States and Unions

[LA Ute]

Just for reference, here's the details of what's specifically being proposed:

- State workers contribute 5.8% to their pensions.
- State workers pay 12.6% of their health insurance premiums.
- Remove collective bargaining from pensions, and health care, and limit to only wages. Wage increases are capped at inflation, unless approved by the voters.
- Remove automatic deduction of wage dues from paychecks. (Union members must explicitly pay out-of-pocket instead.)
- Union contracts are limited to one year, and a majority vote of all union members required to renew. (Currently it's only a majority of those who vote.)

I don't find much particularly shocking in these proposals. Yes, it reduces union power (which is why they're throwing a tantrum), but in its place, it puts power in the hands of the citizenry. The financial requirements are a pittance.

I suspect the bolded provisions are the ones most upsetting to the union brass.

[Borderline Divine]

Agree, those sections must be worrysome to the union brass. I don't think the rank and file have such a big concern there.

Also here is a link with photos of the estimated 70K rallying. Yesterday a poster above asserted that there were 300K state workers and that the vast majority were at work. Probably true, but look how many can show up on their day off.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...y-(Photo-Diary)

[frank ryan]

Agree, those sections must be worrysome to the union brass. I don't think the rank and file have such a big concern there.

Also here is a link with photos of the estimated 70K rallying. Yesterday a poster above asserted that there were 300K state workers and that the vast majority were at work. Probably true, but look how many can show up on their day off.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...y-(Photo-Diary)

wonder if we see a general strike of all state employees? This could get ugly.

[Borderline Divine]

[QUOTE=LA Ute;539089]I true, that's shady indeed. I'd like to know more.

I'm not anti-union, BTW. My dad was a union guy at Kennecott Copper. I do think we have an undeniable problem with public employee unions in the USA right now because of the unsustainable benefits packages they have.[/QUOTE]

One might argue that those benefits are unsustainable due to massive losses of pension funds on Wall Street and spiraling medical costs. Which would lead us to another discussion entirely.

[Borderline Divine]

wonder if we see a general strike of all state employees? This could get ugly.

I haven't yet read anything about a general strike, but Wi. is a pretty strong union state.

[statman]

The first bolded section eliminates all collective bargaining powers.

Those would be the same collective bargaining abilities unionized Federal workers have.

[byu71]

[quote=Borderline Divine;539162]

I true, that's shady indeed. I'd like to know more.

I'm not anti-union, BTW. My dad was a union guy at Kennecott Copper. I do think we have an undeniable problem with public employee unions in the USA right now because of the unsustainable benefits packages they have.[/QUOTE]

One might argue that those benefits are unsustainable due to massive losses of pension funds on Wall Street and spiraling medical costs. Which would lead us to another discussion entirely.

I work for a brokerage firm (some would say Wall St.). Through my career I have had some major gripes. Like the time I moved from one company to another and $60,000 of a deferred comp. plan I participated was kept by the company I moved from. There was never a negotiation when they decided to cut the rate we got paid on fees generated. I thought, we should organize as brokers and unionize. WE are getting taken of advantage of.

Sure our fee's to clients would have gone up and I am sure E-trade, Schwabb, et. al. would have been happy, but still it might have been fun to go on strike.

[Borderline Divine]

Those would be the same collective bargaining abilities unionized Federal workers have.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. Do you mean that federal workers are currently under the structure that Wi. is proposing?

[statman]

Theres some back story (of course).

The projected budget shortfall is $130 million.

The tax incentives given to Wal-Mart (cheifly) and some other corporations for relocating in Wi. amounted to $120 million.

It's too simple, but pretty easy to make the case that Walker & co. created the shortfall and are now asking public sector employess to pay for it.

And there's a ton of actual fact missing from your post - the $130 million is the shortfall THIS fiscal year - before end of June. For next year, the shortfall is several billion. Which rich fat-cat got all that money?

And since when did Wal-Mart relocate to Wisconsin? I'm pretty sure they're still in Arkansas. Or does expansion and opening a new store count as a 'relocation' in the anti-corporate Borderline dictionary? Just checking so I can see which definitions you're using in your "arguments."

[frank ryan]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. Do you mean that federal workers are currently under the structure that Wi. is proposing?

i dont know alot about collective bargaining for federal employees. my understanding is some have it and some don't.

[frank ryan]

And there's a ton of actual fact missing from your post - the $130 million is the shortfall THIS fiscal year - before end of June. For next year, the shortfall is several billion. Which rich fat-cat got all that money?

And since when did Wal-Mart relocate to Wisconsin? I'm pretty sure they're still in Arkansas. Or does expansion and opening a new store count as a 'relocation' in the anti-corporate Borderline dictionary? Just checking so I can see which definitions you're using in your "arguments."

thanks angryman, you might wanna try some deep breathing exercises

[statman]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. Do you mean that federal workers are currently under the structure that Wi. is proposing?

Yes. They are unionized, but cannot strike, and have no collective bargaining on salary or wages. Salary and benefits are specified in a Federal pay schedule set every year by Congress.

There are also numerous other states where unions are allowed for public employees, but they cannot collectively bargain on what they get paid. It's not like it's some unique horrible thing. It's also pretty universal that where unions can bargain collectively on wages and benefits, states are in horrible budget shortfalls. Collective bargaining for civil employees who can (and do) vote as a block is a huge conflict of interest - that history has shown can and will be milked for every last penny they can squeeze out of taxpayers - and then some. It is not only a bad idea, rife with corruption and graft, it is a financially untenable idea as well. The unions simply don't know when to back away from the feed trough.

[frank ryan]

Yes. They are unionized, but cannot strike, and have no collective bargaining on salary or wages. Salary and benefits are specified in a Federal pay schedule set every year by Congress.

There are also numerous other states where unions are allowed for public employees, but they cannot collectively bargain on what they get paid. It's not like it's some unique horrible thing. It's also pretty universal that where unions can bargain collectively on wages and benefits, states are in horrible budget shortfalls. Collective bargaining for civil employees who can (and do) vote as a block is a huge conflict of interest - that history has shown can and will be milked for every last penny they can squeeze out of taxpayers - and then some. It is not only a bad idea, rife with corruption and graft, it is a financially untenable idea as well. The unions simply don't know when to back away from the feed trough.

i think fed employees are organized differently

[Tex]

One might argue that those benefits are unsustainable due to massive losses of pension funds on Wall Street and spiraling medical costs. Which would lead us to another discussion entirely.

One might also argue the moon is made of cheese.

Public sector employees get impressive benefits packages at the expense of private sector taxpayers, and the latter group has grown weary of it. I keep hearing that the average Wisconsin teacher's compensation including benefits is $100K. Haven't confirmed the number, but if true, it's staggering.

This is why Walker got a 6% advantage in a fairly liberal state all the while campaigning on this very issue. (Roughly the same margin, incidentally, that liberal lion and so-called champion-of-the-common-man Russ Feingold lost by).

And it's the same reason why 70K people are likely to go back to their classrooms very disappointed next week. (Or maybe the DNC will just bus them all to Ohio next.)

[Borderline Divine]

And there's a ton of actual fact missing from your post - the $130 million is the shortfall THIS fiscal year - before end of June. For next year, the shortfall is several billion. Which rich fat-cat got all that money?

And since when did Wal-Mart relocate to Wisconsin? I'm pretty sure they're still in Arkansas. Or does expansion and opening a new store count as a 'relocation' in the anti-corporate Borderline dictionary? Just checking so I can see which definitions you're using in your "arguments."

Good Lord. Did a public sector employee with collective bargaining rights steal your girlfriend in high school or something? Why the vitriol?

As for the anti-corporate charge, you may be interested to know that I myself am sole owner of 2 corporations (small, yes) and have never worked in the public sector in my life.

Frank is right. Try some deep breaths and find a happy place.