States and Unions

[Colly Wolly]

I didn't see a punch. Did you see a punch? Even in slo-mo all I could see was the camera pointing down.
Really counselor, I could make the case that the cameraperson simply fell down. Baggers can be so clumsy at times...

You started the thread much stronger.

[Tex]

I didn't see anything all that major in Walker's phone call. But it was revealing that he admitted to thinking about planting agitators in the crowd, but avoided it because of political, not moral risks. He also jumped at "Koch's" promise of a free trip to California, and remarked about how "Koch" would love his personalized Louisville Slugger.

You have to admit its embarassing to him. Also Mitch Daniels of Indiana threw him under the bus pretty good yesterday as well.

That said I don't think the Dems can win this thing in Wi.

Heh. You are like a walking reprint of the HuffPo. Why not just link the article and save some keystrokes?

Anyway, it's a little embarrassing for the laugh factor, sure. That said, this guy punk'd a wet-behind-the-ears chief of staff and his boss. Whoop-dee-do.

In several ways, this played right into Walker's hand. There's very little smoke in the recording, and Walker comes off as pretty reasonable as well as reinforcing an image of saying the same thing both in private and public. Try that trick on Obama and see what you get.

[happyone]

Here is an interesting article on Gov Christie from the NYTimes and how the NJ teachers union (NJEA) has played into his hands. It linked from RCP


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/ma...pagewanted=all

[dabrockster]

Here is an interesting article on Gov Christie from the NYTimes and how the NJ teachers union (NJEA) has played into his hands. It linked from RCP


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/ma...pagewanted=all

I heart Christie.. For his bluntness and straightforward talk.. He is no politician, which is why so many like him... We are tired of Political talk and want answers to real questions... He is fits all of that...

[Tex]

If you ever had any doubt about media bias, watching this clip says it all. Media is as quiet as a mouse about it.

[youtube]9Cx77K8e3WE[/youtube]

I'm not fond of the "What if it were Republicans" game, but compared to the media coverage of the Tea Party--especially during health care last year--it's hard not to notice the stark difference.

[Borderline Divine]

Countered by this

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClJ6vK9x_4&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Fox News Lies About "Violent Wisconsin Protests"[/nomedia]

Palm trees in Wisconsin?

[Moliere]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

Looks like the Wisconsin government found a legal way around the Democrats unrepresentative maneuvering. It's about time the citizens of Wisconsin get the representation that they voted for.

Although I don't like stripping union rights from public employees but that is what Wisconsin voted for so that should ultimately be what they get.

[frank ryan]

Did they campaign on that ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

Looks like the Wisconsin government found a legal way around the Democrats unrepresentative maneuvering. It's about time the citizens of Wisconsin get the representation that they voted for.

Although I don't like stripping union rights from public employees but that is what Wisconsin voted for so that should ultimately be what they get.

[dabrockster]

Article in WSJ written by Gov Walker:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

Looks like the Wisconsin government found a legal way around the Democrats unrepresentative maneuvering. It's about time the citizens of Wisconsin get the representation that they voted for.

Although I don't like stripping union rights from public employees but that is what Wisconsin voted for so that should ultimately be what they get.

Governor Walker offered the Dems a compromise whereby most of the collective bargaining rights would be maintained, but he held on to the [relatively unreported] provision that would end the mandatory dues checkoff. Basically teachers and other state workers could work in unionized school districts, agencies, etc. and not have to pay union dues.

Not surprisingly, the Dems didn't go for it even though most of the collective bargaining rights remained. The end of the mandatory dues was possibly worse for the Dems politically because their single largest money contributors (well, them and trial lawyers) are the unions.

Mitch Daniels did the same thing in Indiana a few years ago and he's very popular in that state. Indiana is not Wisconsin, but I think Gov. Walker will end up being the big winner in all of this despite what some of the initial polls say. Some indicate popularity for Walker on the matter as a whole while others suggest that people are uncomfortable with taking away the collective bargaining rights. I think as time goes by, Walker will come out demonstrably ahead for three reasons:

1. It saves money
2. It puts the interests of the people served ahead of union rules that work against the people served (e.g. Walker wrote an oped in the WSJ about a teacher in a Milwaukee school district that was laid off right after winning a Teacher of the Year award because she didn't have seniority).
3. I think it will become more widely known that Walker and the GOP were willing to compromise on collective bargaining rights but weren't willing to bargain on the mandatory dues checkoff and I think this will reflect poorly on the state Senators that skipped town to avoid a quorum.

[RobinFinderson]

Governor Walker offered the Dems a compromise whereby most of the collective bargaining rights would be maintained, but he held on to the [relatively unreported] provision that would end the mandatory dues checkoff. Basically teachers and other state workers could work in unionized school districts, agencies, etc. and not have to pay union dues.

Not surprisingly, the Dems didn't go for it even though most of the collective bargaining rights remained. The end of the mandatory dues was possibly worse for the Dems politically because their single largest money contributors (well, them and trial lawyers) are the unions.

Mitch Daniels did the same thing in Indiana a few years ago and he's very popular in that state. Indiana is not Wisconsin, but I think Gov. Walker will end up being the big winner in all of this despite what some of the initial polls say. Some indicate popularity for Walker on the matter as a whole while others suggest that people are uncomfortable with taking away the collective bargaining rights. I think as time goes by, Walker will come out demonstrably ahead for three reasons:

1. It saves money
2. It puts the interests of the people served ahead of union rules that work against the people served (e.g. Walker wrote an oped in the WSJ about a teacher in a Milwaukee school district that was laid off right after winning a Teacher of the Year award because she didn't have seniority).
3. I think it will become more widely known that Walker and the GOP were willing to compromise on collective bargaining rights but weren't willing to bargain on the mandatory dues checkoff and I think this will reflect poorly on the state Senators that skipped town to avoid a quorum.

There is a difference between 'dues' and a contract fee for working under a union-negotiated contract. I would agree, that union 'dues' should be optional, however, it is reasonable for anyone working under a union-negotiated contract to pay for the union's service (which is an ongoing custodial service that contractually requires the union to defend non-union members working under the union contract). Such a fee would be structured into the contract itself. It isn't clear from your post whether you are talking about union 'dues,' or the mandatory fees for the union's service. It also isn't clear whether or not Walker is recognizing this distinction.

[Moliere]

Did they campaign on that ?

I have no idea but how does that matter? They are Reupblicans so naturally they are against strong unions, especially public employee unions. They were elected into state government based on their conservative ideals. Wisconsin wasn't blindsided by the GOP, it's residents voted these people in to trim down the budget and everyone should have known where they were going.

[frank ryan]

I have no idea but how does that matter? They are Reupblicans so naturally they are against strong unions, especially public employee unions. They were elected into state government based on their conservative ideals. Wisconsin wasn't blindsided by the GOP, it's residents voted these people in to trim down the budget and everyone should have known where they were going.

Id say it matters.

[Bjorn Turoque]

I have been thinking about this thread for a while and have a few items I’d like to address:

I think that this WI union issue is unfortunate to have occurred within the public sector, because unions and public employee compensation are separate issues. I won’t address unions, but I will speak toward public employees, having a father that has worked in the public sector for the past 25+ years.

I am not against unions, but I do support public sector benefits plans. From a total compensation perspective, public employees that I know (at least the professionals, I’m not entirely sure about the laborers) are compensated at a lower level than their private counterparts. A robust benefits package narrows the gap, but does not eliminate it, and that gap only grows with career progression. Benefits packages and stability are what draw quality people to the public sector. Is my experience here lacking? I only have Utah experience to go by, so please let me know if other places are different.

My dad is a quality public sector professional, and has saved taxpayers a lot of money due to good management. I would argue that by lowering compensation you attract poor-quality professionals to the public sector that end up creating a net cost to taxpayers due to poor management including outsourcing critical decision making to consultants and private sectors that derive their profit from public monies. With poorer management, public services will necessarily suffer as well. Think of the last time you had to go to the DMV. Do you really want to deal with a lower-functioning person at the counter next time? Think about how long it took to get your favorite pothole filled, because it could take even longer next time. Am I wrong in my logic here?

Are pension plans for public employees necessarily completely unsustainable by themselves? The problem with WI, CA, MI, etc. to my understanding, is that pension funds, like social security, were mismanaged (by politicians and high-level bureaucrats, SURPRISE!). Those states got exposed during the recession. Note that not all states are in this predicament, Utah made some minor modifications to their public pension plans going forward to address the issues arising from the recession, but since the Utah fund’s target has been to stay close to 100% funded, there were no major overhauls needed (again to my limited understanding and research).

One final anecdotal experience of my father’s: He interacts with other private sector professionals on a daily basis in his industry. One in particular used to boast about how much scratch he was pulling in during the boom years of the early to mid-2000’s, and would wonder why my dad didn’t jump into the private sector and make some real money. The same exact guy comes in about a year ago complaining to him about how tough it is out there and how my dad is lucky that he has a cushy, secure public sector job. Everybody envies the guy who invested in safer stuff when the economy goes south.

In the non-unionized private sector, employees are paid according to what their work is worth. Their pay, in other words, represents what customers are willing to voluntarily pay for their labor.

This is the way that it should be if we're interested in (1) allocating capital to where it is valued most by society, (2) not forcing people to pay for things they don't want, and (3) using society's scarce resources as efficiently, as morally, and as responsibly as possible.

Unions and government both throw an enormous wrench into this efficient ideal, and in doing so, cause a massive misallocation and malinvestment of resources.

Unions do it by actively forcing society to pay more than they normally would for labor. Unions, IMO, are misunderstood by the public. They are not at war with managers, as is commonly understood. They are always at war with consumers.

Government, as a monopolistic provider of services, does it by preventing anyone from being able to even know what we would pay for its workers' services on the open market.

Everybody would like to be paid more. But only union and government workers use the force of government to extract more from people than they would otherwise be able to obtain. Hence the inefficiency and immorality.

(Keep in mind that unions as we know them would not be able to exist without the help of federal and state governments).

[Goatnapper'96]

In the non-unionized private sector, employees are paid according to what their work is worth. Their pay, in other words, represents what customers are willing to voluntarily pay for their labor.

This is the way that it should be if we're interested in (1) allocating capital to where it is valued most by society, (2) not forcing people to pay for things they don't want, and (3) using society's scarce resources as efficiently, as morally, and as responsibly as possible.

Unions and government both throw an enormous wrench into this efficient ideal, and in doing so, cause a massive misallocation and malinvestment of resources.

Unions do it by actively forcing society to pay more than they normally would for labor. Unions, IMO, are misunderstood by the public. They are not at war with managers, as is commonly understood. They are always at war with consumers.

Government, as a monopolistic provider of services, does it by preventing anyone from being able to even know what we would pay for its workers' services on the open market.

Everybody would like to be paid more. But only union and government workers use the force of government to extract more from people than they would otherwise be able to obtain. Hence the inefficiency and immorality.

(Keep in mind that unions as we know them would not be able to exist without the help of federal and state governments).

I am thinking you and Frank Ryan aren't going to be Facebook friends!