Something important from Wisconsin that isn't Aaron Rodgers

[bigbadberry3]

http://newsystocks.com/news/3961852/wal ... union-bill

Could this be the start of a new trend? I think anyone who works should always be able to negotiate (or at least try) with their superiors.

[Eikon]

That is a very well written article. I see it as neutral and honest reporting of the facts.

Unlike what I see from the Huffers Post and the thousands of other liberal garbage blogs and online journals that are on the web.

I actually just sent an email to an op ed writer for the Washington Post who was one of the many who have stated as a fact that Gov. Scott Walker has threatened to deploy the national guard to put down the protests. It's everywhere on the net.. This is the one that I emailed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04339.html
Take a look.. he's comparing Walker to the violent union protests of the 1900's and communist Poland and Germany.. It's a total lie!!!! Walker hasn't threatened the protesters. He's just warned the guard that they may be called in to take over necessary services to keep the state government working properly.. for example.. Manning the state prisons if the union guards decide to skip work.


Anyhow... enough of my rant about the terrible liberal journalism that is going on.

Walker said during his campaign that the state budget was in major trouble and some major action would be needed to save it. He said he would restrict collective bargaining! He's doing what he said he would do.

As to your point above.. yes, anyone should be able to (or try) with their superiors.. and they still can!!! But they can't do it collectively. In other words, they are taking away some of the union power to negotiate secondary benefits on behalf of the entire union.

These people are so two-faced. They vote democrat (socialist) because they believe that we should all sacrifice a little bit to take care of the greater good.. UNTIL it actually affects them personally. These unions will literally force companies and potentially even state-governments into bankruptcy with their greed. You'd think they would practice what they preach and be willing to give up a little bit to help the whole of the state get out of a very dire financial situation.

[heliochrome85]

liberal journalism huh. interesting.

also, i take offense at the democrat (socialist) line. but you know what, i dont even care about what defense you come up with because ultimately, such statements arent based in reason. come talk to me when you actually have to pay full price for your prescriptions. the money you pay is because of government intervention on behalf of the consumer to make medications more available to consumers, and especially those who are uninsured.

what.
ever.

[bigbadberry3]

From my understanding is that a lot of these people (unions) aren't looking for hand outs or raises, they are looking for the money that they are owed for the work they have done over the years. If I did work for someone (public or private) and part of my contract was that I would have money set a side in the future for me, come hell or high water I'd fight for the money.

[AppleBonker]

Too be honest, I think the unions hold the top employees back while supporting the bottom employees. So you can feel like they are a waste of money and a burden to the system, but the also limit the advancement of the best workers. It cuts both ways.

On somewhat of a side-note, does anyone else think this will really hurt the republican party in that state? It has traditionally been somewhat left-leaning (at least in recent past). If the right pisses off enough people, don't they realize they may struggle to regain that power for a while?

[AppleBonker]

I actually just sent an email to an op ed writer for the Washington Post who was one of the many who have stated as a fact that Gov. Scott Walker has threatened to deploy the national guard to put down the protests. It's everywhere on the net.. This is the one that I emailed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04339.html

And you're being just as disingenuous as all the "liberal media" you're hating on. No where does that article state the NG is going to put down the protests. This is the pertinent part:

he vowed to call in the National Guard if protesting workers walked off the job or disrupted state services

Does that say anything about "putting down the protests"? Nope. I understand that the article didn't clarify that the National Guard would step in to perform the job of unionized labor for the department of corrections, but technically the author is correct. It may be a lie of omission, but that is still more accurate than your patently untrue statement that the NG is going to stop the protests.

[Eikon]

Did you bother to read the article before you posted?

To underscore just how accompli he considered his fait, he vowed to call in the National Guard if protesting workers walked off the job or disrupted state services.

It's a throwback to 19th-century America, when strikes were suppressed by force of arms. Or, come to think of it, to Mubarak's Egypt or communist Poland and East Germany...
...Letting workers exercise their rights at home, however, threatens to undermine some of our own regimes (the Republican ones particularly), and shouldn't be permitted. Now that Wisconsin's governor has given the Guard its marching orders, we can discern a new pattern of global repressive solidarity emerging - from the chastened pharaoh of the Middle East to the cheesehead pharaoh of the Middle West. .

hell.. the title of the article is "Workers toppled a dictator in Egypt, but might be silenced in Wisconsin"


You are trying to tell me that he is NOT accusing Walker of "putting down the protest". Sure, the author never said, "walker plans to have the guard fire on protesters... but come on... it's pretty obvious where he's leading the readers.

[Cold_Zero]

We have the same problem here in the State of Indiana. The governor thinks the way you fix Education is to hand out vouchers and cripple the Teacher Union’s ability to arbitrate. I fail to see how this ‘fixes’ Education and as a conservative who voted for the Governor I deplore this obvious political attack. You don’t fix education by attacking each other’s base. Trying to put the best construction on this, it is merely an attempt to bring teachers into the state workers rolls so that the State (who already controls funding) can drive down the labor costs and help the State budget. I still fail see how this ‘fixes’ education.
I would like to point out that in many districts teachers operate under no contract because it takes several years (sometimes up to 5 years) to negotiate a contract. My wife’s district took 3 years to be settled.

[AppleBonker]

Is the author stretching the comparison? Beyond a doubt. That's what authors do. It helps make the story more dramatic and it sells. You can lead a horse to water... My point was simply that discourse on the media's reporting of the situation is unproductive when it comes to these topics. Maybe people need to learn to stop being spoon-fed information and read through the spin any news source puts on things. I agree, it's hard to find unbiased media. Great. So let's talk about that RATHER than the issue at hand. The media's coverage is a non-issue, but yet that was the first thing you chose to highlight. It's a distraction, nothing more.

Back on topic. You blame these workers for fighting for more pay/benefits and not being willing to give back. Would you? If your job asked you to take a 5% pay-cut, or a cut in benefits, would you do that to help benefit the company? I can't think of anyone I know that would gladly agree. That's human nature. I've had pay/benefit cuts before. I complained about it, and I would've tried to block them if I could. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible for me, so I found a new job. Calling the workers "two-faced" is a bit unfair, IMO.

[Eikon]

I only call the democrats two-faced. The republicans don't want to give up what they deserve to have in order to help those who are poorer (ie. welfare). The dems vote the socialist theory consistently, but then when they are asked to sacrifice and give up what they deserve, they freak out.

I tend to come from the management perspective when I view labor issues. Labor unions push too hard. They force companies into bankruptcy, which in the end destroys the company and causes people to lose jobs.

Ever wonder why the Big 3 auto makers have been in dire straights recently and the Japanese and Korean's have been on a major upward trend.. Labor unions! Toyota and Nissan pay their employees very well, but are not forced to deal with the incredible additional costs brought on them by the unions, so they are more profitable, have more leverage in their capital budgeting structure, etc..

Sure, the union members are unhappy about having to pay more toward their pensions and health care.. but welcome to America in 2011. We all do!!! Obama's law has made insurance costs much higher for all American's.. so why shouldn't WI state employees be affected as well? All Walker is doing is bringing the state benefit package back down to a more normal and average level. Hell, they will still have better benefits than most other states.

Oh.. and if anyone wishes to question how someone from Ohio claims to know something about WI state employees.. My wife was one for 12 years. We live in Green Bay and she worked for the state school system. In the time we lived there, she had two babies (both requiring surgical procedures) and one knee reconstruction surgery. Our total out of pocket for those medical costs.. $5.00 Yep.. $5 bucks for a copay on a pair of crutches. In a time when the whole of the country is facing significantly higher health care costs and insurance costs, I think it's pretty reasonable to bring the WI state employees back down to a little more reasonable benefit packages.

[Cold_Zero]

Yet you dont decry the NFL Players Association for driving up labor costs and thus the price of tickets and the price of running a team. The simple fact is, there are always two sides (sometimes three in arbitration) to every labor negotiation. Here in Indiana, we have seen what happens when the Auto manufacturers do not agree to labor ‘demands.’ They close their manufacturing plants in Anderson, Muncie, New Castle, Indianapolis and Seymour and put said works out of work. I don’t blame any person for trying to get the most of their salary /benefit negotiation. No one is crying about how much I make, only because I didn’t go in with a group to negotiate my ‘contract.’

[AppleBonker]

I only call the democrats two-faced.

You said "these people" and I thought that was in reference to the union members. My mistake.

The republicans don't want to give up what they deserve to have in order to help those who are poorer (ie. welfare)

This, too, helps prove my point that this is a humanity issue. It's not just the democrats that are "two-faced". It's all people. I know this comment will walk a fine line, but how does the religious right justify this? Most teachings that I have seen talk of humbling one's self and giving to the needy. The right doesn't want to be forced to give back, but when that force is removed do they still give back? At a higher or lower level? (not actually looking for an answer here, just food for thought)

Ever wonder why the Big 3 auto makers have been in dire straights recently and the Japanese and Korean's have been on a major upward trend

Because they chose to focus on high profit-margin vehicles (read: large SUVs) and gladly gave up the small to mid-size sedan market to those other companies. Then, when gas prices started to inflate people ditched the gas-guzzlers and searched for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Pretty sure labor unions had nothing to do with any of the above choices.

Also, I worked in the automotive industry. I can safely say (from my perspective in my particular field) that the Japanese companies waste far more money on trivial crap (testing) than the big three do. Each group wastes money in their own ways.

Obama's law has made insurance costs much higher for all American's

Mine have been going up at a consistent rate since well before Obama even took office. I blame rising obesity and the terribly unhealthy nature of the US population. If we were a healthier nation, "Obamacare" would be a moot point.

so why shouldn't WI state employees be affected as well?

Who says they aren't? Most labor contracts that I have seen account for increased costs of healthcare (typically the employee pays X% of the increase and the employer pays Y%). I don't know the contract as I haven't read it. But I haven't seen any data one way or the other. And if your argument for getting rid of unions is to make the employees pay higher healthcare premiums, don't you think you're going after a fly with a rocket launcher? This isn't the only benefit unions provide.

[Eikon]

know that I'm a speaking a little "tongue-in-cheek" about the republicans vs. democrats stuff. It's hard to pick up sarcasm online. You are right that all people want what's best for THEM, and will be very two-faced when the rubber hits the road.

I disagree with your insight on the auto industry.. though since you are closer to it than I.. I won't press the issue.

Most WI state employees haven't been affected to nearly the degree that the rest of the nation has. Sure, they have seen some increase in healthcare costs over the years, but to a small degree. My wife's insurance withholdings changed slightly from '07 through '09 when we moved away, but it wasn't large enough that we even noticed it at the end of the month. Meanwhile the rest of the country has been taking some pretty noticeable adjustments to their bottom line.

I never said get rid of unions! They should exist to protect the safety and well-being of some groups of workers. But, they have gone overboard in their scope and impact and need to be curtailed a bit. This is what Walker is doing in WI.


And BUD... I am spitting mad about the NFL. Those greedy bastards are going to take away my favorite passtime (watching football and playing fantasy football) because they aren't happy with the millions and billions of dollars they take out of the pockets of the poorly paid and often unemployed working man. It's a travesty!

[stebo0728]

I dont know a whole lot on the WI issue, and have yet to have time to read up on it, but as far as unions go, heres my position.

Unions should not be abolished, but no worker should be forced to join a union. Many states are "right to work" states, as in unionization cannot be required for employment. This should be the standard, all states should be right to work, keeping the ability for workers to form a union if they desire to, but not requiring all workers to then join that union. This would make the "Card Check" plan non issue as whether the union forms or not, a worker could decide not to join, and keep their employment status intact.

Im also of the mind that government worker unions should not be given collective bargaining rights, although I have not completely rationalized that position in my mind, its my current position.

[AppleBonker]

It's hard to pick up sarcasm online.

We need sarcasm tags...

I disagree with your insight on the auto industry.. though since you are closer to it than I.. I won't press the issue.

I'm not saying the unions haven't held the big three back, just that each company has their own money pits. They just so happen to be in different places. (For example, I remember having to test gravel-resistance on roof rails for one of the Japanese manufacturers. Worthwhile?)

Most WI state employees haven't been affected to nearly the degree that the rest of the nation has

May very well be true. I'll have to take your word on it. But again, I think that is a result of the unhealthy nature of the citizens of this nation. I hate rising healthcare costs because I don't see the doctor. But I need to keep health insurance in the off chance that something I have no control over (major injury/disease) hits me. I wish everyone else was healthier so I didn't have to help subsidize their healthcare.

I never said get rid of unions! They should exist to protect the safety and well-being of some groups of workers. But, they have gone overboard in their scope and impact and need to be curtailed a bit. This is what Walker is doing in WI.

But what is a union without collective bargaining ability?

[stebo0728]

But what is a union without collective bargaining ability?

Good point, but what do you call a bargaining table where one side has no power? A rape table. What protects the employer from unreasonable employees? The only protection is the hope that the employer can explain the negative ramifications of the demands being made, and hope that the employees will understand and surrender at least some in the negotiations.

[stebo0728]

And to further my ideas, union negotiations should work somewhat like open enrollment for insurance. They should happen no more than once a year, and in between negotiation periods strikes should be off the table, walkout off the table, "brown-outs" off the table. Keep a running tab of grievances, and deal with them at the appointed time.

[Eikon]

But what is a union without collective bargaining ability?

Now that is a good question!! Note that Walker's proposed law doesn't remove all collective bargaining.. just removes some of the items they can bargain for (benefits like health insurance, pensions, etc..) They can still collectively bargain for wages, they can press for safety and training, and they can strike if they feel they need to in order to improve working conditions. They union still has power and a place in society.

I'm old fashion on union benefits.. I think the unions should demand fair wages (note that I said fair.. not the $40+ an hour that a lot of UAW workers get paid). The primary benefit of a union should be to enforce fair labor standards... safe environment, training and education, reasonable hour requirements, etc.. They were formed for great reason back in the early 1900's when factory owners had all the power.. they paid employees extremely low wages and didn't care about safety. Unions were a very powerful tool in developing our nation. Now we have OSHA and other government agencies and a basic general concensous on how labor should be treated. We don't need the unions to wield so much power any longer. They are now hurting commerce and industry in our country.

I wonder how many manufacturing jobs might still be in the US if the unions weren't in control? Would thousands of workers be happy to have a $15 to $20 dollar an hour job with reasonable benefits instead of being unemployed because the factor owners can't afford the high wages and high pensions that unions expect now?

[bigbadberry3]

I wonder how many manufacturing jobs might still be in the US if the unions weren't in control? Would thousands of workers be happy to have a $15 to $20 dollar an hour job with reasonable benefits instead of being unemployed because the factor owners can't afford the high wages and high pensions that unions expect now?

Well I think that this is a stretch as even at 15 dollars an hour can't compete with places such as China and Mexico. There is no even playing field.

Also why didn't employers factor in pensions when they originally negotiated contracts?

[Eikon]

Don't be so sure of that. The cost of transporting and the time delays that slow the cash cycle that come from that long transit time add pretty substantially to the financial impact of those manufacturing decisions. Six Sigma quality standards, and JIT (just in time) supply-chain standards have started to gain a lot of traction in the operations community.

In 08 when the cost of fuel got so high, we were starting to see a lot of companies talk about moving manufacturing back home. That trend was quickly tempered by the recession that followed, so it never really gained traction... but it was on the radar. Imagine if some companies were talking about it then just based on fuel costs.. how many more would be talking about it if the cost of labor came down a bit.

[bigbadberry3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110217/ap_ ... get_unions

Hmmmmm, Chicago isn't too far away but Wisconsin police can't touch'em here.......

And I'd be ok with the bill if it didn't strip the collective bargaining part, the rest they could keep .

[IBCoupe]

I'm wondering which public employee, currently covered by a union, has enough weight to negotiate anything on an individual level with the State government. Anybody have a name?

Have we all forgotten that it takes two to negotiate? That an employer is not powerless in the face of a union - they have the damned jobs, and are entirely permitted to hire replacement workers in the event of a strike. At least, I assume they are, in this case. State governments aren't covered by the NLRA, and that's why the Wisconsin Governor can be doing any of this at all.

[Cold_Zero]

I'm wondering which public employee, currently covered by a union, has enough weight to negotiate anything on an individual level with the State government. Anybody have a name?

In the State of Indiana, the Republicans just respond that you should be able to trust the State government to negotiate in YOUR best interest. Not sure who really believes that.

Here is my question, is it really smart in the current economic crunch to artificially drive down the labor cost (thus what people bring home) for politically motivated reasons?

And why, does the party that touts individual freedoms and government getting out of your pocket books care what union members spend their money on (dues)? We have the same storm brewing here in Indiana and it sounds like Michigan, Tennessee and Ohio have the same legislation (exact wording) proposed. My wife was upset last night to the point of crying because she felt vilified by the Governor and the Superintendent of Private (sic Public) Instruction. I literally had to raise my voice to get it through her thick skull that they don’t care about her and the job she does. She should see it for what it really is a political attack on the Democrat’s base. They are sick and tired of having union dues being spent against them in political campaigns and they are going to do something about it. Please note in Indiana there is a lot of verbiage in the bill to restrict how union dues can be extracted and spent. While Wisconsin may be whitewashing this as a budget debate, we here in Indiana don’t have the same budget woes. This attack is billed as “education reform.” Again, I fail to see how this fixes any of our State’s educational problems.

Have we all forgotten that it takes two to negotiate? That an employer is not powerless in the face of a union - they have the damned jobs, and are entirely permitted to hire replacement workers in the event of a strike.

The simple fact is, there are always two sides (sometimes three in arbitration) to every labor negotiation.

Nope I have not forgotten.

[AppleBonker]

Again, I fail to see how this fixes any of our State’s educational problems.

Clearly, reducing benefits/wages/whatever will bring in better qualified teachers which will result in better education! Simple logic, really.


Side note, where at in Indiana are you? I've probably seen the answer before, but I completely forgot.

[Cold_Zero]

Indianapolis.

[stebo0728]

Just what is it that Scott Walker and the Republicans in the state legislature want of these government sector unions? Well, they want them to put 5.8% of their wages toward their own retirement. Imagine that! Contributing to your own retirement! Oh, the humanity! They also want government employees to cover 12.6% of their health care premiums. This, of course, is an outrageous concept for Democrats. People just should not be responsible for their own health care. That's the employer's job ... or the government. This, to these pampered and overpaid union members, seems like the end of the world. The fact is that even with those payments into their own retirement plan and into their health care premiums they would still be paying $100 a month less than the average private sector employee pays in Wisconsin. The unions acknowledge that there's a budget problem, but they have a better way of dealing with it. Raise taxes! It's as simple as that. Just raise taxes on the rich and on the businesses. Just do what you have to do to keep the money flowing into the state so that they can continue to be paid more than their private-sector colleagues would be paid for the same work; and so that they don't have to contribute anything to their own retirement or to their own health care. That is the union way.

Very interesting take on these proceedings, that was only a portion of the column, the rest can be found here:
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2011/02/am ... ching.html

So the Governor wants the public sector employees to pay some of their retirement and health benefits? What the hell is so wrong with that? Private sector average for retirement is 7.5% and for health coverage is 20%. They are trying to get public sector employees to pay far LESS than this average, yet still that is unacceptable? Union member employees are such spoiled brats.

[bigbadberry3]

So if whatever private company said you now have to pay more for pensions and benefits you would just roll over and take it?

[stebo0728]

Not if the amount I was paying was already in line with other standards, but if I was getting a Rick/Roll on it I would understand having to pay some, and its certainly not like they are trying to rape them on it, I think the amount is more than reasonable, and certainly not worth of rioting in the streets.

[bigbadberry3]

Not if the amount I was paying was already in line with other standards, but if I was getting a Rick/Roll on it I would understand having to pay some, and its certainly not like they are trying to rape them on it, I think the amount is more than reasonable, and certainly not worth of rioting in the streets.

Reasonable is always a funny word as what is reasonable for one person may not be for another as we've stated in many threads. I would be ok with the increase if collective bargaining wasn't being taken off the table.

[stebo0728]

True, but to resolve the matter you have to form a baseline, with some sort of external reference. In this case I've referenced that private sector averages are nearly twice the level being requested by the governor. Certainly this lends to some measure of reasonability. The problem, and this includes non union firms as well, is that we've adopted a notion in this nation that wages and benefits negotiations can only move in one direction. If a company falls on hard times, he may see that he can keep everyone employed if he can only reduce their salary perhaps 5%, even with intention to raise it back once out of the hole, but that is universally unacceptable. Instead the company's only option become to lay off in order to free up the needed capital.

As far as the collective bargaining rights, they arent ALL being taken away, he's just trying to limit them. You can argue against whether the limits are just, I dont know, but I dont like government employees having bargaining rights anyway. In highly unionized areas, this becomes very self serving. Politicians are elected solely on the basis of how they will negotiate in the impending union negotiations. Its an advantage above private sector unions, in where private sector unions are unable to choose the "boss" they will negotiating with in the future.