what he's worth, there should certainly be no government policies to prevent that (freedom to associate. . . ).

Indeed. If an individual dock worker feels sufficiently empowered to negotiate with Koch Industries over workplace safety issues, for example, more power to him, and his next of kin.

I've got a pretty good idea of the goals involved here, and somehow I don't think that the ultimate goal is empowering the individual worker. That only works in fictional novels for residents of hidden Colorado valleys.

[samclem]

And, anyway, those kids look happy on that little loom machine. The one in the distance seems to be smiling. I never had an employer nice enough to let me work in my bare feet.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Correct. It's difficult to root unions out of a large corporation spread across many states, and particularly difficult when the unions are tied into interstate commerce and railroads. A national law might be handy, particularly if it doesn't neglect to alter the old railroad and transport worker legislation.

I think the current system makes it too easy to fuel a "race to the bottom" by encouraging states and cities to give the farm away to large businesses in order to encourage them to leave their previous locations and set up shop there.

Not only does that leave one region devastated with the loss of a major employer, it also allows the business to "reset" with lower wages, reduced benefits and probably fewer jobs (and yes, perhaps to get rid of a "pesky union"). And it often puts the local small businesses at a disadvantage because (a) they didn't get the economies of scale that the large company or "big box" retailer has, and (b) they didn't get the tax breaks to relocate that the big business probably did.

Now I know businesses aren't in business to be social programs, but I'm not sure this phenomenon is really good for most of us. I think it fuels some of the downward pressure on real wages and benefits most of us have endured for a decade or more. Businesses (at least those accountable to shareholders) can't be realistically expected to leave profit on the table willingly, which is why at least *some* limitations on their behavior seem necessary.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Businesses (at least those accountable to shareholders) can't be realistically expected to leave profit on the table willingly, which is why at least *some* limitations on their behavior seem necessary.

I wonder if that type of legislation would have helped our situation here in the Rust Belt? If it was illegal for the auto plants, steel mills and other heavy industrial operations to shut down, we'd still have a robust economy here. The gov't could have started by simply legislating that they could not shut down or the owners or CEO's and bod's would be personally fined and/or imprisioned. If they whined that they didn't have money to stay and continue to operate at a loss, then the gov't could have assisted by putting huge tariffs on imported goods. For example, automobiles from Asia and Europe could have been kept out with hefty tariffs. Same with steel I guess.

By also legislating a playing field favorable for unions, our tax base would have been kept whole or improved with a rapidly rising income tax base.

It seems simple. What could possible go wrong with the gov't calling the shots on what is manufactured, where it's manufactured, labor compensation and all those things traditionally done by entrepreneurs and "the market?"

[Midpack]

For those who still contend there's no difference between the "management" role and public vs private unions (see below), and why taxpayers are "fed up" or rapidly getting there.

Quote:

More government (federal / state / local) employees belong to unions (8 million) than did private sector employees (7 million) in 2009. Government employee union membership rate of 37% is 5x higher than private sector employee union membership rate of 7% in 2009. Private sector union membership rate declined 180 basis points to 7% in 2009 from 9% in 2000, while government employee union membership rate rose 50 basis points 37.4% in 2009 from 36.9% in 2000.Source: Bureau of Labor

For those who rush to say corporations have beaten down private unions, you're helping to prove the collaboration between public unions and politicians IMO. Vastly improved working conditions in the US and global competition has been a large factor in accelerating the decline of unions and associated expenses, something that's been absent in government.

Having said all that, this is no easy issue. All of us are going to have to pay more taxes or receive less services, and the sooner the better. The deficit is far too wide to grow ourselves out of it this time. Unfortunately, it's happening in a very irregular fashion, the private sector workers have taken a beating for decades, and now it seems to be the public sector under scrutiny.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had political leadership & media who could quantify the whole picture and a comprehensive solution so we all felt like we were in it together instead of pitted against each other? And an electorate that could turn off American Idol and quit beating on a bucket at some state capital long enough to fully grasp the situation?

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette .... This will effectively end the negotiating power of unions in the workplace, and more importantly, will greatly reduce the political power of unions in the election process and influence through political support. It remains to be seen if anti-union sentiment can be whipped up and maintained long enough to end the influence of unions in America.

Again, may just be different viewing angles, but I just don't equate "reduce the political power of unions in the election process" (and/or their negotiating power) as being "anti-Union". It's about reigning in what many of us see as excess power. As a parallel, I'm anti-monopoly, but I'm not anti-big-business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I think the current system makes it too easy to fuel a "race to the bottom" .... Businesses (at least those accountable to shareholders) can't be realistically expected to leave profit on the table willingly, which is why at least *some* limitations on their behavior seem necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I wonder if that type of legislation would have helped our situation here in the Rust Belt? If it was illegal for the auto plants, steel mills and other heavy industrial operations to shut down, we'd still have a robust economy here. The gov't could have started by simply legislating that they could not shut down or the owners or CEO's and bod's would be personally fined and/or imprisioned. If they whined that they didn't have money to stay and continue to operate at a loss, then the gov't could have assisted by putting huge tariffs on imported goods. For example, automobiles from Asia and Europe could have been kept out with hefty tariffs. Same with steel I guess. By also legislating a playing field favorable for unions, our tax base would have been kept whole or improved with a rapidly rising income tax base. It seems simple. What could possible go wrong with the gov't calling the shots on what is manufactured, where it's manufactured, labor compensation and all those things traditionally done by entrepreneurs and "the market?"

+1 to youbet - and when those companies fail, the govt would bail them out. Where is all this money gong to come from?

It may look like a "race to the bottom" to some, but I think it is just a reaction to the global marketplace. We simply have to compete with people who have a lower standard of living than us, and are willing to work for less to improve their lives. I fear that any artificial means to prop that up ( and deny these people an opportunity to improve their lives) will have a worse effect for everyone in the long run. It'll be like the housing bubble, lots of people happy about their apparent wealth, but painful when it all comes tumbling down.

I think we just have to adapt, and be as smart about it as we can to limit the pain (including looking for new opportunities). At the same time, I think we should be happy for the people around the world that are lifting themselves out of a kind of poverty we can barely understand - many of them don't 1/10th of what some people in the US have that we call "poverty stricken".

-ERD50

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I think the current system makes it too easy to fuel a "race to the bottom" by encouraging states and cities to give the farm away to large businesses in order to encourage them to leave their previous locations and set up shop there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Not only does that leave one region devastated with the loss of a major employer, it also allows the business to "reset" with lower wages, reduced benefits and probably fewer jobs (and yes, perhaps to get rid of a "pesky union"). And it often puts the local small businesses at a disadvantage because (a) they didn't get the economies of scale that the large company or "big box" retailer has, and (b) they didn't get the tax breaks to relocate that the big business probably did. Now I know businesses aren't in business to be social programs, but I'm not sure this phenomenon is really good for most of us. I think it fuels some of the downward pressure on real wages and benefits most of us have endured for a decade or more. Businesses (at least those accountable to shareholders) can't be realistically expected to leave profit on the table willingly, which is why at least *some* limitations on their behavior seem necessary.

I understand what you are saying, but when we are talking about business and not governments, I believe a business must be free to cut costs, the reason being that in a world economy, no one has to buy from the US firm. Government can force the taxpayer to pay up at gunpoint, hard for a business to pull that one.

A recent example is Boeing building a large plant, and essentially moving a good part of future production to South Carolina. With this move, they cut an incredibly troublesome union down to size, they get exposure to a cheaper supply chain in SC, and after a shakedown and training period for perhaps less skilled machinists etc, they should be able to maintain at least some degree of world competiveness.

Ha