Unions

fasted58 wrote: It will be interesting to see how the NFL/ NFLPA and the Wisconsin public employees will settle their issues.

The thing I find most interesting about this whole thing is not that they want eliminate collective bargaining, but that they are specifically excluding police and fire fighters. I am not sure how they are justifying that. Are not police and fire public workers? Are they somehow "better" then other public workers? How is it they are more worthy?

I find it very inconsistent.

I'm curious why some of you think that public workers unions are more evil that private unions?

because a government body doesn't have to make a profit to be successful. they just raise taxes.

In fact, government bodies' definition of success isn't even quantifyable in normal terms. A business is a success when it makes money. A government program powered by a union is only successful if it goes on indefinitely, and the only thing it needs to do that is more taxpayer revenue, regardless of any known measure of performance (teachers union).

Private unions belong to an institution that is only -slightly- more open in nature. But thats like saying a chainsaw is less noisy than a wood chipper.

aircooled wrote: I would guess it is the fact that when public unions abuse the system, they are "stealing" from all of use (tax money). When private ones do, they are just screwing their own company (of course those prices are passed on also).

So you are ok with paing higher prices on products but not for roads? It's your money either way. That's a very simplified example, sure, but I see so many people who are happy to pay a lot of mortgage interest so that they reduce their taxes. In the end, you pay more in interest than you would in taxes- but people are ok with paying banks over governments.

I am not saying I am OK with that, but at least for a company you (should) have the option to buy from another company that does not have the inflated prices. That option does not exist with the government.

The part you are missing with the mortgage interest is the fact that the item you are paying the mortgage on is likely gaining value. Although I would agree, some seem to ignore that and still think the interest deduction is worth it.

aircooled wrote: I am not saying I am OK with that, but at least for a company you (should) have the option to buy from another company that does not have the inflated prices. That option does not exist with the government. The part you are missing with the mortgage interest is the fact that the item you are paying the mortgage on is likely gaining value. Although I would agree, some seem to ignore that and still think the interest deduction is worth it.

Not missing that at all- people miss the fact that a 15 year mortgage can be affordable, but get talked into a 30 year one, partially thanks to the long term tax benefits. I've done the math- if I pay for the whole 30 years, I'll never sell the house for what I paid for- mainly the interest I willingly and happily GIVE the bank. Unless I stay another 30 years.

Value is relative.

As for the option of a different company- are you using ATT or Comcast right now? Those are the two largest 'net carriers, and you ARE paying the inflated prices. Free marketers think they have the option, but never like to see the fact that the choices are limited, and in many cases become more limited due to consolidation.

Yea- I have options- but realistically- I get Delta to fly on, Comcast or AT&T for basic utilities, I can get my books from Amazon, Borders, or Barns & Noble, most corn is grown via ADM, soy is grown mostly from one strain of seed, McDonalds shapes the prices of my food far far more than I do. I could go on....

That doesn't even include the firms that are on me via markets- apple and i stuff, fbook, etc. I'm cool if I do things just like everone else.

Unions like to fight consolidation, since it limits their powers- oddly enough, it keeps up your options.

Unions fight consolidation? Seriously?

Unions try their best to consolidate specifically to their own advantage by consolidating the thing they have the most control of:

Labor pool.

The teachers union, the auto unions, and in any market where they are actively seeking new unionization, they are always looking to expand union domincance to the logical conclusion: impossibility of competition for labor. A labor monopoly. That suits unions just fine

side note: if you don't like your internet choices here, you can go live in Canada where they just passed a law that will put a bandwidth limit on all its citizens. ;p (most of canadian internet is state run.)

madmallard wrote: Unions fight consolidation? Seriously? Unions try their best to consolidate specifically to their own advantage by consolidating the thing they have the most control of: Labor pool. The teachers union, the auto unions, and in any market where they are actively seeking new unionization, they are always looking to expand union domincance to the logical conclusion: impossibility of competition for labor. A labor monopoly. That suits unions just fine side note: if you don't like your internet choices here, you can go live in Canada where they just passed a law that will put a bandwidth limit on all its citizens. ;p (most of canadian internet is state run.)

I doubt the steel industry was happy with the conolodation of that industry.

The airline unions tend to fight whenever they consolodate.

Yes, unions fight it when choices become limited.

My ATT/Comcast was to illustrate the illusion of free market choice.

ok, so what you mean is not the principal of consolidation. (which clearly, unions support completely. Southwest & Airtran sure haven't met much union resistance.)

What YOU specifically mean is when businesses consolidate.

In reply to madmallard:

Oh- sorry about the confusion- yes, I'm meaning business consolodation.

okay, well, unions unfortunately represent the same problem when they flex their muscle to consolidate labor pool because the industries they work in become just as limited as when private business consolidation happens.

Doubly so when they're a government union. In fact, wherever possible, those unions try to use law to make labor or even industrial competition illegal.

In reply to madmallard:

Evidence?

For that matter, my home town did the opposite- selling part of the city services to a private firm. Unions objected, but had no power to change it.

Which was a non union related issue to me...

Still- private (non union) schools are legal, there are plenty of private service companies (who are even unionize), and services are being re-routed to private firms. I've never seen a public union block private competition.

Well we are going to include 'attempts,' because it shows intent and political philosophy:

things like teachers unions lobbying for laws that descriminate home schooling. The TSA lobbying for protection from competition of private security firms that have better records than them.

The postal workers union lobbys for the interpretation of the postal clause of the Constitution to always be interpreted as a monopoly, and when a review went underway, the Postal Service was left in charge if its own review.... Kind of defeates the purpose...

Mass transit unions have a tendancy to resist any other business entity try to come in similar jurisdictions and fight to have them unionised immediately, consolidating their own labor pool. Various stories about that litter the dc to ny coast for several years.

madmallard wrote: Well we are going to include 'attempts,' because it shows intent and political philosophy: things like teachers unions lobbying for laws that descriminate home schooling. The TSA lobbying for protection from competition of private security firms that have better records than them. The postal workers union lobbys for the interpretation of the postal clause of the Constitution to always be interpreted as a monopoly, and when a review went underway, the Postal Service was left in charge if its own review.... Kind of defeates the purpose... Mass transit unions have a tendancy to resist any other business entity try to come in similar jurisdictions and fight to have them unionised immediately, consolidating their own labor pool. Various stories about that litter the dc to ny coast for several years.

I'm sure you are already aware that lobbying and laws are not the same.

Home schooling is still legal, as are private schools.

I've not seen the TSA lobby- but if airlines want to staff their own, I'm sure they have more than enough money to make that happen. Or are you talking subcontracting of security items that we deem that should be done by a central government?

As for the Post Office... kind of hard to argue with them. Even so, you can send documents and packages via other means if you are so against unions.

Mass transit have private run options? ok....

And I'm not sure how unions that want to consolodate their interests are that much different than companies that consolodate companies. Look at Coke- and all of the stuff that is under them, which isn't really reated to Coke. As a 'free market' model, we seem to be happy when economic giants are produced, and most of the major money is fed through specific companies. In this, people seem to think that the worker is a commodity- until they are treated as one. Totally fogetting that the worker's pay is what buys MOST of the products we produce.

If you have a bent against unions, you will find reasons for them to be evil, that's for sure.

An articulate argument against public sector unions: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/02/the-case-against-public-sector-unionism.html

Quote from the article:

FDR and George Meaney said: Prior to the 1950s, as labor lawyer Ida Klaus remarked in 1965, "the subject of labor relations in public employment could not have meant less to more people, both in and out of government." To the extent that people thought about it, most politicians, labor leaders, economists, and judges opposed collective bargaining in the public sector. Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable." Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

Private section unions pit the commercial interests of one group of people against the commercial interest of another. That's natural market competition and has resulted in an overall stronger system that we would have otherwise had (40 hour work week for example). It's when Government gets involved to artifically empower one side against the other that the abuses being discussed here tend to happen.

Public sector unions are another animal altogether. There is no "balance" involved. It's simply pitting the economic interests of one group of people against the public interest and forcing Government (you and me) to pay more than it needs to in order to attract qualified employees to do Government functions. With no profit motive involved here, it's a very pure economic model with natural balance... the union artifically unbalances the model.

Wether you think Government is too big, expensive, and intrusive or whether you think that Government is a force for good and we'd like it to do more... public sector unions are your natural opponents.

aircooled wrote:

fasted58 wrote: It will be interesting to see how the NFL/ NFLPA and the Wisconsin public employees will settle their issues.

The thing I find most interesting about this whole thing is not that they want eliminate collective bargaining, but that they are specifically excluding police and fire fighters. I am not sure how they are justifying that. Are not police and fire public workers? Are they somehow "better" then other public workers? How is it they are more worthy? I find it very inconsistent.

Walker admitted that this was inconsistent and explained that he exempted these groups only because of the public safety aspect. There is no danger to public safety when teachers strike (except that posed by the teachers and their supporters themselves) but he was unwilling to risk public safety due to strikes or other tactics by the police and fire unions.

As a former WI resident who understands the state's politics, the cynic in me says that's only part of the real reason but they did at least address the inconsistency.

alfadriver wrote: , people seem to think that the worker is a commodity- until they are treated as one.

I have noticed the devolution of the worker as related to by the managers that are set up to take care of them.

Originally it was the "Personel" office.. we were still people

Then it was "human resources": now we are a resource

Now it is "talent relations": now we are just a talent..

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g

"Meanwhile, Wisconsin public schools increased their per pupil expenditures from $4,956 per pupil in 1998 to 10,791 per pupil in 2008. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator the $4,956 Wisconsin spent per pupil in 1998 dollars equaled $6,546 in 2008 dollars. That means that from 1998 to 2008, Wisconsin public schools increased their per pupil spending by $4,245 in real terms yet did not add a single point to the reading scores of their eighth graders and still could lift only one-third of their eighth graders to at least a “proficient” level in reading."

That's pretty sad. Nearly doubled the amount of money going into the system, but still no results. What a poignant article regarding Teachers Unions.

Granted the numbers for the other states, and the country in general are pretty terrible.

Who would have thought that just throwing money at the problem without identifying causes/solutions wouldn't work?

Do you guys think that the threat of unionization motivates corporations to treat their workers better? If there weren't unions would there be a motivation to not work people to the detriment of their health, family, etc?

I'm sure someone will step in and say "Of course a company would treat it's people well! Otherwise how would it make money?" In response I propose coal miners. A worthless union and therefore workers are exploited to great profit. You can make the same argument for airline pilots. The airline industry is interesting as well because it's a deregulated industry. The pilots union is also under federal regulation and cannot strike without fed approval. It is a very, very weak union quite possibly because the industry is not regulated while the union is.

z31maniac wrote: That's pretty sad. Nearly doubled the amount of money going into the system, but still no results. What a poignant article regarding Teachers Unions. Granted the numbers for the other states, and the country in general are pretty terrible. Who would have thought that just throwing money at the problem without identifying causes/solutions wouldn't work?

Stating that more money was spent, and student performance didn't go up, is not necessarily the fault of teacher unions. That could be a cause but ultimately cannot be proven as the sole factor. Other factors that could contribute are class size, test parameters, cost of materials, cost of books, cost of non-union administrators, etc.

wcelliot wrote: Walker admitted that this was inconsistent and explained that he exempted these groups only because of the public safety aspect. There is no danger to public safety when teachers strike (except that posed by the teachers and their supporters themselves) but he was unwilling to risk public safety due to strikes or other tactics by the police and fire unions. As a former WI resident who understands the state's politics, the cynic in me says that's only part of the real reason but they did at least address the inconsistency.

Also keep in mind that the teachers union has agreed to all economic demands of the administration. Money is no longer a plausible factor in the debate.

The inconsistency with fire and police smacks of divide and conquer. The slippery slope folks will argue that once the teacher's union is de-fanged then the police and fire unions will be next. It hasn't worked. Firefighters have protested along side teachers.

The truly bad thing is that revenues are down. There isn't any money for anyone. If public workers can't afford to take pay cuts, and states don't currently have the money to pay, taxes will go up. There will be no other choice.

The truly bad thing is that revenues are down. There isn't any money for anyone. If the public can't afford to pay higher taxes, and states don't currently have the money to pay, the money spent on state services will have to go down. There will be no other choice.

Looking at it from the other side... and money is ALWAYS a plausible factor in the debate. That's what the whole debate is about.

wcelliot wrote: The truly bad thing is that revenues are down. There isn't any money for anyone. If the public can't afford to pay higher taxes, and states don't currently have the money to pay, the money spent on state services will have to go down. There will be no other choice. Looking at it from the other side... and money is ALWAYS a plausible factor in the debate. That's what the whole debate is about.

Therein lies the rub. The guv'ner of Wisconsin cut taxes on Feb 1. If the state is in such dire financial straits then why sign a law cutting tax revenues? Answer - The state is not in dire financial straits. Curtailing the ability of citizens to organize is the goal.

But I'm for less government in personal lives - Unless it means the government wants to tell people they can't organize. In which case I want government regulation.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signs tax cut bill into law

"Companies that relocate to Wisconsin won't have to pay income taxes for two years under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Scott Walker."

further down in the article...

"For his first month in office, though, Walker's been focused on spending money through tax cuts. Two tax cuts he's already signed — along with one that's passed the Assembly — would add about $117 million to the state's budget problem over the next two years."

So many concepts so wrong in single post I'm not even going to attempt a rebutal. ;-)