A GREAT primer on the problem with gov't unions...

[rbell]

Very nicely done. Simply obliterates the government union sycophants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyxuUjgHkgs

 

[Sonjeo]

Unions or laws that uphold government integrity

Either you have to have unions or a law that requires government jobs be paid at least equal to private sector jobs in wages and benefits. The problem is that today you have political ideologues that believe in small government to the extreme and to the extent that they would neuter the effectiveness of government. This is dangerous because we are in danger of being further bankrupt by the loose cannon financial sector that dealt us our last blow. Government must be staffed by competent individuals that believe in government and it's oversight and discipline of corrupt practices. God fully supports government- Romans 13: 1-7.
He did not ordain big government or small government but He surely ordains effective government. We already know man's limitations in policing himself but we must use what God has given us to use and use wisely.

 

[billwald]

Your complaint is that government pays the going rate for labor? Government should participate in the race to the bottom?

 

[rbell]

Your complaint is that government pays the going rate for labor? Government should participate in the race to the bottom?

First of all, how can a reasonable person look at the mess that we have due to many unaffordable goverment pensions and benefits (set up thanks to the "bargaining" between government and government worker unions)...and then use the terms "race to the bottom" and "going rate" with a straight face? Nice fiction there.

Either you have to have unions or a law that requires government jobs be paid at least equal to private sector jobs in wages and benefits. The problem is that today you have political ideologues that believe in small government to the extreme and to the extent that they would neuter the effectiveness of government. This is dangerous because we are in danger of being further bankrupt by the loose cannon financial sector that dealt us our last blow. Government must be staffed by competent individuals that believe in government and it's oversight and discipline of corrupt practices. God fully supports government- Romans 13: 1-7.
He did not ordain big government or small government but He surely ordains effective government. We already know man's limitations in policing himself but we must use what God has given us to use and use wisely.

I've read this several times and I still don't know what you are trying to say, particularly with regards to the mess that government unions have made of the finances of our states.


Another question for union apologists: How come it's ignored that stalwart union folks such as FDR and George Meany were steadfastly against the unionization of government employees?

 

[Sonjeo]

You or the Heritage Foundation can demonize Unions all you want because this is a free country but the clear majority of Americans favor union collective bargaining not only in the Wisconsin case but across the country.

They understand that the shortfall in state finances is as much the blame of corporate subsides and tax loopholes for business as it is anything else including unions. They also understand it is repugnant to common sense that certain politicians pushing these loopholes and subsidies are doing so during a ten year reign of record corporate profits.

Even the Rasmussen Poll which usually favors Republicans and the rightwing, now reveals what other polls around the country have clearly shown; that the voters support the government workers of Wisconsin in opposition to Wisconsin's Gov. Walker and his Republican congress's attempt to eliminate government workers collective bargaining rights. 52% to 39%

The poll goes on to show that 49% believe that the pay of state workers is about right.
Rasmussen also concedes that the reason Walker even won in November is because in mid-term elections fewer Democrats turn out. All this from the Rasmussen poll. Hmmm.

The resulting truth is that Governor Walker and his congress do not represent the voters will and should relent from behaving as if they do. The polling clearly shows there is no support for a silent majority as Wisconsin Gov. Walker and his Republicans contend.

Heres the proof: -http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/wisconsin/wisconsin_poll_support_for_budget_cutting_not_for_weakening_collective_bargaining_rights

Recent surveys by the New York Times/CBS, Wall Street Journal/NBC, Pew, and Gallup all found majority or plurality support across the country for maintaining the collective bargaining rights of unionized state workers:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll
"Do you think public employees who belong to a union and work for state government, city government, or a school district should have the same right to bargain when it comes to their health care, pension and other benefits as employees who belong to a union and work for private companies?"
Americans support this - 77% to 19% Wow!


Quinnipiac University Poll
"In order to reduce state budget deficits, do you favor cutting the pay or benefits of public employees, or do you oppose that?"
Americans oppose cutting pay or benefits of public employees - 56% to 37%


CBS News/New York Times Poll
"As you may know, collective bargaining refers to negotiations between an employer and a labor union's members to determine the conditions of employment. Some states are trying to take away some of the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions. Do you favor or oppose taking away some of the collective bargaining rights of these unions?"
Americans oppose taking away collective bargaining rights - 60% to 33%


Pew Research Center
"From what you've read and heard about the dispute between Wisconsin's governor and public employee unions over collective bargaining rights, do you side more with the governor or the public employee unions?"
Americans side with the unions - 42% to 31%


USA Today/Gallup Poll
"As you may know, many U.S. state governments are facing large budget deficits this year. Please say whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose each of the following ways state officials could reduce their budget deficits. How about reducing pay or benefits the state provides for government workers?"
Americans oppose reducing pay or benefits for gov't workers - 53% to 44%


USA Today/Gallup Poll
"As you may know, one way the legislature in Wisconsin is seeking to reduce its budget deficit is by passing a bill that would take away some of the collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers' union. Would you favor or oppose such a bill in your state?"
Americans oppose taking away even some bargaining rights - 61% to 33% -

 

[Havensdad]

What about the rights of the workers? What about the teacher that wants to work in Wisconsin public schools, but DOES NOT want to be a member of the Union, or give money to these goons and their causes? What about the right of the worker who does exceptional work, to ask for their own raise, and not be held back, and be paid the same amount, as those who barely do their job (or in many cases, don't).

This monopoly on jobs by these big unions is sickening. It is like slavery, no different than the mobs that used to go around town and extort people for "protection." A worker should be allowed to work without being party to these crooks, and should be allowed to get raises on HIS OWN, rather than have his performance ignored.

These unions are ANTI AMERICA. Period.

 

[rbell]

We don't live in a democracy, Sonjeo, so I'm not overly concerned with what a majority thinks as much as what is helpful to our republic.

Keep in mind--I don't think unions should be outlawed. I do believe (gasp!) like FDR--and AFL-CIO long-time leader George Meany (!!), that government unions are a terrible idea that will wreck us. They already are: Case in point...California, Wisconsin, et al.

 

[Salty]

Either you have to have unions or a law that requires government jobs be paid at least equal to private sector jobs in wages and benefits. .

WHY!!!???!!!
First of all there are too many variables.
A job should be paid based on the ability to pay - first and foremost. Then you consider other considerations.
Suppose public pay is higher than private companies, then you pass a law that says private employees should be paid as much govt employees?
Negative

 

[billwald]

>What about the teacher that wants to work in Wisconsin public schools, but DOES NOT want to be a member of the Union, or give money to these goons and their causes?

Public unions are NOT union shops.

 

[Havensdad]

>What about the teacher that wants to work in Wisconsin public schools, but DOES NOT want to be a member of the Union, or give money to these goons and their causes?

Public unions are NOT union shops.

That is a ridiculous statement. "Fair share" rules require that all employees, regardless of their status, pay union dues. You can theoretically "opt out," but you would be forced to pay the same amount in dues, and would in many cases lose your health benefits.

That is what it means to "end collective bargaining" for benefits; these employees will be able to opt of the union, and NOT lose their benefits, but instead go with the state employees insurance. It breaks up their monopoly...

 

[just-want-peace]

It breaks up their monopoly.

The union's most fearful nightmare!!
Without forced membership and/or mandatory dues collection from non-members,, the union ceases to be the biggest frog in the pond, and reverts to just a lowly tadpole!

 

[Sonjeo]

WHY!!!???!!!
First of all there are too many variables.
A job should be paid based on the ability to pay - first and foremost. Then you consider other considerations.
Suppose public pay is higher than private companies, then you pass a law that says private employees should be paid as much govt employees?
Negative

Instead of unnecessarily giving corporations subsidies and massive tax loop-holes during a time of record corporate profits you use the tax funds you should have collected and pay for competent public servants.

 

[Sonjeo]

We don't live in a democracy, Sonjeo, so I'm not overly concerned with what a majority thinks as much as what is helpful to our republic.

What will be helpful to our republic is staffing it with well-paid competent employees.

 

[Sonjeo]

The union's most fearful nightmare!!
Without forced membership and/or mandatory dues collection from non-members,, the union ceases to be the biggest frog in the pond, and reverts to just a lowly tadpole!

Perhaps you make the case for unions, that is, if they become no more than, as you say, the lowly tadpole in the pond that can no longer bear leverage against the onslaught of corporate funding and influence that has only widened the gap between rich and poor, then the primary driver for the middle class we have enjoyed will be all but gone and with the gap between rich and poor everwidening as we speak, the prospect for the middle class becomes in jeopardy. If you doubt this just consult your history. The key here as with most things will be temperance and balance.

 

[Arbo]

Instead of unnecessarily giving corporations subsidies and massive tax loop-holes during a time of record corporate profits you use the tax funds you should have collected and pay for competent public servants.

Typical Lib response. Blame it all on the greedy corporations.

 

[Arbo]

Perhaps you make the case for unions, that is, if they become no more than, as you say, the lowly tadpole in the pond that can no longer bear leverage against the onslaught of corporate funding and influence that has only widened the gap between rich and poor, then the primary driver for the middle class we have enjoyed will be all but gone and with the gap between rich and poor everwidening as we speak, the prospect for the middle class becomes in jeopardy. If you doubt this just consult your history. The key here as with most things will be temperance and balance.

Don't you think that if public-sector union membership was optional most employees would remain members, if it was such a good thing? The unions know that if given the option, a large portion of their membership would opt out.

 

[Sonjeo]

Typical Lib response. Blame it all on the greedy corporations.

Alas the ad hominen.
I would say it is more the case of compromised politicians in service to money. Corporations are a great driver of the economy and our lives, they just need someone to say no once in a while especially when they are drunk on excess money.

 

[glfredrick]

Perhaps you make the case for unions, that is, if they become no more than, as you say, the lowly tadpole in the pond that can no longer bear leverage against the onslaught of corporate funding and influence that has only widened the gap between rich and poor, then the primary driver for the middle class we have enjoyed will be all but gone and with the gap between rich and poor everwidening as we speak, the prospect for the middle class becomes in jeopardy. If you doubt this just consult your history. The key here as with most things will be temperance and balance.

Sonjeo, I think that it would be an interesting study for you to see just who has been the majority party in our government for the past 80 or so years. I'm expecting that the lock that one particular party has on our system might come as a surprise to you. I also think that you need to look past presidents and governors to the state houses and congress. Then, take a look at whom is supported by labor unions. You might also want to see which labor union gave the most money toward political purposes -- wait, I'll share it here and save you the work -- it was the teachers union.

Some have found it an eye-opening experience to see just who actually has set in place most of what it is that you rail against, and it isn't who you probably think it is...

While you are at it, you might also want to check out www.cpausa.org and see which side they prefer. If you are still in favor of your position after that, fine, you have that right as a citizen under the 1st Amendment, but wear the label that you discover proudly so all can see.

 

[Sonjeo]

Sonjeo, I think that it would be an interesting study for you to see just who has been the majority party in our government for the past 80 or so years. I'm expecting that the lock that one particular party has on our system might come as a surprise to you. I also think that you need to look past presidents and governors to the state houses and congress. Then, take a look at whom is supported by labor unions. You might also want to see which labor union gave the most money toward political purposes -- wait, I'll share it here and save you the work -- it was the teachers union.

Some have found it an eye-opening experience to see just who actually has set in place most of what it is that you rail against, and it isn't who you probably think it is...

While you are at it, you might also want to check out www.cpausa.org and see which side they prefer. If you are still in favor of your position after that, fine, you have that right as a citizen under the 1st Amendment, but wear the label that you discover proudly so all can see.

Ok, veiled ad hominem, veiled conclusion and insinuation of association. Plainly tell us, what is the name of this party you believe has been dominating our government for the last 80 years? And state plainly; what is the label you refer to? Is this how, when challenged, you would keep your flock in line, glfredrick?
It is not wise nor courageous to take the last refuge before debate has even started.

 

[glfredrick]

Ok, veiled ad hominem, veiled conclusion and insinuation of association. Plainly tell us, what is the name of this party you believe has been dominating our government for the last 80 years? And state plainly; what is the label you refer to? Is this how, when challenged, you would keep your flock in line, glfredrick?
It is not wise nor courageous to take the last refuge before debate has even started.

I was being kind.

The party was the Democrat Party, and they were in control of Congress for over 60 straight years during that 80 year span.

From 1933 to 1953 -- solid Democrat control of the House and Senate. A break for 2 years during Eisenhower's first term, then locked in again until 1995, Bill Clinton's second term.

There were three 2-years spans where Republicans held one of the houses of Congress during that second span of years, but they did not hold both the House and Senate until 1995.

They regained control with Obama's election, and had a "super-majority" whereby no Republican could over-ride a veto or upset the passage of any particular bill.

Time will tell the horrific damage that occured during those two years, 2007-2009. Every single bill passed forward by the most liberal Congress in history was signed by the most liberal President in history.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS.


2009
Obama (D)
D
D

2007*
R
D
D

2005
R
R
R

2003
R
R
R

2001*
Bush (R)
D
R

1999*
D
R
R

1997*
D
R
R

1995*
D
R
R

1993
Clinton (D)
D
D

1991*
R
D
D

1989*
Bush (R)
D
D

1987*
R
D
D

1985*
R
R
D

1983*
R
R
D

1981*
Reagan ( R)
R
D

1979
D
D
D

1977
Carter (D)
D
D

1975*
R (Ford)
D
D

1973*
R
D
D

1971*
R
D
D

1969*
Nixon (R)
D
D

1967
D
D
D

1965
Johnson (D)
D
D

1963
D (Johnson)
D
D

1961
Kennedy (D)
D
D

1959*
R
D
D

1957*
R
D
D

1955*
R
D
D

1953
Eisenhower ( R)
R
R

1951
(D)
D
D

1949
(D)
D
D

1947*
(D)
R
R

1945
FDR/Truman (D)
D
D

1943
D
D
D

1941
D
D
D

1939
D
D
D

1937
D
D
D

1935
D
D
D

1933
F D Roosevelt (D)
D
D

1931*
R
R
D

1929
Hoover (R)
R
R

1927
R
R
R

1925
Coolidge ( R)
R
R

1923
R (Coolidge)
R
R

1921
Harding (R)
R
R

Concerning State govenments -- Democrats SILL maintain control of the majority of State governments:

http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/Which-Party-Runs-State.html

Republicans made the largest gains in history in the last election cycle, but they still have a LONG way to go.

More particularly, the states that are BANCRUPT are all run by Democrat administrations and have been for decades. Rather than create a social utopia -- their vision to the lackeys they convince to vote on their behalf -- they have created hell-holes where no paying businesses can survive. Tax rates are through the roof, business is fleeing for places where they can actually operate without all the punishment for simply doing well, and the people are starting to vacate as well.

Here is a chart from the US Census that goes back to the late 1960s:

Year - Democrat - Split - Republican
1969 20 8 20
1971 23 9 16
1973 27 6 16
1975 37 7 5
1977 36 8 5
1979 30 7 12
1981 28 6 15
1983 1 34 4 11
1985 27 11 11
1987 28 12 9
1989 2 28 13 8
1990 29 11 9
1992 29 14 6
1993 25 16 8
1994 24 17 8
1995 18 12 19
1996 16 15 18
1997 20 11 18
1998 20 11 18

So, YES, if you want me to name names and speak the truth plainly, I am very willing to do so. It does not make your side look very good at all. Most of the social evils that you describe are a direct result of the laws and regulations passed by your own people and the areas that have been under Republican control are markedly better off than those not.

You cannot access this scholarly paper, but even reading the abstract will cue you in to what is written...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=432760

Abstract:
This paper examines the effects of party control of state governments on the distribution of intergovernmental transfers across counties from 1957 to 1997. We find that the governing parties skew the distribution of funds in favor of areas that provide them with the strongest electoral support. This is borne out two ways. (1) Counties that traditionally give the highest vote share to the governing party receive larger shares of state transfers to local governments. (2) When control of the state government changes, the distribution of funds shifts in the direction of the new governing party. We find no evidence that parties reward electorally pivotal counties - counties that are near the median of the state or that have relatively high levels of electoral volatility (high swings). Finally, we find that increased spending in a county increases voter turnout in subsequent elections. This suggests that parties have an electoral incentive to skew the distribution of funds to influence future election results, and the mechanism through which this works is "mobilization" rather than "conversion" of voters in a fixed electorate.