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

[M Paquette]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

• 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]

.... 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.

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[ERD50]

they didn't get the tax breaks to relocate that the big business probably did.

I do have a problem with giving tax breaks to business to relocate. We end up with one state/locality competing with another, and it all comes out of the taxpayer's pocket.

But as long as locals have taxing authority, I hardly see what we can do about it. I guess as long as they see the tax breaks as a cost for a long term benefit, they ought to free to do so, whether any of us like it or not. And I guess the long term "theoretical" view is we should only vote in people who won't give tax breaks to businesses to relocate, but we can see how far we will get with that.

-ERD50

 

[Nodak]

A recent example is Boeing building a large plant, and essentially moving a good part of future production to South Carolina.

Not to high jack the thread here but a couple of months ago I learned of a situation that may be contributing to business flight from Washington state. I know a couple of people who have collected unemployment benefits from Washington but have never lived there nor paid even one penny in taxes to that state. They live in ND, worked in Minnesota, then took the train to Washington to apply for benefits and got them (I saw one of the checks); that has got to be one of the worst wastes of state funds I have ever heard of. Washington unemployment benefits are about 25% higher than ND's so there is an incentive.

 

[samclem]

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.

That seems like a better ending (for the US) than losing business to Airbus or having Boeing build a plant in Mexico/Indonesia. Now, we'll see if the business environment in SC stays hospitable, or if these workers or local governments find a way to kill (or drive off) the goose that lays the golden egg.

 

[FinanceDude]

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,

Sounds like the head of most unions........

 

[FinanceDude]

We're Still Here in Wisconsin!!!!

Heck, this past month has sure been interesting..........

Anyway, there was a protest at the Capitol on Saturday, about 90,000-100,000 people. The 14 state senators that fled came back and got a heroes welcome, all captured by breathless reporters.

The best sign I saw on TV read: "I Would Have Come Sooner, But I had to Work, and my Doctor doesn't think Protesting is a Medical Excuse".............

We have about 6 million residents in the state, about 5 million are adult workers, so even if we say ALL 100,000 folks were from Wisconsin (they were not), that's only about 2% of all working adults. It does make for good tv. 93 % of Wisconsin residents work in the private sector, so the protesters represent 7% of the entire workforce. I give them a lot of credit, they do a good job of protesting..........

I expect legal challenges and other stuff to extend into the summer. Our local teacher's union is really getting out the dire news about how awful things are going to be in the next few years. One of the principals at the largest elementary school told me 7 teachers are retiring, all with 30+ years in, only 2 had planned it before the whole budget repair bill thing. I know all 7, and 4 are really burned out, so that's probably good in a way. There are a LOT of young teachers in our area, I imagine they will get 100 applicants or more for those 7 jobs when announced.

 

[Midpack]

There are a LOT of young teachers in our area, I imagine they will get 100 applicants or more for those 7 jobs when announced.

If they were prepared to lay off 1600 teachers (I've heard several numbers quoted), why would they replace these 7? What am I missing?

 

[ERD50]

If they were prepared to lay off 1600 teachers (I've heard several numbers quoted), why would they replace these 7? What am I missing?

From what I know, layoffs are based on classes being cut. When there were cuts in our district, that's how it worked.

So, if those 7 teachers are retiring, yet the classes they were teaching remain, the district will need replacement teachers for those classes. As I understand it, the positions would first be filled with any tenured teachers with credentials to teach that class, but those tenured teachers would be coming from classes that were cut (else they would stay put). Second, they would likely (but not necessarily?) be filled from non-tenured teachers that were cut from that district. Lastly, they would look to hire new teachers as replacements.

So, if those 7 were math teachers, and all the classes being cut were PE and Music teachers w/o math credentials, that could be a case where they need to hire new.

-ERD50

 

[FinanceDude]

If they were prepared to lay off 1600 teachers (I've heard several numbers quoted), why would they replace these 7? What am I missing?

Every district has a headcount. The 1000 teachers is for all school districts in the state of Wisconsin. Our school district is facing a $470,000 shortfall, which puts us in better shape than most. MPS, the largest school district in the state, might lose a couple hundred teachers, but with a graduation rate of 50%, they are already headed for a restructuring.........

 

[youbet]

If they were prepared to lay off 1600 teachers (I've heard several numbers quoted), why would they replace these 7? What am I missing?

I think you're missing the fact that the governor spoke of laying off 1500 state employees, not 1600 teachers. Where did you see the info about 1600 teachers?

 

[FinanceDude]

I think you're missing the fact that the governor spoke of laying off 1500 state employees, not 1600 teachers. Where did you see the info about 1600 teachers?

EVERYTHING in Wisconsin centers around the teachers, they have the best benefits and the strongest union in the state.

An interesting topic was brought up locally. In the public sector, the HIGHEST paid employees are protected, while in the private sector, more often that not the LOWEST paid employees are protected........

Two of the Republican state senators that voted for the budget repair bill are married to teachers, and in all likelihood their wives will lose their jobs. That was barely mentioned in all the media frenzy........

 

[FinanceDude]

If they were prepared to lay off 1600 teachers (I've heard several numbers quoted), why would they replace these 7? What am I missing?

Lots of numbers being thrown around these days........ Here's a link to yet another angle on this: Stimulus-Funded Teachers to be Laid Off | MacIver Institute.

A big chunk of Stimulus money went to KEEP teachers whose positions would have been cut two years ago if the school districts had not gotten that money. It merely delayed the inevitable IMHO. Now districts are "facing the music" that they did not have to face two years ago. Since when are teacher salaries "shovel-ready projects"??

 

[haha]

Since when are teacher salaries "shovel-ready projects"??

Since they are Democrat voting union members, that's when.

Ha

 

[FinanceDude]

Since they are Democrat voting union members, that's when.Ha

 

[samclem]

Since when are teacher salaries "shovel-ready projects"??

That was a very irritating aspect of the "stimulus" marketing. It was sold as an investment in infrastructure that would improve US productivity well into the future. There are federal/local expenditures that would meet that definition. But that's not what the money has largely been spent on--it has generally been spent on the daily operations in states, counties, and municipalities. Just preserving public sector jobs. I guess it's possible all those school guidance counselors and social workers were put to work paving roads and reinforcing bridges, but I doubt it.

 

[youbet]

EVERYTHING in Wisconsin centers around the teachers, they have the best benefits and the strongest union in the state.

Do you actually know for a fact that all the Wis layoffs spoken of by the governor would have been 100% teachers? I read the layoffs would have involved some state employees as well.

An interesting topic was brought up locally. In the public sector, the HIGHEST paid employees are protected, while in the private sector, more often that not the LOWEST paid employees are protected........

It works differently here in Illinois. Our highest paid public sector employees such as school superintendents, high level state employees such as the govenors staff, etc. are not protected. Interesting that those folks would be union members in Wis. Which union?

Two of the Republican state senators that voted for the budget repair bill are married to teachers, and in all likelihood their wives will lose their jobs. That was barely mentioned in all the media frenzy........

Wow! So you know who's on the layoff lists? It's a little surprising that the senators would be married to low seniority teachers since they're not young kids themselves, but ya never know.