Are Unions breaking the States budget??

Hi!! Do you think the teachers, fire fighters and policeman's union are causing our states to be in financial trouble; or is it some thing else.
Please keep this thread civil so we can have a good conversation about this and liven up the lounge a little!! If you go over board it will get shut down.
Thank you!!

 

The first thing to remember is that the unions did not write or implement their contracts alone. They were in negotiation with state and local governments, and both sides had to agree to the terms of said contracts. Now that the governments are in trouble, they are trying to blame the unions for it.

Well...if you agree to pay someone $500 per month for something, and then suddenly your income goes down, it is not the fault of the person you made the payment arrangements with. Simply calling them greedy and expecting everyone to ignore your part in the original agreement is ignorant and really quite asinine. Your mortgage company doesn't care if your income goes down, they expect payment. You expect whatever wages you agreed to when you accepted your job regardless of the company's profit margin.

Why is it that unions are painted with such a broad brush of hatred? What if they were called something other than a union? What if we simply called them "employees", who think that receiving the wages and benefits for which they negotiated (and their employers agreed were fair) is not an unreasonable expectation?

 

It's not the union's faults, they're just the latest scapegoat of the moment. It's simple economics, not enough tax revenue due to an unregulated financial system with cheap money to fuel that fire that eventually collapsed the housing market. Let's call it unregulated greed. Now that the house already has burnt, they are still bickering fools. You think it's bad now? Wait for Aug. the 4th. 'No new taxes!' Ya right. Jerkheads!

Anyone want a souvlaki?(referance to the current Greek situation). Everyone has pay to here, screw the millionaires, it ain't starve them.

 

Hi!! Reading the reply's to this thread,so far it looks like we have 3 Donkeys 0 Elephants. Surely we can do better than that. Come on geeks. You been hollering for a thread that has substance and you can get involved in. What are you waiting for.:-D:-D Lets discuss this. It's a big item in the news almost every night!!

 

About 30 years ago I worked in a steel mill and our union president who was of our local for about two decades once told me"Son..the reason there are unions in this country is due to poor management". I believed him then and I still do.:dood

 

Are they breaking the states budgets? I'd have to say they aren't. The exact cause is a lot of different issues (and a lot of corruption) but they could be part of the problem. While I think unions definitely have their places, I do think some of them do try to "game" the system. Our local transportation company (it's the only one within the city/suburbs) were renegotiating their contract with the workers and the company asked that the workers pay 1% of their healthcare costs due to the economy. 1% that's it, while they already get paid exorbitant sums for sub-par service and major attitudes, they still would get their raises and all the other benefits. Sounds fair, right? Nope. They decided to go on strike, but to make it worse they decided at 2AM to go on strike and tell NOBODY. People out were out trying to get to work, in an already strenuous economy, and they were left stranded having no idea that their mode of transport wasn't coming. People were afraid that if they couldn't get to work they would lose their jobs. I mean, you want people to possibly lose jobs in a recession because you don't want to pay 1%?! Do they realize that most people (including me) pay up to 50%!? seriously.

The city and the suburbs are different divisions with different contracts but the same company if that makes sense. Well, the workers from the city came and blocked the buses in the suburban routes picketing about the injustice rolleyes. So not only did they screw the city folk, they wanted to screw the suburban folk that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT? I and the almost everyone in the city were pissed and for once were actually on the transportation companies' side for once. :-D Pretty much everyone had to figure out their own way to work, all because of greed of the union president.

So, like I said earlier, they definitely have their places but when they pull something like this I have a REALLY hard time believing they are beneficial to anyone but themselves.

 

Hi!! If what you are saying is the whole story, then that's ridiculous and that union is being unreasonable. There may be more to this then your being told???? I would want to hear both sides before I decided.
Thanks for your reply

 

:-D I don't think they are. You see so many people getting crap loads of money yet we little people suffering. I feel bad in my town and near by due to all the okay/good paying jobs left town and one my dad worked at went to mexico for cheap labor. I feel bad each time I look at an older man/woman in the factorys Ive worked cause they all come from 10-20 some dollar pay to 8 bucks an hour part time maybe 250.00 a week if lucky. Few factorys told me straight up since Iam in my 20's and fast and good they would like to eventually get rid of all the older and slower people in there and more me. For me thats good but wrong IMO. I just don't thing its right let them retired with respect they already feel they don't got any working there.. but atleast let them die/retired

 

If anything the system is overregulated. That's the problem.

Let the markets sort things out.

 

I was with you right up until this line. The way a union works, this is impossible. The membership has to vote by a 2/3 majority to go on strike. Not a 2/3 majority of members present at a meeting, but a 2/3 majority of total membership. One person cannot decide to do it, and one person cannot enforce the picket line.

 

Quite to the contrary. Strange that some countries where their systems are regulated more than in the USA, the problems such as in the USA are not as severe, although they were affected. Letting the markets do their stuff led to these problems in the first place. Remember Wall Street and going into 2 wars on borrowed money and giving tax cuts at the same time for instance?

If the markets would have its say, one would be working for peanuts. The unions have far fewer members due to creating jobs overseas as in outsourcing manufacturing jobs. Fewer members means less power. Due to unbearable working conditions the unions were created with blood, sweat and tears. If it weren't for the unions, there wouldn't be any paid holidays, working at least 60 hour workweek, no minimum wage, child labor. The list goes on and on.

Now more than ever unions are necessary because they are being threatened to extinction and the benefits they fought for may disappear for all the citizens, not just the unions.

Of course blaming the unions for a state's debt or breaking their budget is hogwash, cooked up by some who are serving their *masters* who advocate that unions are evil and need to get rid of. Read up on how and why unions were created. The states better learn to balance their budgets without infringement on workers' rights.

Beats me why citizens want it all but don't want to pay taxes for all these benefits they enjoy?

 

Hi!! My wife says those in power now will bust the unions and we will become a 3rd world country. There will be no middle class any more. We will only have the filthy rich and the poor. My wife knows.:-D Makes sense to me. We have seen the best of times. It will only get worse from now on unless we wake up and elect some people that care about the people. We really have some dandy's running. I'm sure Palin, Bachman, or Trump have all the answers to our problems. That's pretty damn scary to me. Is that the best we can do??rolleyes

 

Now Jack you said to keep this civil :duck didn't you? Palin isn't running for anything is she? And didn't Trump drop out once everyone saw.... oh wait I've gotta keep this civil, darn.

If you only apply a dollar value on things then yeah, the unions are totally evil. There's no reason to have them at all. They are just greedy people collectively getting the most out of their employers. However if you value what these services offer maybe you'll want a cop that isn't overly stressed over bills and has someone in his corner to vent too when crap gets to him. Maybe you'll want firefighters that have a sense of community and caring and not just there to collect a paycheck. Maybe you'll want school teachers that are worth a damned to babysit... I mean educate your kids and the kids that will either turn out to be productive members of society or hooligans and other such burdens to society.

Lots of reasons for budget shortfalls. A drastic drop in tax revenue is likely the biggest problem in my opinion. Most states (talking the USA here, maybe other places too I don't know) make a fair share of revenue from property taxes, with ever falling real estate prices that revenue base which until now was fairly constant and relied upon that "income base" to the states is reducing fast. Couple that with high unemployment rates with low sales to generate sales tax AND corrupt politicians giving out tax loopholes to the wealthiest of people and you start seeing a different picture. Unions are the constant here, not the problem. Closing tax loopholes and spurring the economy can only help everyone involved. Closing tax loopholes should be the easiest of the two to implement.

 

Hi Cabbiinc!! You are probably right, but you forgot Bachman. The last pole I saw, she was running neck and neck with Rommey. Does that not scare you?? Have you heard her talk; and the poles say she won the presidential debate. I watched the debate and none of them said any thing that impressed me.rolleyes. My choice was Ron Paul and he scares me also. I think the USA is in for some major trouble. I'm old, won't be around much longer, but my grand kids and their kids are in for some very rough times.
PS I'm going to take another Donkey and Elephant count soon. Looks like the Donkeys are winning.

 

Most people who talk politics outside of major election cycles are people who already have their mind made up. Either you talk to the choir or it falls on deaf ears. Nobody on the right impresses me and everyone scares me. But then the people who are right leaning will say the same about the left. Righties said Bush was too far left, lefties say that Obama is too far right.

But, given Bachman or Romney I'd take Romney if I couldn't vote any other way.

 

I agree, but I think it goes deeper than that.

Personally, IMHO, I think the current controversy about unions is due largely to political strategy designed to
divert attention away from other issues, and possibly manipulate campaign funding.

Most of the current opposition to unions and labor is occurring in states where the right has gained
either one or both of the governorship and the state legislature. Currently, organized labor strongly
supports the democratic president and they have substantial monies that can be, and have been used to
support democratic campaigns and will likely be used again in 2012. It may be that the political
strategy here is to weaken or dismantle these organizations so that their financial support for
democratic candidates will be significantly diminished.

A much more credible source of budget problems for the states is healthcare costs.
This is a problem that governors have been struggling with for years, and it's getting worse.
A major component of that is prescription drugs which are provided through partially state funded medicaid.
wikipedia: Medicaid

The following is from The National Governors Association (NGA)


Reducing Pharmacy Fraud, Abuse and Waste: Promising Practices of States

State Actions to Control Health Care Costs

Governors Offer Bipartisan Plan to Reform, Improve Medicaid

The new healthcare legislation has attempted to deal with these issues, but as we all know,
is complex and largely misunderstood, has hit many stumbling blocks and has met much controversy and opposition.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen to that.

I agree. Not the only problem, but as you said, likely the biggest problem.

It is still very early in this campaign.
As she gets more media attention and as she and also her husband, speak more freely
about their views, the more radical she and he appear. Although this gets those on the
far right riled up, it does not appeal to mainstream republicans and, in my opinion, this will not win
her the nomination or a general election.

Hope my comments will be considered Civil !!!

 

I am not a big fan of unions, I think there need has expired, but that is a personal opinion.

I do have a problem with government employee unions. With a union at a privately held company, as it was stated above, negotiations are made between the unions and management. I have no issue overall with that.

But, when government employee unions negotiate with government, the bottom line is not applied. Government does not have a true bottom line, like a private business. (OT, but look at the debt ceiling debate) There can also be a voting bias, and campaign money problems. Whose best interests are served by a government negotiating with public employee unions? The government, the voter, the tax payer, the public worker... Look at states like MN, CA... Lots of debt problems.

Just my personal opinion, but the market would be a better way to negotiate. Please note where I expressed my opinions, not demands. :-D

And I see romney and bauchman mentioned, I kinda like raising some Cain. :-D

 

No the banks broke the state budget,the banks got into this mess due to lack of regulation on investment banking,that's just a fact.

As a general statement about union sometimes unions push too hard and people can get greedy but I would say these are in the minority.

Unions aren't perfect but without them working life would be much harder for common folk,on a purely world market level though unions and workers rights can stunt a countries economy,just look at how much China is growing it will soon be the richest country in the world,I guess it all comes down to who'll work for the least on a world market level.

But still I wouldn't want to live or work there,I think even China will soon start to have serious industrial action,it goes without saying IMO.

Just look at the Arab spring,multiple nationwide revolutions organised through the internet,a little industrial action by Chinese workers seems like such as trivial inevitability in comparison. Same goes for other countries,unless the internet is completely banned they can easily see how everyone else is living and what other countries consider fair and fight for it, again using the internets social sites to communicate.

 

Without unions we would all be SCREWED.....

Whats wrong with the States Budgets is.....

#1 Illegal Aliens.....
These illegals bring with them Drugs, Gangs, and Crime and while there here they Suck the Life out of all Public services and our Health care system...

#2 Goverment corruption ( right at the top one whom came from the most corrupt state in the union, rotten apples dont fall far from the tree..
one former governer in Jail, another on the way...)

 

"Banks broke the state budget."

OK, what proof do you have?

"Unions aren't perfect but without them working life would be much harder for common folk,on a purely world market level though unions and workers rights can stunt a countries economy,just look at how much China is growing it will soon be the richest country in the world,I guess it all comes down to who'll work for the least on a world market level."

Do unions produce more jobs here, or do more go to China?

"I guess it all comes down to who'll work for the least on a world market level."

Open markets then?

 

OK, I am not in an union, how am I screwed without them? Corruption, vice, sure, it is there. Show examples. Otherwise we chase tails.

 

I am not able to speak about the US but here in Europe the public sector unions are holding the public to ransom.
Public sector pay is in the norm 20% higher than the private sector and the pensions are based on the last 10 years of work so they too are gold plated.
Europe in now in deep financial trouble with most governments unable to raise enough taxes to pay for the services we all enjoy so they are asking the public sector to relinquish some of their perks (among many other changes to the way taxes are raised)and the unions will have non of it so teachers, public office workers and government workers are being advised by the unions to take industrial action that doe not really hurt the employers but causes enormous disruption to family life.
Just take the teachers, when they go on strike all the kids have no where to go during the day so have to stay home and so do the parents in order to safeguard the younger kids thereby depriving the home of income, so who feels the pain?

PS here the ballot to strike is not 60% of the membership to call a strike but 60% of those who vote, so the militants will invariably win because of the apathy factor that many just do not bother to vote.

 

My dad voted for a strike back in the 50's when I was born, to go against some serious working conditions at CCR(cANADIAN cOPPER rEFINERY). They were out for 7 months until the 'management' caved.(they did gold and silver too). Dad must have gone through hell and back with me needing hospitalization at the same time and no 'free' medical ATT. What's wrong with a public safety net? I don't get it.:confused

 

What does a public safety net have to do with unions?

 

Proof:confused

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

You can pretend what's happening now is due to Obama's decisions if ya want,its isn't,we're still suffering from the financial meltdown that happened 3 years ago and no I don't blame Bush,although the deregulation that republicans made did contribute but even the Republicans were shocked at the amount the banks were leveraged and the things they were getting up to.

In the words of the then treasury secretary Republican Henry Paulson "No one wanted to know,we were making too much damn money."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis#Deregulation

I just said they send more jobs to China:confused

"I guess it all comes down to who'll work for the least on a world market level."

Yes open markets:confused It seems to me your tryna reduce economics down to a philosophy that only contains a couple of words "Open markets then." "Let the markets decide." It would be great if it were this simple.

With all due respect Fred "And I mean that,I like and respect you." sometimes it seems like you spurt out the right wing philosophies and slogans you've been read about like they're your own,like you've already made your mind up and the subject requires no more thought but to argue the point.I imagine you think I do the same with regard to liberal philosophies I've read about? I don't.I don't even read papers by prominent liberal economists or politicians I think they're all biased and I don't need them to tell me what to think and to explain to me what is right.

I'm making this up as I go along constantly re-evaluating and question what's logical and right,sometimes I steer to the right sometimes I steer into the left,you sometimes seem like your on a far right freight train without brakes:-D

In a purely open market system where the employee has all the power and employee's have no power or rights children have to work 7 days a week doing 12 hour shifts just to feed themselves while the employee cream off all the profit usually storing it as inanimate wealth. In third world countries where there is an abundance of labour this is exactly the situation they face,young girls breaking rocks in the sun for 12 hours a day just to feed themselves. Its also a lesson from history 100-150 years ago that the situation people faced in the UK.

Spending every hour of the day working just to have a place to live and food to eat isn't any way to spend the short amount of time we have here,I'd hope you agree.

The very benefits you enjoy now such as the length of your workday are the product of people fighting back,unions ect.,if it weren't for them the only gun you'd be holding at the range would be that of your peer as you loaded and gave it to him to fire.:cool

 

Hear hear Rikky!!! Well reasoned and said, and may I say heartfelt too. I'm not going to gang up on you Fred.

The reason is clear for this most recent meltdown. There was this mini recession in dubya's first year I believe and the interest rate was lowered to ridiculous levels(against bank's pleading) to prop up Wall Street which worked for a while. Then came all the mortgage scammers, then the packagers and voila, you have a house made of cards and we're now all paying for that crap.

It was meant to show the sacrifices that my dad and many union folk made to just get proper working conditions, they weren't after more money as the pay was good. A public safety net would have reduced their fears at least.

 

Great posts Rikky and Augie.

Some time ago I saw on CBC a program about young girls working in a factory in China under horrid conditions sewing jeans. They ate, slept and worked in the factory for very measly wages. Just work, eat, sleep. They even didn't get paid at one point. Food expenses etc. were deducted from their wages. Most ended up not being able to purchase a train ticket to see their parents over the holidays.The owner said he had no choice of paying them more because other companies would be undercutting him. To me this all was very much like slavery. :mad

Needless to say, no unions in China.

See that's how it works when there is *let the markets sort it out* The workers always lose when there are no checks and balances in place.

 

Ya know what really creeps me out? Everytime there's a recession it's the little guy that gets shafted further down and the rich get richer and the now poor get poorer.

One of your American pundits said this maybe a couple of hundred years ago 'We need a revolution every 20 years' or something to that effect. Maybe it's now time.

 

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and ...the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." A. Lincoln, 1824

"We grudge no man a fortune ... honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions ...but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase ... is now necessary. " T. Roosevelt, 1910

 

Actually Rikky, I think that was a good post. Sorry, sometimes I get carried away sometimes.

But, the thread was about unions, and then so many other topics are brought in. Makes it confusing to me anyway.

The OP was asking "Are Unions breaking the States budget??". So, I will just try to stay on that topic. As I posted before, when you have government unions negotiating with governments, the person who pays for it (taxpayer) is totally left out of the negotiations.

To not go far from the topic of the OP, we have a spending problem, or a tax shortage, whichever you believe. Recently it was what Wisconsin, there were massive protests because the government was making the union employees pay more for their own retirement and healthcare. But the increases were lower than the national average.

I admit, I am not sure of the source of this quote, but I am pretty sure at least the part I am quoting is correct: "Wallker’s proposal also requires public employees to contribute approximately 12% of the cost of their own health plans. Currently employees contribute next to nothing for a cadillac healthcare program whose costs have increased over time. Requiring a 12% contribution would mean that Wisconsin public employees would still contribute only half the national average of other workers toward their own healthcare plans." http://www.punditleague.us/editorials/wisconsin-union-wars-the-facts/

I would think only paying 12% of your health insurance would be a pretty sweet deal.

There certainly are many areas where states like CA and such have wasted money. I am sure you all know I favor a smaller government, but that would be getting a bit OT on this thread, so will leave that there. Unions are not the only problem we face. It is one of many. But, we have to reduce spending (or raise taxes, if you like that), and must start somewhere. Several states are close to going bankrupt. Look at all the protests and riots in Greece recently.

Back in the days when we did not have child labor laws and such, Unions were a good thing. Personally, I think they are dragging us down, especially government employee unions.

 

China is not exactly a free country or free enterprise. Poor example, in my opinion. Slavery has been illegal here for quite some time. Perhaps China would benefit from unions.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” W. Churchill

I would say that comparing sweat shops in China to our economy would be the apples to oranges thing. We pay some people not to work.

 

Don't know if he was a 'pundit', but I think this is the quote you are talking about.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." T Jefferson

 

While slavery has been illegal in the USA for quite some time, google current slavery in the USA and you'll find a ton of info that it is alive and well.

So you're saying that sweat shops don't exist in the USA where conditions are deplorable? Again, google is your *enemy*. :-D Most unemployed people are desperate for a job as unemployment $$ don't pay all the bills.

China has its millionaires and billionaires so it's not a real communist country where only the state would own everything and no private enterprise or private property is allowed. Yes freedom of speech is still not tolerated there.

As said, the disappearance of unions could turn the USA into a third world country where even the minimum wage would disappear. So everyone would be affected. Even you Fred.

A state (forgot which one) brought legislation forward to allow children to work longer hours and their wages would be less than minimum wage. After 60 days I believe the wage would be upped somewhat. Time for these employers to kick them out and hire other new kids for less. Anyways, these kids should be in school and studying in order to get ready to compete with the world and not asleep during school hours because they worked long hours the previous day. Some day if/when unions cease to exist, child labor laws are rolled back, you may find children again working as canaries in coalmines. Perhaps a bit exaggerated but anything can happen if the current climate continues.

 

No need to apologise to me I kinda harpooned YOU not your post which I apologise for,I get carried away sometimes too.

I agree about state unions,if the state is doing bad its only fair the state employees get cut and have a pay reduction,its not nice and no one wants it but what else can you do?

In every other walk of life this happens for example workers are told the company is going under and they can nolonger afford to pay them,they can keep they're job but will have to take a massive pay cut to hope the company rides out the storm,I've seen this happen to people first hand,I've seen people have they're wages completely cut and the rest of the workers pick up the the tab to keep them in work.

Why not in the public sector? We have also just had massive walk outs of public workers including teachers organised by unions and like you it is hard for me to sympathise with them I just feel like :

"FGS your arguing over percentages in your pension and going on strike,there are people I know down the road who have lost their job and have no hope of finding another one in this climate STFU!"

In times like this though whoever kicks up the most stink wins,money has to be cut from somewhere its usually the quietest people who lose out so people/unions have to fight.

Pretty ambiguous reply I know,but it is an ambiguous subject,there's no easy answer.

With regard to global competition and unions ect. It is now LEGALLY impossible for the west to compete with the East we just have too many laws against unfair treatment and they have to large a supply of cheap labour. China will soon be the richest and hence the most powerful country in the world 'As soon as next year I believe' but socially they are about 100 years behind the west and worse in some respects and that's kind of a scary proposition IMO.

But as I said this will change are the Chinese people begin to exploit social media and use the vast bank of information available on the internet to fight for rights just as in Arab countries,this is inevitable and then we will have a hope in hell of competing again on a manufacturing level,if this doesn't happen we're talking an Orwellian style 1984 government of which the likes we have Never seen:-D It will dwarf what Russia did with its scope and power due to the resources available to the chinese gov.

 

The reason stated by many that the Chinese are revolting ATM is due children continually having it better than their parents,that's a good measure of how a a society is doing. Do you have it better than your parents? What the Chinese have no is worse than what we have but heads and shoulders above what they're parents knew or what they knew as children so they see no reason to complain,things are on the up and up.

Over here ATM no we don't no one can afford houses,a huge number of my school friends still live with parents or rent small flats,even though wages and working conditions are much improved and you do appear to get more for your money.

Again straying off topic slightly sorry...

 

Oma, if it is a discussion, perhaps you will share your links, so we can be on the same page. I can't comment on what I can't read. I can probably find a google link blaming aliens, but I don't think that would advance the discussion.

And for the record, I said slavery was illegal here, did not say it does not exist.

Apples and oranges. Let's compare what we can quantify.

Do the rich or the poor employ? Who would you choose as an employer, a poor person, or a rich one?

Do the rich or the poor employ? Who would you choose as an employer, a poor person, or a rich one?

And, while we are at it, why would a company expand? Does it seek tax breaks, or does it seek profit? Do higher taxes produce more jobs outside of the IRS? How Sir, would you grow the economy? Government or free market?

 

Come on now. This is becoming a silly argument.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that higher taxes will produce more jobs.
Furthermore, the "higher taxes" that are being proposed are Not across the board for all citizens.
What is being proposed is a RETURN to the previous tax rates for the very wealthy, and possibly modifying those rates Appropriately for the Highest levels of income.
The so called "Bush tax cuts" have resulted in a loss of revenue At the Federal Level of over one trillion dollars so far.

Further, the question of whether the government OR the market should or does play a role in growing the economy
is also moot.
Our own history has shown conclusively that they BOTH have a legitimate role in influencing the economy.
That Government Should play a role in managing the economy is a lesson that was hard learned through the last
great depression.

The topic here is about Labor Unions and whether or not their activities are having a seriously negative affect on states budgets.

 

Hi friend!! You are a very tough debater. That's a good point. I guess I would choose a rich one with compassion for the poor, not a rich greedy one that never seems to have enough and always wants more!! It will be harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Those are not my words. I'm sure you have heard them before.
Thanks for your reply my friend .

 

I hope my previous post doesn't sound harsh. rolleyes
Not meant to be.
That's just what came out.
Peace.

 

Economics of very complex none of us here fully understand me included 'what the effects of a single element can have on a financial system'. Numbers are only one aspect and they are easy to work out,especially in hindsight,but add to that psychology,stock exchanges,variability of the world market ect ect. and things aren't so clear cut.

IIRC Historically in the US Regan tried tax cuts for the rich to boost the economy and it worked.Bush junior copied this philosophy and implemented similar measures and it didn't work.

This argument is the old left versus right,it doesn't really have anything to do with state unions and it will go on forever with both sides arguing something they don't understand,even economists don't understand it as they all have different OPINIONS as to the right way to run a country and that's all that can be argued,opinions.

And these opinions unfortunately always land in two camps,if you a conservative you believe in lower taxes for the rich and your usually rich or upper middle class and want to protect what you've earned so it's in your best interest to have lower taxes,if your liberal your often low income or middle class and are jealous of people earning higher wages so want them taxed more,this will also reduce the tax burden on you so its in your best interest.

I hope we can put this silly argument to bed and get back to unions.

 

I will stick to the unions as a topic. Except for one responce to Mjnc.

'The so called "Bush tax cuts" have resulted in a loss of revenue At the Federal Level of over one trillion dollars so far."

Are you referring to the bush tax cuts, or the bo tax cuts? :-D

As the OP asked, I will stray slightly OT. What causes success? Greed, or apathy? Which trait is best for our economy? What do unions promote?

 

That is an interesting point,unions often promote greed disguised fairness.

You have to weigh up what unions are though they are there only to benefit the workers they are not there to look after the state. Its similar to lawyers,they are only there to defend the client,they are not there to make sure truth and justice are served.

Do you lawyers get criminals off? Yes. Do lawyers benefit the the state fanancially? No, they drag out trials and cost more to prosecute.

Should we therefore get rid of lawyers? No people would have no defence without them.


Do unions help greedy people get rich. Yes. Do union benefit the state financially? No, they increase production and service costs and industrial action causes production and service stoppages.

Should we therefore get rid of unions? No working people would have any repeal against their employer.

Asking the neighbours kid to spend all week knocking me up a pair of Nike's is great for my economy but it isn't great for her.

 

Take it one step farther Rikky. Do unions companies generally promote based mainly by merit, or seniority? Do non union companies promote based on merit, or by seniority?

"You have to weigh up what unions are though they are there only to benefit the workers they are not there to look after the state."

I agree they are not there to look after the state. And, with government unions, the taxpayers are not involved in the negotiations. And I really don't think unions are there ONLY to benefit the workers... While I am certain there are some good unions, I think the union is a business as well. A quick Google on union corruption will show that.

 

How are so many non union companies successful? And I am not for getting rid of unions. I don't have a problem if employees want to form a union because they feel they are unable to negotiate better pay and benefits.

I do oppose government employee unions. Look at CA's public pension issues. A company can make bad economic choices, and it goes out of business. Not government. On a state and federal level, they are allowed to just pile on debt. Ultimately paid for by taxpayers. Do you get to vote for your boss every few years? Government employees often do. I see a conflict of interest there.

 

I have to admit you've kinda lost me here,unions are different over here to what you have over there,unions over here are much less overt in my experience and much less talked about.

I couldn't off the top of my head answer how union companies promote :confused in my experience over here all companies promote on merit,seniority and experience always play a big part though in any promotion.

If I had to choose who to promote I'd have difficult time choosing between an extremely bright and dynamic employee and one who has experience and has been doing the job well for many years and who also has the respect of his felow employee's,especially in supervisor positions.

I can smell you laying a trap for me Fred :-D Would you care to elaborate on your point of promotion within union companies?

 

I love union discussions, although this one has been remarkably polite and contains some actually well thought out answers which contain actual documentation, which is weird. Definitely appreciated, but still weird.

I realize my union is different from the vast majority of them, starting with the fact that we don't have a shop, or stewards, or only one location where we work. My Local's jurisdiction is about 1/3 of Michigan's lower peninsula, and each venue has its own contract or working agreement (not the same) with us.

Since each contract is different, wages and benefits vary. But as a general rule, our low-level workers earn around $15.00-$18.00 per hour plus around 22%-28% benefits. We do not contribute to own our healthcare costs unless our employer contributions do not meet the premium. As an officer, I am paid $60.00 plus 18% benefits per month. If we are being paid through the payroll company my Local runs, we handle all taxes and workers' compensation insurance. If the employer is paying, then they handle it. No one works as an independent contractor if they are referred to work through us. After eight hours in a day (or 40 hours in a week, but not both), we get paid time and a half. If we go more than five hours without a meal break, we are paid an additional hour of straight time on top of whatever rate we are currently making.

There is a non-union company that does the same thing we do, sometimes underbidding us for jobs in places where we don't have a contract. Their low-level workers earn $7.40 per hour (Michigan minimum wage) with no benefits. They are considered independent contractors, which means they are responsible for their own taxes, and if they are hurt on the job they'd better hope they have insurance of their own, because there is no workers' compensation insurance. There is no overtime, nor do they get compensated if they work several hours without a break.

The reason I tell you all this is simple: In Grand Rapids, the major city which is the center of our jurisdiction, every year there is a fairly major concert on the 4th of July. About 12 years ago, they decided to stop using us for labour, and instead went with the non-union company. It took them less than five years to come back to us. Apparently having professionals with work ethic who wanted to be there was worth the extra cost. Cities don't necessarily think unions are ruining them, no matter what their spokespeople might say. They're just a convenient target they can blame and everyone will accept it at face value. Why do you think it is that every time a city is in financial trouble the first thing they threaten is to cut the police and fire departments? People panic, and then cutting the things that actually need to be cut, or raising the taxes that really need to be raised, can happen.

The GREIU (Grand Rapids Employees Independent Union) recently negotiated their contract with the city. They voluntarily took a 20% pay cut, and voluntarily offered to start paying 10% of their health care costs. Is it ideal? Not even a little. But everyone still has a job, and that is of paramount importance.

Public employee unions do not want their cities or states to fail any more than my union wants our various employers to fail. Why would we? If they go out of business, we no longer have a job at all. It's better to make a bit less money and have a job than to stand firm and have nothing. Less money is better than none.

 

Interesting post Sgt. Tibbs. Nice to have some input from one in a union. My dislike, as I have said, is government employee unions. You state you don't want your company to lose money. How does that relate to government employees and the tax payers? I am not a fan of private sector unions, but that is more of a personal opinion. I do not think we should legislate our personal opinions. Just out of curiosity, does any money from your union go to political donations?

Rikky, look into teacher's unions and tenure. Basically, one a union teacher obtains 'tenure' they really can't be fired. Even if they do a terrible job teaching.

I am not setting a trap for you, just discussing. Let's take a tenured union teacher. From what I have seen, they have to really try to get fired. But, what if we rate a teacher on overall performance? Wouldn't we want to keep the best ones, and pay them more than the unexperienced ones and lower performing ones? Which one better serves the students, the community, and eventually the taxpayers and the economy?

 

Easy one first...As far as I know, unless the rules have changed since 2005, unions are prohibited by federal law from contributing general funds to political campaigns. We do endorse candidates, and campaign for them on a volunteer basis, and we have been known to allow our office to be used for phone banks. But my Local (and my International) does not directly contribute to any political party or candidate. We do have a PAC, to which members are encouraged to donate their own money, but it is neither required nor deducted from any income we might make, and there are no consequences to failing to contribute.

Government employees do not want their city to go bankrupt. Here in Michigan, our new governor has decided if a city goes bankrupt (or is even in financial distress), he can appoint an emergency manager to step in and take over the city. This person is not answerable to anyone other than the governor, and his/her decisions supersede any made by local government. Emergency managers are allowed to disband any and all union contracts, any and all agreements the city may have made with any entity, and unilaterally dissolve or create local bodies of government.

This is not good for anyone, other than the emergency manager. Public sector unions are trying to work with their respective governments to find a reasonable solution to financial problems. But what they run into in places like Wisconsin (as the most glaring recent example) is that their newly-elected "reform" politicians refuse to bargain. Refuse to come to the table. Refuse to consider there might be a solution that does not dissolve the union. Refuse to acknowledge that all unions are not bad, and all members of even a bad union are not evil.

Tell me...how exactly does it benefit a body of government if by dissolving a public sector union it creates higher unemployment? Putting working-class citizens out of a job seems counter-productive to me. Negotiating with them to reduce what can seem like an unstoppable flow of money to a point livable from both sides makes much more sense. As I said...less money is better than no money.

And as for teachers and tenure...it's been years since I've heard anyone in a teacher's union who thinks the current system of tenure works and doesn't need to be revamped. They've tried to do so. They're not stupid...they know it's wrong to keep someone behind a desk who is actually detrimental to students, and it's also wrong to fire someone purely because they haven't been there long enough to be tenured.

But instead of sitting down to negotiate a change, the world seems to have decided that because tenure does not work as it is, then the whole concept of a teachers' union does not work and should be destroyed. This is very much like deciding to burn your house down because a window broke.

 

:-o I have to correct myself, as I was relying on memory rather than looking up the information (and after being impressed that others had provided documentation, even!). I had my numbers backward and assigned to the wrong thing. :-o

In the new GREIU contract they have agreed to pay 20% of health care premium, and reduce compensation by 8.2%. The reduction is all in benefits rather than pay. They also agreed to a reduction in pensions over time, with new hires being required to enter a 401(k) program instead of what exists now.

The union that represents managers for the City also took similar cuts in their most recent contract. Negotiations are currently underway between the City and the police and firefighters' unions, so I have no information there.

At least I can admit when I'm wrong. It's not like any of you would've known better. LOL

 

"Tell me...how exactly does it benefit a body of government if by dissolving a public sector union it creates higher unemployment? Putting working-class citizens out of a job seems counter-productive to me. Negotiating with them to reduce what can seem like an unstoppable flow of money to a point livable from both sides makes much more sense. As I said...less money is better than no money."

How does the government negotiate with unions to the benefit of the taxpayers? Again, the taxpayers are not at the table.

And again, is great to have a Union member to discuss this with.