Battle of Madison

#126
#126
droski said:
forcing people to join unions and pay their dues against their will is absurd.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think people should have the right to collective bargain. However, I disagree with mandatory union membership. If someone wants to join, fine. If not, fine.
 
#129
#129
droski said:
forcing people to join unions and pay their dues against their will is absurd.
Click to expand...


Ok, there's a valid argument. Why not make the debate about that as a reason to end collective bargaining? At least that's honest.

(I'll answer it, by the way. The reason that alone is not sufficient for the Governor is that he knows that if he makes it optional the vast majority of teachers will STILL join forces to collectively bargain because it is in their own best interests to do so.)
 
#130
#130
lawgator1 said:
the Governor is that he knows that if he makes it optional the vast majority of teachers will STILL join forces to collectively bargain because it is in their own best interests to do so.)
Click to expand...

but not in anyone else's (not that it really matters huh?)
 
#131
#131
lawgator1 said:
Ok, there's a valid argument. Why not make the debate about that as a reason to end collective bargaining? At least that's honest.

(I'll answer it, by the way. The reason that alone is not sufficient for the Governor is that he knows that if he makes it optional the vast majority of teachers will STILL join forces to collectively bargain because it is in their own best interests to do so.)
Click to expand...

you are high if you think the union would OK making it optional. no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the governor would settle for taht. not sure i agree with you in the vast majority theory. i know many teachers who would opt out of the union if they could. particurally the younger ones.
 
#132
#132
utvolpj said:
but not in anyone else's (not that it really matters huh?)
Click to expand...


I do not understand your comment. Are you suggesting that people who work for the government are under some sort of obligation to take less pay because it is borne by the taxpayers????

That's hilarious.

And its also incredibly inconsistent for conservatives to bemoan the fact that people who work for state and local government are lazy and shiftless, and then react with surprise that the quality of employee goes down, not up, when they insist on paying government employees less money.

You have some super naive vision of a the idle housewife deciding to become a teacher because she cares and wants to give back to the community. Teachers now have to earn a living, too. This ain't the 1950s anymore.

You want to guarantee mediocrity in the schools? Cut pay and benefits. Good job.
 
#133
#133
"when they insist on paying government employees less money."

in what world are govt employees making less money than their private counterparts?
 
#134
#134
is increasing pay/benefits going to increase learning? Only one-third of Wisc 8th graders can even read proficiently despite their spending/student being the highest in the midwest

do you think that just because they're gov't workers they deserve more pay?

the teachers union is doing damage yet you sit there and defend them. Interesting

You have some super naive vision of a the idle housewife deciding to become a teacher because she cares and wants to give back to the community. Teachers now have to earn a living, too. This ain't the 1950s anymore.
Click to expand...

I grew up with a mom who taught school so I would say my vision is just fine
 
Last edited:
#135
#135
The Government Pay Boom - WSJ.com

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers. In the recession year of 2009, with almost no inflation and record budget deficits, more than half the states awarded pay raises to their employees.

According to the BLS, in 2009 the average state or local public employee received $39.66 in total compensation per hour versus $27.42 for private workers. This means that for every $1 in pay and benefits a private employee earned, a state or local government worker received $1.45.

The BLS study breaks down where that 45% premium comes from. It turns out that public employees earn salaries that are about one-third higher on average than what is provided to private workers per hour worked. But the real windfall for government workers is in benefits. Those are 70% higher than what standard private employers offer, as shown in the nearby table. Government health benefits are twice as generous as what workers employed by private employees earn. By the way, nearly this entire benefits gap is accounted for by unionized public employees. Nonunion public employees are paid roughly what private workers receive.

As the Columbus Dispatch reported last year: "Across the state, Ohio's State Teachers Retirement System paid out more than $741 million in pension benefits last school year to 15,857 faculty and staff members who were still working for school systems and building up a second retirement plan." Some teachers can earn nearly $200,000 a year in pensions and salaries.
 
#136
#136
lawgator1 said:
I understand the notion that collective bargaining results in higher collective pay for the union members, but that is what it is supposed to do! That is its purpose.

That is why this is an attack on the concept of unions, rather than one state trying to fix its current budget problems. I wish the Governor and his backers would just admit that so it could be debated, instead of playing this weak shell game of drifting back and forth between faux justifications.
Click to expand...

They are trying to fix budget problems and ensure they don't return. The governor is not trying to destroy the union. He is trying to reduce their power to extract concessions that the state simply cannot afford now or in the future. That is not hidden at all.

You go on and on that he is trying to destroy the unions. That is the shell game you are playing.
 
#137
#137
volinbham said:
They are trying to fix budget problems and ensure they don't return. The governor is not trying to destroy the union. He is trying to reduce their power to extract concessions that the state simply cannot afford now or in the future. That is not hidden at all.

You go on and on that he is trying to destroy the unions. That is the shell game you are playing.
Click to expand...


Its blatantly obvious that it is an attack on the union concept of collective bargaining as a political move, not a fiscal one. Even a lot of Republicans say this. Shepherd Smith on Fox just the other day went on an and on about how it is painfully obvious it is not about the budget -- its about busting up the union.

The argument that, well, maybe not now but in the FUTURE it will pay off in lower expense is ridiculous. You can make that argument about everything. Not to mention that the obvious cure for that problem is to negotiate better deals by the state.
 
#138
#138
lawgator1 said:
Its blatantly obvious that it is an attack on the union concept of collective bargaining as a political move, not a fiscal one. Even a lot of Republicans say this. Shepherd Smith on Fox just the other day went on an and on about how it is painfully obvious it is not about the budget -- its about busting up the union.

The argument that, well, maybe not now but in the FUTURE it will pay off in lower expense is ridiculous. You can make that argument about everything. Not to mention that the obvious cure for that problem is to negotiate better deals by the state.
Click to expand...

Shephard Smith is not a right-winger by any stretch of the imagination. Just because someone is on Fox News does not mean they are right-wing.
 
#139
#139
you are really arguing that it's isn't 100% true that it will result in lower expenses in the future? did you see my article?
 
#140
#140
lawgator1 said:
Its blatantly obvious that it is an attack on the union concept of collective bargaining as a political move, not a fiscal one. Even a lot of Republicans say this. Shepherd Smith on Fox just the other day went on an and on about how it is painfully obvious it is not about the budget -- its about busting up the union.

But they aren't busting up the union - the union will still be stronger in terms of CB than many unions. That is the fallacy. The changes are very specific and relate to the unions' ability to create and incur longterm liabilities for the citizens of the state.

The argument that, well, maybe not now but in the FUTURE it will pay off in lower expense is ridiculous. You can make that argument about everything. Not to mention that the obvious cure for that problem is to negotiate better deals by the state.
Click to expand...

It is not ridiculous; it is the core of CB for pensions and longterm bennies. Give aways by current politicians do not raise their ugly head for years/decades. That's precisely why they are so prevalent. A politician can give these away and the voters do not see the negative effect until long after that politician is gone from the scene.

Removing this part of CB will have significant impact on future expense obligations.
 
#141
#141
LG seems to be arguing from the perspective that there is no difference between public and private sector unions.
 
#142
#142
and i quote:

The BLS study breaks down where that 45% premium comes from. It turns out that public employees earn salaries that are about one-third higher on average than what is provided to private workers per hour worked. But the real windfall for government workers is in benefits. Those are 70% higher than what standard private employers offer, as shown in the nearby table. Government health benefits are twice as generous as what workers employed by private employees earn. By the way, nearly this entire benefits gap is accounted for by unionized public employees. Nonunion public employees are paid roughly what private workers receive.
 
#143
#143
droski said:
you are really arguing that it's isn't 100% true that it will result in lower expenses in the future? did you see my article?
Click to expand...


You could shoot every other person over the age of 70 in the head and that would lower long term costs, too.
 
#144
#144
It is simply ludicrous to suggest that CB rights on pensions and retirement benefits doesn't directly impact future expenses.
 
#148
#148
volinbham said:
It is simply ludicrous to suggest that CB rights on pensions and retirement benefits doesn't directly impact future expenses.
Click to expand...


You keep saying that, as though I am arguing that CB doesn't increase the expense of paying government workers. Of course it does. That effect is a necessary outcome of the union members getting a better deal by having bargained together and thereby having more power.

So?

Are you saying that the mere fact that CB results in increased costs to the employer means that, by definition, it is outlawable? Ever heard of freedom of association? Ever heard of the gazillion laws and doctrines that support this practice?
 
#149
#149
droski said:
i'm really failing to see the validity of this analogy.
Click to expand...


You seem to be saying that because CB increases costs to the employer it is therefore something which is automatically deserving of eradication.

The employer has certain power by virtue of his offering money to employees for them to do their work. The employees have power in that the employer needs that work. The employer has a huge advantage against one employee. The union consolidates the power of each employee into a cohesive demand that ties together the different jobs they do, etc., so that, collectively, their power is equal to that of the employer.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top