Being that I'm from Wisconsin, I love onions! Wait, this isn't the Onions thread...
I'm sick of all this.
Being that I'm from Wisconsin, I love onions! Wait, this isn't the Onions thread... I'm sick of all this.
wcelliot wrote: Yep, still all about economics. On both sides. Always has been, always will be.
Come on dude. Without any data to back that up...
oldsaw wrote: Interesting article. It seems that Gov. Walker has erred in blaming unions. He should be pointing the finger directly at his predecessors who negotiated the collective bargaining agreements - with the unions. Which pretty much is the crux of the problem anyway.
I agree. It would seem the state is very bad at bargaining. I also predict this blows over in the coming economic upturn. I'm taking bets on whether Walker will cave. I think he underestimated the pro-union sentiments.
Also, the cops decided not to clear the Capitol building last night. A subtle reminder that police officers are union employees as well?
Xceler8x wrote: Still about money right? Not about student performance or performance based raises for teachers. 70k people showed up in protest in Wis this past weekend. They slept in the capital. Yup, doing the peoples' will, sure...whatever you say.
i don't believe they're taking a pay cut for the work they've missed while protesting...
Xceler8x wrote: Btw - Here's another article for those that care to read and think about the issue. It's a Forbes article about how Wis actually contributes nothing to Public employee pensions. It's written by a Pulitzer Prize winning tax writer. The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions So busting the Union is still all about economics right? The Unions have given in to the economic demands of the Governor and the state contributes next to nothing to the public pensions. Yup, all about the economics. Maybe on Fox news or Bizarro World..
its funny how a Pulitzer Prize winning tax writer is overlooking what most people see as a simple truth for whatever reason:
Government union wages are funded by tax revenues. In the weblink, the first commenter goes right to this point.
Is it a give-away? No of course not; its part of their negotiated salary that they pay into a pension with. Is it contributed to by way of tax payers? ABSOLUTELY, since ALL government union wage and benefits are paid by tax revenue and no other source. There is simply no other way to get around this fact no matter how much people would like to twist it.
All wealth earned personally by a government union member comes from tax revenues paid (because the government doesn't make a profit.)
Unger's only response is:
Of course they are paid by the taxpayer. They work for the taxpayer. However, suggesting that their pension benefits are some sort of gift from the taxpayer is no more true than saying that their salary is a gift. Are you proposing that they should work for free? If you want to argue that public employees are over-paid, that is an argument you can make. You can also argue that these folks should get a pay cut because their employer is in tough circumstances. But the attempt to muddy the picture by suggesting that they are receiving some ’special’ benefit from the state at no cost to themselves is disingenuous to say the least.
How is what Unger doing any different from the opposition he criticises? He's certainly disingenuously filling in some wide gaps with his observations and overlooking simple truths...kind of like he says the Governor is doing...
Perspective shows that the finality of the matter can much more closely resemble what the Governor puts forth than what Unger is offering. In the Governors's case, we can plug in some statistics to interpret; we can itemise how much of the union workers' salary goes into this pension for retirement, then we can compare that to the remaining salary they earn. If the difference is dramatically above the average of what a similar private sector worker earns AND is able to save for retirement, then I don't think the Governor is doing anything more than window-dressing his perspective of the facts.
In Unger's case.... there is no way, absolutely none, to intellectually suggest that the money that pays into a union pension does not originate directly from tax revenues.
Xceler8x wrote:wcelliot wrote: Yep, still all about economics. On both sides. Always has been, always will be.Come on dude. Without any data to back that up...oldsaw wrote: Interesting article. It seems that Gov. Walker has erred in blaming unions. He should be pointing the finger directly at his predecessors who negotiated the collective bargaining agreements - with the unions. Which pretty much is the crux of the problem anyway.I agree. It would seem the state is very bad at bargaining. I also predict this blows over in the coming economic upturn. I'm taking bets on whether Walker will cave. I think he underestimated the pro-union sentiments. Also, the cops decided not to clear the Capitol building last night. A subtle reminder that police officers are union employees as well?
Well, I'd agree that the state has a poor bargaining record, as far as bargaining in its' own best interests. When legislators "negotiate" with the dominant source of their campaign contributions ( a prime reason they were elected) bad things are gonna happen - not for the politicians, for the state and its' taxpayers.
It will be interesting to see how Walker responds to the pro-union pressures. It's pretty obvious the "support" is bussed in from out of the state and populated by people who don't vote there.
The decision to not clear the capitol is also a reminder of problems inherent with public-sector unions. It puts state employees in direct confrontation with the state and taxpayers best interests.
So lets recap:
Budget deficit (spending too much money)
Cut budget somehow.
Cut government workforce expenditures. (not worth the whole deficit, but worth enough to try and do)
A: fire people, reduce size and service capacity to the public
B: keep people, cut pay dramatically to keep everyone and expect same service capacity for less funds.
C: cut other benefits to workers that is supplemented by tax revenues
D: remove/restrict ease with which future workers can raise their own pay.
And the governor wants to either do A, or do B, C, and D.
madmallard wrote: i don't believe they're taking a pay cut for the work they've missed while protesting...
How do you now what these workers are doing for the time off? It is quite possible they're using paid time off for those days. That's really beside the point and not part of the conversation here. Although your statement is indicative of the assumptions made by people opposed to unions that have no basis in fact. But don't let facts, or a lack of facts, stop you from making accusations. 
oldsaw wrote: Well, I'd agree that the state has a poor bargaining record, as far as bargaining in its' own best interests. When legislators "negotiate" with the dominant source of their campaign contributions ( a prime reason they were elected) bad things are gonna happen - not for the politicians, for the state and its' taxpayers. It will be interesting to see how Walker responds to the pro-union pressures. It's pretty obvious the "support" is bussed in from out of the state and populated by people who don't vote there. The decision to not clear the capitol is also a reminder of problems inherent with public-sector unions. It puts state employees in direct confrontation with the state and taxpayers best interests.
I agree re: bargaining against own interests. Look at Halliburton during the Bush years. Money and politics mix - too well - on both sides of the aisle.
So far as "obvious" support from out of state...non-provable. Unless you are polling each protester for their zip code you'll never know from where they originate. It is sufficient to say quite a number of people are upset about this. Guvnah has miscalculated. Other GOP Guvnah's realize this and have stopped pushing for this in other states like Indiana and Florida.
Your last statement? Opinion again. Union members, and their supporters, are taxpayers as well. Their best interests are being represented.
madmallard wrote: its funny how a Pulitzer Prize winning tax writer is overlooking what most people see as a simple truth for whatever reason: Government union wages are funded by tax revenues. In the weblink, the first commenter goes right to this point. Is it a give-away? No of course not; its part of their negotiated salary that they pay into a pension with. Is it contributed to by way of tax payers? ABSOLUTELY, since ALL government union wage and benefits are paid by tax revenue and no other source. There is simply no other way to get around this fact no matter how much people would like to twist it. All wealth earned personally by a government union member comes from tax revenues paid (because the government doesn't make a profit.)
No one is trying to dispute this. I think we can all agree that public employee salaries come from taxes collected. Shew! That was hard! Agreeing on something. 
madmallard wrote: Unger's only response is:Of course they are paid by the taxpayer. They work for the taxpayer. However, suggesting that their pension benefits are some sort of gift from the taxpayer is no more true than saying that their salary is a gift. Are you proposing that they should work for free? If you want to argue that public employees are over-paid, that is an argument you can make. You can also argue that these folks should get a pay cut because their employer is in tough circumstances. But the attempt to muddy the picture by suggesting that they are receiving some ’special’ benefit from the state at no cost to themselves is disingenuous to say the least.How is what Unger doing any different from the opposition he criticises? He's certainly disingenuously filling in some wide gaps with his observations and overlooking simple truths...kind of like he says the Governor is doing...
Sorry. I don't really get where you're going here.
We all know public salary employees are paid out of taxes. Public employees then invest this money taken from their salaries, like a 401k, via a managed fund. The state is not investing much, if any, cash into this. Where's your beef with this?
madmallard wrote: Perspective shows that the finality of the matter can much more closely resemble what the Governor puts forth than what Unger is offering. In the Governors's case, we can plug in some statistics to interpret; we can itemise how much of the union workers' salary goes into this pension for retirement, then we can compare that to the remaining salary they earn. If the difference is dramatically above the average of what a similar private sector worker earns AND is able to save for retirement, then I don't think the Governor is doing anything more than window-dressing his perspective of the facts. In Unger's case.... there is no way, absolutely none, to intellectually suggest that the money that pays into a union pension does not originate directly from tax revenues.
You kind of lost in your previous paragraph but I can address the last.
Unger is not suggesting their salaries don't come from taxes. He's saying that begrudging a public employee his deferred compensation option, the public employee version of a 401k/pension, is unfair as the public employee invested in it with a portion of their own salaries.
His other point is that if this fund is out of cash, in deficit, etc it's because of mismanagement by the state as the employees have no contact with the money. They never touch it as it's drawn from their salaries before the monies are even available. It's usually a pre-tax deduction. The fund is then managed by an entity contracted by the state to invest the fund into the market. Again, to blame the public employees for this is blaming the victim. They did not decide how the fund was invested or contributed to by the state. All they did was agree to have funds withdrawn from their salaries to be invested for their retirement.
I was a bit confused so maybe I'm missing your point. In which case I wasted a E36 M3 ton of button pushing on my keyboard.
Here's a great article from the Daily Beast about this very subject. I find it balanced which means it's perfect because we all know I'm never wrong. Except when talking to my wife or a Lemons judge.
madmallard wrote: So lets recap: Budget deficit (spending too much money) Cut budget somehow. Cut government workforce expenditures. (not worth the whole deficit, but worth enough to try and do) A: fire people, reduce size and service capacity to the public B: keep people, cut pay dramatically to keep everyone and expect same service capacity for less funds. C: cut other benefits to workers that is supplemented by tax revenues D: remove/restrict ease with which future workers can raise their own pay. --- And the governor wants to either do A, or do B, C, and D.
Excellent recap. I think we disagree on the necessity of D. But people disagree and drink beer together all the time. I'll have a beer with you any day. 
In reply to Xceler8x:
I surmise that "D" is the proposed tax reduction for businesses relocating to Wisconsin. More job opportunities would certainly be an advantage for future workers - current ones, too.
Oh, and I like beer, too.
Xceler8x wrote: D: remove/restrict ease with which future workers can raise their own pay. --- And the governor wants to either do A, or do B, C, and D.
Excellent recap. I think we disagree on the necessity of D. But people disagree and drink beer together all the time. I'll have a beer with you any day.
The disagreement on "D" is what this is primarily over... It's how WI got in the state it's in and the primary thing that needs to be fixed moving forward. How is that not all about economics?
Of course the state has been "bad at bargining"... those bargining on behalf of the public interest were elected in part due to union funds that they get from those they are granting obscene pay and benefits.
In other words, they are negotating on their own personal behalf with nobody negotiating on behalf of the public inerest.
Remember, public unions by definition place the economic interest of a group of people against the public interest. Anything they are granted goes against the public interest and anything they lose is in the public interest. There is absolutely no defendable role for public unions.
madmallard wrote: Is it a give-away? No of course not; its part of their negotiated salary that they pay into a pension with. Is it contributed to by way of tax payers? ABSOLUTELY, since ALL government union wage and benefits are paid by tax revenue and no other source. There is simply no other way to get around this fact no matter how much people would like to twist it. All wealth earned personally by a government union member comes from tax revenues paid (because the government doesn't make a profit.)
There are other sources besides taxes. Most of the operating money in transit comes from customer's fares and bridge tolls, and many state agencies like the DMV collect fees for expenses. Police and other departments collect fines towards their budgets.
Leach wrote: There are other sources besides taxes. Most of the operating money in transit comes from customer's fares and bridge tolls, and many state agencies like the DMV collect fees for expenses. Police and other departments collect fines towards their budgets.
Except for the fines, everything you list are indeed taxes.
Xceler8x wrote: How do you now what these workers are doing for the time off? It is quite possible they're using paid time off for those days. That's really beside the point and not part of the conversation here. Although your statement is indicative of the assumptions made by people opposed to unions that have no basis in fact. But don't let facts, or a lack of facts, stop you from making accusations.
Admitedly i don't have a cite right now, but I remember more than a week ago someone was in either cnn or fox running a guest commentary/interview about the wages being paid per diem on protestors who didn't show up to work.
No one is trying to dispute this. I think we can all agree that public employee salaries come from taxes collected. Shew! That was hard! Agreeing on something.
My problem with Unger is that he is asserting contrary to all of the above...
the name of his piece was "The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions" for crying out loud. Taxpayers represent ultimately 100% of contributions to these pensions.
He IS trying to put forward the idea that the pensions don't cost the taxpayers anything with an article title like that. I view that as no less a gross mis-representation than what he asserts the Governor's office is doing.
His other point is that if this fund is out of cash, in deficit, etc it's because of mismanagement by the state as the employees have no contact with the money. They never touch it as it's drawn from their salaries before the monies are even available. It's usually a pre-tax deduction. The fund is then managed by an entity contracted by the state to invest the fund into the market. Again, to blame the public employees for this is blaming the victim. They did not decide how the fund was invested or contributed to by the state. All they did was agree to have funds withdrawn from their salaries to be invested for their retirement.
Thats all fine and good but I don't think anyone is raising that point, so consider this instead:
Take a clerical position in the school system and compare it to a small office of similar scale to a single school and their office clerical postion. If the school cleric makes significantly more base money than the office clerk, AND has a pension to combine with their base, when the office clerk can't save for their retirement; then the case can be made more easily for the Governor's POV than any allowance for Unger's POV.
Of course the state has been "bad at bargining"... those bargining on behalf of the public interest were elected in part due to union funds that they get from those they are granting obscene pay and benefits. In other words, they are negotating on their own personal behalf with nobody negotiating on behalf of the public inerest. Remember, public unions by definition place the economic interest of a group of people against the public interest. Anything they are granted goes against the public interest and anything they lose is in the public interest. There is absolutely no defendable role for public unions.
This is the entire point to all of this. The taxpayer is supposed to be represented by it's elected officials. Instead you have those elected "giving" unions what they want in exchange for votes. Happens all the time to all parties and it is wrong. And you do realize that when public unions give money to politicians, it is money paid in by the taxpayer? Do you want your tax money given to a party you may not support simply because it is laundered through a union? Public unions can be extremely damaging to communities left unchecked.
An example. My brother works for a county that is in worse trouble than Wisconsin really. He was layed off for six months a year ago, but still got 100% benefits and 3/4 pay...taxpayer dollars, not to go to work. And his 100% benefits are incredible, much better than anything I've ever had. A few weeks ago he had to take a 20% paycut to keep his job, and even with that, he couldn't go private sector and make the same money. Now they are talking massive layoffs just to pay their bills. Of course it sucks to take the pay hit, but he knows he's been on the bubble for a long time and planned accordingly!
You'll need to log in to post.
