wisconsin taking on gov unions.

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
In theory, unions are perfectly acceptable means of individuals with no money or power to associate with another one so that they have power in negotiating with the employer.

If a union's leadership becomes greedy and starts to act in its own best interests instead of the interests of the members, then that in my opinion is a problem for the union to deal with.

If your complaint is that the union makes it too difficult for the employer to fire an ineffective employee, for example too hard to fire a lazy teacher, then that is the fault of the employer for doing a poor job of negotiating the contract. I don't see why you'd be surprised that the union tries to negotiate a contract that gives them greater job security.

Honestly, why would you think that the public employee unions are wrong for fighting a change in the retirement structure that hurts their membership? I mean, that's what the union is there to do -- collectively bargain for the best terms it can get.

So strike a better deal in the next contract. Why people think that the teachers are wrong for speaking up that they don't want to pay is beyond me. The criticism should be of the government for striking a bad deal, not the teachers for trying to preserve it.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't say teachers are uneducated, i know that wasn't what you meant to say

but the fact is that the teachers union are concerned more power and not educating students. our test scores show that. DC almost spends 10k a student yet it has one the lowest performances in the nation. you could take those kids to many privte schools for half and get 10 times the education.
 
#54
#54
droski said:
the problem LG is that the unions are buying off the elected officials and strongarming any politicians who want restraint..
Click to expand...


Then the problem is in not exposing it when that happens or taking action when it can be proven. Same could be said of the employers doing the same thing in terms of paying for power or access to lawmakers..

Look, I too am sick and tired of lazy public employees who just want to collect a check and retire. Sometimes feels like they do their jobs half asleep and it is so often the case that they have no incentive to do well and so they are poorly motivated, eventually taking on a low intensity mentality even if they started out planning to help the world.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.


joevol320 said:
i wouldn't say teachers are uneducated, i know that wasn't what you meant to say

but the fact is that the teachers union are concerned more power and not educating students. our test scores show that. DC almost spends 10k a student yet it has one the lowest performances in the nation. you could take those kids to many privte schools for half and get 10 times the education.
Click to expand...


I just think its a mistake to blame all of that on unions. It is certainly a mistake to assume that the problem is in the trenches.

Again, I am all for keeping an eye on the unions and nailing them or a lawmaker that takes any graft, just don't blanket conclude that the unions themselves are the problem.
 
#55
#55
lawgator1 said:
Then the problem is in not exposing it when that happens or taking action when it can be proven. Same could be said of the employers doing the same thing in terms of paying for power or access to lawmakers..

Look, I too am sick and tired of lazy public employees who just want to collect a check and retire. Sometimes feels like they do their jobs half asleep and it is so often the case that they have no incentive to do well and so they are poorly motivated, eventually taking on a low intensity mentality even if they started out planning to help the world.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.





I just think its a mistake to blame all of that on unions. It is certainly a mistake to assume that the problem is in the trenches.

Again, I am all for keeping an eye on the unions and nailing them or a lawmaker that takes any graft, just don't blanket conclude that the unions themselves are the problem.
Click to expand...


I agree what you're saying. have you noticed that all the states that are really hurting are states that have very powerful unions. I just think states like NJ, WI, IL have given so much money to unions in return for votes, it's just killed those states economy.

I know Tennessee's Nissan plant has a union and their negotiations are fair, the employees make very good wages but it's not breaking the company. you're not seeing this with these unions. My dad was in a union for years, he broke his back from a fall at work and had to retire (he was over 60 when he fell) but his union gave him all his benefits until he passed away. I know they didn't try to gouge the state or feds for every penny
 
Last edited:
#56
#56
JayVols said:
You make some good points. I should emphasize that my main beef is with the elimination of collective bargaining. Tenure doesn't make it impossible to fire someone. It just makes the school/institution have a reason. If tenure is viewed as a 'you can't fire me for any reason', it is as much the fault of management as labor. I do agree with extending the employment time before tenure is granted.

As to pensions. You point out that the packages have been negotiated meaning both parties agreed. Fault in this case is mutual. People are going to try to get as much as possible. Pensions have been dipped into to balance state budgets nationwide. This is causing current pension funding issues. Are their some asinine pensions out there? YES. A pension should not be the same wage that one made while working or more as in some cases. It should be a supplement. I go back to my statement, BOTH parties agreed to the terms, and now one side wants to change horses mid race.

As to inefficiencies, I agree and stated such that unions should be streamlined and reformed.

I was speaking to the point you made about the government taking union responsibilities such as safety, etc.

Your point about keeping slackers in a job is a point in which we agree wholeheartedly. With my experience with unions, this is by far (to borrow the catch phrase of another poster)the 800lb gorilla staring in the window from our back yard (or something like that). It is the single most point of contention with the anti-union folks. Unions SHOULD NOT stand up for incompetents/slackers. Do your job and do it well or find something else to do.

I don't think that what I stated in my earlier post that is the way I think unions work. I was saying that's the way they SHOULD work. When labor and management work together, they can't be stopped. It doesn't have to be a purely adversarial position. Unions need reforms. I freely admit this.:salute:
Click to expand...

All pensions should be abolished moving forward. Period. Defined contribution plans replaced this relic in the private sector 20 years ago. It's about time that the public sector learned the same lesson that the private sector did.
 
#58
#58
joevol320 said:
[/B]

I agree what you're saying. have you noticed that all the states that are really hurting are states that have very powerful unions. I just think states like NJ, WI, IL have given so much money to unions in return for votes, it's just killed those states economy.

I know Tennessee's Nissan plant has a union and their negotiations are fair, the employees make very good wages but it's not breaking the company. you're not seeing this with these unions.
Click to expand...


I think pretty much every state is hurting right now.

To me, the whole debate is so dramatized by both sides. The reality is that for decades the equivalent public employee got paid less than his private sector counterpart. Same education, same hours, a bit less money. So the trade off was that the public employee got a pension plan. The theory was that the state isn't ever going to go out of business, so that perk could be offered with some assurance as a bit of a trade off for the lower pay.

A few things have happened all at once to make that approach much less viable in the current time frame.

First, as is the case with social security, the population is growing older and there are more retirees. They are also living longer. So, the cost of providing these benefits even now is huge.

Second, because of the economy, state revenues are way down. Everyone has a deficit.

Third, the unions by and large are allied with Democrats. The state legislatures and governors have gone heavily GOP recently. It is no surprise that they are targeting the unions in an effort to weaken them.

Now before you go all crazy on me, I am not saying this means they don't also think the unions have gotten way too much or have corruption issues. I just think reality is that they also see a long term opportunity to weaken the opposition. Pretty standard -- the Dems do it, too when they control the purse strings.


From the employees standpoint, they are being asked to pay a tax they've not paid before. And this is often on top of having received no or truly de minimis raises, not even COLAs in some cases, for years. In Florida, public employees haven;t gotten a raise in five years.

Now, in my business, we haven;t given any staff person a raise in several years. And they've been asked to shoulder more of the cost of health insurance increases. But they are paid enough already such that they aren't going to leave. Especially not in this economy.

The reality is that there will have to be some combination of lower benefits and a way to pay for the benefits already promised, be that taxes on the employees or on the public. This is just another chapter in the same debate we already have with social security. Cut benefits, increase taxes, massage the system so the math works.
 
#59
#59
lawgator1 said:
In theory, unions are perfectly acceptable means of individuals with no money or power to associate with another one so that they have power in negotiating with the employer.
Click to expand...
How can it be honest negotiation if the employer has no other choice?

If a union's leadership becomes greedy and starts to act in its own best interests instead of the interests of the members, then that in my opinion is a problem for the union to deal with.
Click to expand...
So when employer's somehow oppress labor it is legitimate for a third party to twist arms but if the union does it then it is an internal problem?

In both cases you fail to acknowledge the REAL option the employee has with everyone's rights being respected... he can quit and find another job.

If your complaint is that the union makes it too difficult for the employer to fire an ineffective employee, for example too hard to fire a lazy teacher, then that is the fault of the employer for doing a poor job of negotiating the contract.
Click to expand...
Only if the employer can say, "No thanks, I will hire non-union or people from the other union".
I don't see why you'd be surprised that the union tries to negotiate a contract that gives them greater job security.
Click to expand...
Because it is ultimately detrimental to the health and competitiveness of the organization... thus threatening the jobs of ALL.

Honestly, why would you think that the public employee unions are wrong for fighting a change in the retirement structure that hurts their membership?
Click to expand...
Maybe because it is "fair" to the people who ultimately pay their salaries?
I mean, that's what the union is there to do -- collectively bargain for the best terms it can get.
Click to expand...
By hosing the tax payer... gotcha. This ultimately comes down to left wing disdain for the tax payer.
 
#60
#60
Vol423 said:
All pensions should be abolished moving forward. Period. Defined contribution plans replaced this relic in the private sector 20 years ago. It's about time that the public sector learned the same lesson that the private sector did.
Click to expand...

Two of the 6 companies I have worked for currently have healthy pension plans.

I have never worked for a unionized company
 
#64
#64
If only on this single issue alone, I agree with Wal-Mart. First meeting to discuss having a second meeting to consider meeting about unionizing - close the doors and go to the house.

Period.

Unions are nothing more than a collective means by which the incompetent and inept are paid that which they do not deserve and who are given those protections which their fictiously over-inflated skills could never hope to command, otherwise.

Their leverage NEVER ultimately rests upon the correctness of their position, but rather, from threats (either veiled or explicit) of destroying the company - be it done quickly via an extended strike, or slowly, in the company's forced meeting of their many unwarranted demands which seek to serve the demands of their members alone, oftentimes at the direct detriment of all others and the company itself.

It is no more than a group of dullards, being lead about by a pied piper of bullshiz. No more. No less.

And anyone who says differently is a liar, a fool, or both.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#65
#65
droski said:
once again. where in the reward does it state that the union membership has helped the company? all i see are benefits to teh employees.
Click to expand...

There was one good example about a public union and the City of Phoenix. A trial subscription is needed, but one can get the point.

Aggression, Peaceful Co Existence Mutual Cooperation It's Up To Us - Research and Read Books, Journals, Articles at Questia Online Library

I know adversarial relationships between the organizations have been the norm to both party's detriment. All I am saying is that in a global economy, both benefit from cooperation. Labor can't exist without companies. Companies can't exist without labor. It may be pie in the sky, but more and more cooperative voices are emerging and great successes are being achieved. Here is a prime example of what cooperation can do:


GM has plenty to cheer Tonawanda News
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#66
#66
JayVols said:
There was one good example about a public union and the City of Phoenix. A trial subscription is needed, but one can get the point.

Aggression, Peaceful Co Existence Mutual Cooperation It's Up To Us - Research and Read Books, Journals, Articles at Questia Online Library

I know adversarial relationships between the organizations have been the norm to both party's detriment. All I am saying is that in a global economy, both benefit from cooperation. Labor can't exist without companies. Companies can't exist without labor. It may be pie in the sky, but more and more cooperative voices are emerging and great successes are being achieved. Here is a prime example of what cooperation can do:


GM has plenty to cheer Tonawanda News
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Companies can do without organized labor.

In fact, the vast majority do. And fluorish.

In "protecting" the American worker, you have destroyed them, instead.

Millions of Indian and Chinese families are most appreciative of your efforts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#67
#67
Tenacious D said:
Companies can do without organized labor.

In fact, the vast majority do. And fluorish.

In "protecting" the American worker, you have destroyed them, instead.

Millions of Indian and Chinese families are most appreciative of your efforts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I am saying they can coexist and flourish. No need to get pithy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#68
#68
Labor and management can easily and really must coexist. I don't see why unions are critical to that.

Can you show examples of where union shops are more innovative or competitive? The very goal of saving jobs at the status quo is anti-thetical to a globally competitive market. What incentives exist for unions to innovate? To radically change to gain a competitive advantage against global competitors? The cradle to grave job mentality is wonderful nostalgia but not very realistic in the current environment.

As Tenacious indicated, without some form of government protectionism a protect the status quo union mentality directly results in off shoring.

The notion that unions prevent stagnant wages is also puzzling to me. Part of our wage stagnation is attributed to low to no inflation. Why should wages go up if prices are not? How can they? Answer? Innovate - do things other countries cannot. Do unions encourage this? Are they incentivized to do this? From my view the answer is no. They are designed to promote the status quo. Great if the world is standing still or the world is decimated by a World War but that ain't the case now.
 
#70
#70
volinbham said:
Labor and management can easily and really must coexist. I don't see why unions are critical to that.
Click to expand...

That probably has something to do with the fact that they aren't.

I've worked my entire career without working for one single union, and somehow I haven't been beaten into the ground one time by the ruthless, blood thirsty management.
 
#71
#71
Vol423 said:
That probably has something to do with the fact that they aren't.

I've worked my entire career without working for one single union, and somehow I haven't been beaten into the ground one time by the ruthless, blood thirsty management.
Click to expand...

Same for me. I've worked from entry level to management for at least 20 different organizations in my life. Two had unions and I was a union member in one of them. The only difference I saw was an extra layer of work rules imposed by the union that added no value as far as I could see but certainly made my life as an employee more complicated.

The other 18 organizations seemed to be doing fine.
 
#72
#72
volinbham said:
Labor and management can easily and really must coexist. I don't see why unions are critical to that.

Can you show examples of where union shops are more innovative or competitive? The very goal of saving jobs at the status quo is anti-thetical to a globally competitive market. What incentives exist for unions to innovate? To radically change to gain a competitive advantage against global competitors? The cradle to grave job mentality is wonderful nostalgia but not very realistic in the current environment.

As Tenacious indicated, without some form of government protectionism a protect the status quo union mentality directly results in off shoring.

The notion that unions prevent stagnant wages is also puzzling to me. Part of our wage stagnation is attributed to low to no inflation. Why should wages go up if prices are not? How can they? Answer? Innovate - do things other countries cannot. Do unions encourage this? Are they incentivized to do this? From my view the answer is no. They are designed to promote the status quo. Great if the world is standing still or the world is decimated by a World War but that ain't the case now.
Click to expand...

First off, I truly appreciate your tone in our discussion. No smart alec comments or schoolyard insults. I have enjoyed the exchange. My hat is tipped to you, sir.

I do agree that the unions of the old days have gone the way of the dinosaur. Unions like companies must adapt to the global economy to survive. The GM link I provided earlier is a good example of how unions MUST operate to survive. If they keep fighting for the status quo, they will be left behind. They days of demanding the sky are over. Having said that, I still feel that when workers have a sense of input, they will be more productive.

As to stagnant wages, interest rates aren't the only consideration. Prices are rising while wages are stagnant. I am no class warfare proponent, but one can't deny the ever widening wage gap. This will eventually haunt the top wage earners. When workers' disposable income is reduced, they can't purchase the goods that company's produce. The top earners are making more and more while the middle class is floundering. Eventually, this will hit the top earners as well through the inability to sell their products due to lack of middle class purchasing power.

There are many facets to the problem, but I will just attempt to address the disposable income issue and I don't claim to be an expert on that. It seems upside down in a way, but it is imperitive to increase purchasing power. Eventually, goods will wind up in warehouses and cost large sums of money to the owners or production will be cut further or halted altogether if things continue as is. This is not in the interest of management or labor. Both will suffer. This is the paradox I see with outsourcing. Most of the outsourced products will be shipped to the US to be sold. The problem is that without jobs that produce disposable income, the products can't be purchased. I don't care how much management can save on labor costs. If the product isn't sold in the intended market, it is a net loss for management. We have lost a good portion of our manufacturing base. I very well could be wrong, but I really have a hard time believing that the US can sustain our place as a wealthy nation based off of mainly a service economy not based on tangible assets. It's late and I am exhausted. I hope this made at least a little sense.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#73
#73
jayvols said:
i know adversarial relationships between the organizations have been the norm to both party's detriment. All i am saying is that in a global economy, both benefit from cooperation. Labor can't exist without companies. Companies thrive without unions. It may be pie in the sky, but more and more cooperative voices are emerging and great successes are being achieved. Here is a prime example of what cooperation can do:
Click to expand...

fyp
 
#74
#74
lawgator1 said:
Then the problem is in not exposing it when that happens or taking action when it can be proven. Same could be said of the employers doing the same thing in terms of paying for power or access to lawmakers..

Look, I too am sick and tired of lazy public employees who just want to collect a check and retire. Sometimes feels like they do their jobs half asleep and it is so often the case that they have no incentive to do well and so they are poorly motivated, eventually taking on a low intensity mentality even if they started out planning to help the world.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.





I just think its a mistake to blame all of that on unions. It is certainly a mistake to assume that the problem is in the trenches.

Again, I am all for keeping an eye on the unions and nailing them or a lawmaker that takes any graft, just don't blanket conclude that the unions themselves are the problem.
Click to expand...

The graft as you call it is right out in the open and legal. If you know the unions can both get you elected and get you voted out depending on whether you support the raises and pensions how many politicians will really go after.them? In california doing that has been an easy way to end your political career.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#75
#75
JayVols said:
Having said that, I still feel that when workers have a sense of input, they will be more productive.
Click to expand...

By and large, employees of non-union companies today have more direct input than union employees. Union employees can only speak and be heard through the union.

Union employees are not more productive. They simply aren't. Labor union employees lag behind comparable non-union employees.

Finally, unions aren't the answer to the wage gap and never can be. Arbitrarily saying that wages must increase is the wrong approach completely. It makes industy less competitive which in turn directly impacts their ability to expand and create jobs... which in turn drives demand for labor down... which in turn creates negative pressure on wages. The real solution is to support companies and entrepreneurs so that the economy expands faster than the labor pool. That creates positive pressure on wages AND innovation making companies stronger and pay/benefits better.

The cooperation MUST include an unencumbered RIGHT for the company to pursue cost reduction through automation, methods, and labor optimization. But those are the things unions most often stomp their feet about.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top