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

[clifp]

True in the sense of salary and retirement, although they can negotiate about some fairly petty rules such as compressed work schedules.

As a point of reference all new fed employees since the mid 1980's get 1% per year of service (high 3, partially indexed for inflation) in a defined benefit for which they pay 1% of their salary and up to 5% match on their 401K. Social security is also paid.

At the time it was considered a cheap retirement plan, now it appears to the the benchmark for state employees.

The federal system is affordable and when combined with a best in class 401(K) i.e. the TSP, a model for public and private retirement system.

My only quibble is I'd like to see Federal workers pay something along the lines of 5-6% for their pension since the true cost of 1%*year DB plan is in the neighborhood of 10-12%

Conceptually, I think employees and employers should split the cost of retirement. If we have a system where you work for roughly 2 years for every year you are retired, i.e work for ~40 years retire for ~20, I think that combined contributions need be 20% for an adequate retirement and 30% for a comfortable one.

 

[Westernskies]

It stinks. Like Chicago ward politics, but expanded to a national scale.

"Poor Wisconsin, so far from God, so close to Chicago."

Or was that quote about Mexico? I can't remember...

 

[cb7010]

Here Is A Good Article On Public Employee Unions

..and, represents one side of the argument

The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

 

[youbet]

..and, represents one side of the argument

The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

Every government-employee union is a political machine that lobbies relentlessly for higher taxes, increased government spending, more featherbedding, and more pension promises – while demonizing hesitant taxpayers as uncaring enemies of children, the elderly, and the poor (who are purportedly "served" by the government bureaucrats the unions represent).


Very interesting, quick read.

 

[Aruba50]

In a society that was built on the notion that self reliance and personal freedom are the keys to prosperity i am surprised that unions are tolerated at all. Unions are nothing more than communist microcosms that uphold the belief that we are all exactly the same and deserving of an equal piece of the pie regardless of how talented or motivated we are. Oddly, in an economy, this only works in "communist" states were the government makes the rules (i.e. Sets the pay scales) and are not beholding to a voting public. In a democratic society politicians are expected to supply the broader voting public with the services that the "communist"unions withold at their whim. At least unions that represent workers in private companies have to consider the economic viability of their employer when they withold services and set demands. Public unions have no such constraints and for this reason should be illegal, period.

 

[Sconie]

As a resident of Wisconsin----and for those of you who aren't familiar with the Midwest, "Sconie" is a nickname for someone from Wisconsin----all I can say is that I am VERY pleased with how things have turned out here and our Governor Walker!!!

 

[jebmke]

In a society that was built on the notion that self reliance and personal freedom are the keys to prosperity i am surprised that unions are tolerated at all. Unions are nothing more than communist microcosms that uphold the belief that we are all exactly the same and deserving of an equal piece of the pie regardless of how talented or motivated we are. Oddly, in an economy, this only works in "communist" states were the government makes the rules (i.e. Sets the pay scales) and are not beholding to a voting public. In a democratic society politicians are expected to supply the broader voting public with the services that the "communist"unions withold at their whim. At least unions that represent workers in private companies have to consider the economic viability of their employer when they withold services and set demands. Public unions have no such constraints and for this reason should be illegal, period.

Perhaps we should also bad political parties.

 

[ERD50]

..and, represents one side of the argument

The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

An interesting read, thanks.

In a society that was built on the notion that self reliance and personal freedom are the keys to prosperity i am surprised that unions are tolerated at all. Unions are nothing more than ...

I prefer to look at this in a more 'big picture' view. I have problems when any entity gains some monopoly-like powers. IMO, in the past that was the big industrialists, and today it is sometimes the unions. And cell phone carriers, and a few others. In either case, I'd prefer to see the cause of the power be acted on, rather than trying to regulate the symptoms.

-ERD50

 

[fisherman]

It certainly is interesting. My lack of knowledge in the area precludes any opinions in the matter. The following is my only experience in this matter.

My BIL and sister are school teachers and talk the tea party talk in a big way while reaping the fruits of their teacher union. They are about to lose tenure and have their health care rates raised and the retirement contribution raised due to a bill that is going through our state now and will be signed as republicans are in control including the governor. I cannot wait to hear what they have to say after that. I have always worked in private industry and never had a union job so I really do not have an opinion either way. I did always find them to be amusing as they seemed to want it both ways so this will be interesting.

 

[Aruba50]

An interesting read, thanks.



I In either case, I'd prefer to see the cause of the power be acted on, rather than trying to regulate the symptoms.

-ERD50

So the cause would be the unions?

 

[samclem]

So the cause would be the unions?

Not in my book. The Constitution gives people the right to freely associate without government interference, and if they want to freely associate to form a union, that is fine.

The problem comes when the government gets in the game of providing a guaranteed monopoly for unions (closed shop laws--"to work here, you must join the union") or restricts the ability of individuals to bargain individually rather than solely as part of a group (so called "collective bargaining").

Another problem unique to public-sector unions is the whole revolving-door money game. Any system without effective feedback mechanisms is going to cause trouble, and the unions + politicians-as-employers (using taxpayer money) system is a good example. We're watching the too-long delayed feedback now.

 

[samclem]

My BIL and sister are school teachers and talk the tea party talk in a big way while reaping the fruits of their teacher union.
. . . I did always find them to be amusing as they seemed to want it both ways so this will be interesting.

I don't see any contradiction between "talking the tea party talk" while being employed as teachers and taking what is offered by way of salary and benefits (the same as any other employee in that position). What limited government-types oppose is the fact that these policies and giveaways exist. BIL and sister may be actively fighting to have them eliminated. Still, if the money and benefits are being given to someone, they should be as eligible as anyone else to get them.

Now, if they are arguing to cut every other part of government except the part that benefits them, that's a different story.

 

[HFWR]

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

 

[ERD50]

So the cause would be the unions?

As samclem said, maybe certain aspects of union power have become too great, that doesn't mean that everything about unions is a problem.


What I was trying to say in my 'big picture' view, is that I'm not anti-union, I'm not anti-big-bigness. I'm anti- "anything that has too much power". I'm an equal opportunity anti-ist.

-ERD50

 

[fisherman]

Now, if they are arguing to cut every other part of government except the part that benefits them, that's a different story.

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

 

[Aruba50]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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?

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