Discussion: All Things Union

[chaseter]

Dnno have you heard the story of the ant and the grasshopper?

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Look at the green arrow...it's the percentage of the federal budget. It rises steadily as population does...until it spikes crazily in 2002. That would mean that the population should have risen with the spending. It didn't. In 2006 it spiked at the highest spent per student in the country. That would mean that from 2002-2008 we should have churned out the smartest kids we ever have because we were spending the most per student during that time....if more money spent = greater education. It doesn't. If we scale back the amount spent to the average percentage population increase, we should be between $50-$60 billion a year spent on education. Instead, we are currently at $90 billion and our kids are the dumbest they ever have been and can't hold a flame to most other rich countries. Therefore, spending more money on education will not increase the quality. We need to cut down waste

Then again are you shocked that the public school system is bloated and broken when it's run by a government that cannot run anything efficiently?

Money for education spiked after 2002 because of No Child Left Behind, which siphoned taxpayer money into vouchers for private schools. And just like with privatized health care, it's a waste of money because a huge percentage is pocketed by upper management as profit instead of fulfilling a social need.

Um, where did I say ANYTHING about there is no money to pay for education anymore and teachers' unions are to blame?

How about:

Teacher's unions and the unbelievable amount of "give me" that they desire IS a part of the state's inability to balance their budget in districts and states where the Teacher's Unions are strong.

Kelly, I respect the fact that you're an educator, but in some cases your facts are wrong, and the rest of the time you're missing the forest for the trees...

I happen to work in a non-union state, and I am a proud member of a non-union organization that will fight for my rights as strongly as any teachers union.

Really? A non-union organization that fights for the rights of teachers? That sounds almost like...a union. Care to give me the name of this non-union union?

BUT, I do not expect my state to pay me what I am making now as my retirement when I haven't paid in anywhere near that amount, and they (teachers in union states) pay in less than I do into their own retirement.....AND pay close to 95% of my medical insurance? seriously, and then they ***** that they now have to pay 2% more into it? Seriously....I pay much more into my medical insurance, I'm happy with my insurance and I should pay into what I'm using. I don't expect ANYONE to do that for me, especially not my government. I pay into an Ovation account, I pay into a 403b and I pay into my retirement fund.....I will live quite comfortably on that once I retire, I certainly don't think my state should pay for my medical care at the same rate they did when I was actually doing my job....AND....I don't expect my state to pay anymore than it should. I can pay my own way thank you. I can also pay my own medical insurance.

Not everybody can pay their own way. I don't know how old you are, but young workers face a different reality. The days of reliable, defined benefit pension plans are going the way of the dodo, to be replaced by defined contribution plans. Medical care in the United States is going to remain in private hands for a long time (thanks to Obamacare) and costs will continue to rise. Even if you can afford your own health insurance, it costs way too much - again, one of the inescapable pitfalls of a privatized health care system.

Is it too much to ask for states to honor the contracts they signed with teachers?

NOW.......as I brought up Wisconsin as my example. Collective bargaining in the area of entitlements was taken away....NOT the collective bargaining in salary. Do I think teachers should make more? Hell yes I do......BUT, do I think that bad teachers should be making as much as I do or more? Hell no.........BUT UNIONS ARE THE REASON, THEY ARE.....THAT IS FACT......THEY ARE THE REASON that bad teachers continue to have jobs. F.A.C.T. that has nothing to do with entitlements WHICH IS....what is hurting states and districts, that is also FACT.....

Sure, collective bargaining rights were taken away for everything except wages...supposedly. Until you remember that under Scott Walker's bill, unions would be unable to seek pay increases for their members above the rate of inflation unless approved by voter referendums. So yes, the bill in Wisconsin effectively destroys collective bargaining rights.

Just out of curiosity, Kelly, how many bad teachers do you know at your school? What percentage of your fellow educators are so horrible, so abominable, that you can put the blame for the sorry state of American education squarely on their shoulders?

I have no problem with entitlements so long as they were agreed to by both parties. That is what a contract is all about. Through collective bargaining (in this case) the state is obligated to pay into the state employees salaries (at least until their business agreement expires). In other cases, (like medicare or social security) the government has made a social contract with the public (via legislation) to pay out a benefit at a specified time under certain conditions so long as a citizen pays for the agreed upon share of the benefit (through his taxes). The government has an obligation to come through on its part of the bargain just as much as the other party (the employee or the citizen) does. Sure billions are going out in retirement benefits, but this is what the state agreed to. To renege on that agreement would be a breech of contract, which even a government should not be immune to. You don't do something as stupid as cut taxes when you have financial obligations to meet. You find some way to raise revenue to meet your commitments or don't make the commitment in the first place.



These countries went into crisis not because of social programs or entitlements. They got in trouble because of the financial crisis, which affected markets all over the world. In the case of Greece, there was a lot of corruption and a weak system of collecting taxes. This was the crux of their downfall. Italy was similar in that there was corruption in that country although they also had a big problem raising revenue to pay their debts, which was mostly incurred from money borrowed for manufacturing (of cars, clothing, and food). These countries also had no effective way to inflate their currency (since they were all on the Euro) to get out of their debt problems. Please don't blame all the worlds problems on social programs because that's the reason why the got into the mess that they are in. And you want to know something? They will get out of that mess soon enough with their social programs intact.

^THIS. Great post. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Dnno have you heard the story of the ant and the grasshopper?

Don't give me the "personal responsibility" crap (not that there's anything wrong with personal responsibility per se, but the way it's used in political discourse is to distract from structural, institutional problems and instead tell people it's their own fault). The fable you referenced has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Unionized employees work as hard as anybody and they should be able to expect a decent pension when they retire. How does the lazy grasshopper who doesn't prepare for winter correspond to that? The actual analogy to the grasshopper, the picture you're trying to paint, would be if some able-bodied person didn't work at all their whole life, just fooled around, and then expected the same decent pension as the person (or the ant) who worked hard all their lives.

You can hate unions all you want, but that's not going to change the fact that workers in unions work. They're the ant, not the grasshopper. Next time try to find an analogy that makes sense.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

Don't give me the "personal responsibility" crap (not that there's anything wrong with personal responsibility per se, but the way it's used in political discourse is to distract from structural, institutional problems and instead tell people it's their own fault). The fable you referenced has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Unionized employees work as hard as anybody and they should be able to expect a decent pension when they retire. How does the lazy grasshopper who doesn't prepare for winter correspond to that? The actual analogy to the grasshopper, the picture you're trying to paint, would be if some able-bodied person didn't work at all their whole life, just fooled around, and then expected the same decent pension as the person (or the ant) who worked hard all their lives.

You can hate unions all you want, but that's not going to change the fact that workers in unions work. They're the ant, not the grasshopper. Next time try to find an analogy that makes sense.

This.

My mother has been a member of the CWA(Communication Workers of America) for over 30 years and she has worked very hard for our family. I would like someone to spout off some of this, "Union members are lazy" crap to my face!

Do these people realize how many cops and firefighters are Union members? Are they calling them lazy, too?

What sickens me is that these same people who down Unions benefit from the work of Unions and they don't even realize it. I would like to see them go live in an alternate reality where Unions had never existed and they had to work 14 hour days, 7 days a week with no benefits for sub-human wages in dangerous working conditions.

 

[dnno1]

Dnno have you heard the story of the ant and the grasshopper?

What you fail to see here is that there was a contract in place where both parties agreed to establishing a pension fund for the employees where the employer would contribute on behalf of the employee in exchange for less pay. They also agreed to pay out a scheduled sum of money upon the employee's retirement. To reneg on that agreement would be a breech of contract. Sure, the employee could contribute to his/her own fund, but that would mean that they would ask for more pay to make up the difference. Now, as for the ant and the grasshopper analogy, once again see my previous statement about more pay. The employee under these circumstances would put their money in a bank or some fund that would yield a certain interest rate. If the fund fails and the person loses their shirt, you would probably say "tough luck". The thing is that these employees already thought of that and that is the reason why they opted for the pension. In a lot of cases some of these pension or savings plans are better than what the bank or a market fund would give you. So, I don't think you can compare the union employee to the grasshopper since he/she did look out for their future.

 

[chaseter]

Way to change the subject from "the recession was to blame not spending," to "contracts are contracts".

Everyone in Greece, politicians and the people, lived large and without worry like the grasshopper. When the recession hit (winter) the grasshopper wasn't ready but the ant (Europe) bailed him out and gave what he needed to survive. There will be another recession just like there will always be another winter. To not plan for it is stupid and I don't care if you signed a contract to receive a gold toilet once you hit 50. Once the contractor cannot live up to the contract, it's void. It's not then someone else's responsibility to honor that contract by bailing out the contractor.

And my analogy holds true. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. The employee chose to have a pension. If they don't see the signs of winter ahead and they don't plan for it and then have nothing...it isn't anybody else's responsibility. Yeah it sucks that they lost everything they were planning on but when you don't see or choose to ignore the signs of winter then tough luck:

- Government spending more than its revenue
- Massive tax evasion
- Very low retirement age
- Amazing benefits
- Great pay

You talk about about contracts...Greece has a contract with its debtor. Not everyone will get everything they promised. Either Greece goes bankrupt and they plummet into a stone age or they buckle down and try to repair things to have the possibility of a brighter future. It sucks...its life.

 

[dnno1]

Way to change the subject from "the recession was to blame not spending," to "contracts are contracts".

Everyone in Greece, politicians and the people, lived large and without worry like the grasshopper. When the recession hit (winter) the grasshopper wasn't ready but the ant (Europe) bailed him out and gave what he needed to survive. There will be another recession just like there will always be another winter. To not plan for it is stupid and I don't care if you signed a contract to receive a gold toilet once you hit 50. Once the contractor cannot live up to the contract, it's void. It's not then someone else's responsibility to honor that contract by bailing out the contractor.

And my analogy holds true. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. The employee chose to have a pension. If they don't see the signs of winter ahead and they don't plan for it and then have nothing...it isn't anybody else's responsibility. Yeah it sucks that they lost everything they were planning on but when you don't see or choose to ignore the signs of winter then tough luck:

- Government spending more than its revenue
- Massive tax evasion
- Very low retirement age
- Amazing benefits
- Great pay

You talk about about contracts...Greece has a contract with its debtor. Not everyone will get everything they promised. Either Greece goes bankrupt and they plummet into a stone age or they buckle down and try to repair things to have the possibility of a brighter future. It sucks...its life.

I think the argument was that social programs was to blame for the Greek, Italian, and Spanish financial crises. My argument is that it is not and is due to corruption and poor tax collecting. The social programs are nothing more than a contract upon which they much honor. Pointing a finger at the debt you created is no excuse.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Everyone in Greece, politicians and the people, lived large and without worry like the grasshopper. When the recession hit (winter) the grasshopper wasn't ready but the ant (Europe) bailed him out and gave what he needed to survive. There will be another recession just like there will always be another winter. To not plan for it is stupid and I don't care if you signed a contract to receive a gold toilet once you hit 50. Once the contractor cannot live up to the contract, it's void. It's not then someone else's responsibility to honor that contract by bailing out the contractor.

This paragraph is a far more accurate description of the criminal activities on Wall Street than teachers and/or union members. Hedge fund managers and bankers gambled massively, with leverage ratios of 35 to 1, and in the end the taxpayer bailed them out 100 cents on the dollar - to the tune of $23 trillion.

So my question is, why are you more concerned with teachers' retirement money than the financial crooks that stole trillions of dollars from the public treasury? It's just interesting that you focus your rage on public sector unions, the corporate media's scapegoat of choice, rather than the banksters, whose theft of public funds was incomparably larger and more serious.

And don't tell me these two things have nothing to do with each other. The argument is that the government is broke and cuts need to be made but the teachers' unions are standing in the way. But why is the government broke? Spending double your annual economic output on bailouts for financial criminals might have something to do with it.

 

[chaseter]

Oh god it's like a pandemic in here. We talk about one thing and then someone brings up an entirely unconnected argument to try and make another's argument erroneous.

"Ice is cold."
"Well, why aren't you talking about how fire is hot?"

: /

 

[dnno1]

Oh god it's like a pandemic in here. We talk about one thing and then someone brings up an entirely unconnected argument to try and make another's argument erroneous.

"Ice is cold."
"Well, why aren't you talking about how fire is hot?"

: /

You didn't read Sixx's post. Explained why the two point were related. Are you trying to cop out?

 

[chaseter]

1) the banks paid back their debt with interest. The tax payer actually made money off that. We made money off of TARP. That doesn't mean I agree or support it.

2) this is the union thread. This isn't the financial crooks thread.

3) pointing out the problems of an unrelated issue as a way to mask or change the subject from the current issue won't fix a problem that can be fixed.

4) public employee unions reap rewards that the rest of us don't have access to and also on our own dime. The path they created is no longer sustainable. Cuts have to occurr.

5) our debt is more than our GDP. Cuts across the board need to be made now. That includes asking teachers to pay 1% more into their pensions and healthcare...which is still ridiculously low. My healthcare plan went up 60% this past year. Thanks Obama. No, lets whine about having to pay 1% more into your retirement that is miles and miles ahead of what the rest of us get but also pay for.

6) The bank and Wallstreet bailout already happened. We all were angry about that, then. It's done. We can't change it. So...lets go on and on about that and not fix any other problems? How stupid. It's bad for the Government to bail out the banks and Wallstreet that paid us back but it was great to bail out GM who gave us worthless stock worth nothing compared to what it was bought for? Of course, it's the working man at GM.

The working man didn't drive a company into bankruptcy. It was those banks we should be talking about. A recession that has decreased a state's budget to not allow the continuation of it's current spending path that includes public unions means we shouldn't cut back that spending but instead point fingers at those evil bankers.

You see how dumb that sounds? How about instead of giving money to banks and Wallstreet, we give all that money to unions so we can still be where we are today debt wise? No. How about we don't give any money to banks and Wallstreet and we all cut back a little? That's crazy riiiiiight!?

 

[dnno1]

1) the banks paid back their debt with interest. The tax payer actually made money off that. We made money off of TARP. That doesn't mean I agree or support it.

With all due respect, the banks paid back only want most Americans know about ($700 billion from the TARP). The truth of the matter is that according to a PBS report $12.8 trillion was either lent, spent or guaranteed to the banks since the start of the financial crisis and there is no legal way to tell right now who the money went too or if it all got paid back. I certainly doubt that the banks paid all of that back within the past 3 years.

2) this is the union thread. This isn't the financial crooks thread.

Somebody (Kelly) on your side brought up and blamed social programs on ours (and the world's) financial woes. I felt that it was important and apropos to point out that it wasn't social programs (nor that fact that we made contracts) that got us into that mess. Don't think that someone can get away with making a statement that you might think is not on topic and not get a rebuttal. The truth must get out and it will.

3) pointing out the problems of an unrelated issue as a way to mask or change the subject from the current issue won't fix a problem that can be fixed.

Ok, let's get back on track. It isn't the social programs that are the problem, it is the fact that these states in question have failed to come up with the revenue to pay back their debts. Cutting taxes is not a smart way to do that.

4) public employee unions reap rewards that the rest of us don't have access to and also on our own dime. The path they created is no longer sustainable. Cuts have to occurr.

These rewards were negotiated through collective bargaining and are signed and sealed with a contract. That is perfectly fair. I wouldn't say that the rest of us don't have access to the benefits that these citizens have. A lot of people (who are working) get health care from their employers and pay into social security (there are a number of unionized teachers who don't have that privilege). If you are poor, you are getting some type of financial assistance. We work a 40 hour work week because of unions. The correct statement would be rewards that some of us don't have access to. Some of us are under age and of course don't work.

5) our debt is more than our GDP. Cuts across the board need to be made now. That includes asking teachers to pay 1% more into their pensions and healthcare...which is still ridiculously low. My healthcare plan went up 60% this past year. Thanks Obama. No, lets whine about having to pay 1% more into your retirement that is miles and miles ahead of what the rest of us get but also pay for.

Excuse me, but this was in context to a state like Wisconsin, who has a debt to GDP ratio of 16.7% (that means their debt is less than their GDP by about 83.3%). That's is not a reason to cut teachers and other state employees pay by 1% since their agreeement is with the State of Wisconsin (or whatever state they have a contract with). That should be negotiable and not subject to some financial decision made at the federal level.

6) The bank and Wallstreet bailout already happened. We all were angry about that, then. It's done. We can't change it. So...lets go on and on about that and not fix any other problems? How stupid. It's bad for the Government to bail out the banks and Wallstreet that paid us back but it was great to bail out GM who gave us worthless stock worth nothing compared to what it was bought for? Of course, it's the working man at GM.

The working man didn't drive a company into bankruptcy. It was those banks we should be talking about. A recession that has decreased a state's budget to not allow the continuation of it's current spending path that includes public unions means we shouldn't cut back that spending but instead point fingers at those evil bankers.

You see how dumb that sounds? How about instead of giving money to banks and Wallstreet, we give all that money to unions so we can still be where we are today debt wise? No. How about we don't give any money to banks and Wallstreet and we all cut back a little? That's crazy riiiiiight!?

It doesn't sound dumb at all. How soon we forget that not too long ago those banks refused to lend to those businesses forcing them to shut down. How soon do we forget that those banks are being given money at 0% interest to do what they do best... and what do we do? Yes, blame the worker, say he is asking for too much money, take away his ability to negotiate with his direct employer, and force him to reduce his benefits (through legislation). What is really dumb is that the guy who help build this country, produce its leaders, and shape it's values is getting dumped on and told to like it. That's what's dumb.

 

[chaseter]

With all due respect, the banks paid back only want most Americans know about ($700 billion from the TARP). The truth of the matter is that according to a PBS report $12.8 trillion was either lent, spent or guaranteed to the banks since the start of the financial crisis and there is no legal way to tell right now who the money went too or if it all got paid back. I certainly doubt that the banks paid all of that back within the past 3 years.

If that is true...you do realize that this happened in 2009, according to the article, when Obama was president? That means that on his watch, he allowed this. You going to vote for him in 2012? Backdoor and secret deals I am sure happen all the time. Obama said he was going to increase transparency. I guess not.

Somebody (Kelly) on your side brought up and blamed social programs on ours (and the world's) financial woes. I felt that it was important and apropos to point out that it wasn't social programs (nor that fact that we made contracts) that got us into that mess. Don't think that someone can get away with making a statement that you might think is not on topic and not get a rebuttal. The truth must get out and it will.

On my side? We are all in the same boat. Our debt has surpassed our GDP. We will become Greece if something doesn't change. Social programs were part of the problem in Greece. If you are spending $50 a day and bringing in $50 a day it's okay. When your income decreases for whatever reason to $30 a day and you are still spending $50 a day...something has to change.

Ok, let's get back on track. It isn't the social programs that are the problem, it is the fact that these states in question have failed to come up with the revenue to pay back their debts. Cutting taxes is not a smart way to do that.

Increasing taxes is not a smart way to increase revenues. YOU DON'T INCREASE TAXES DURING A RECESSION. I have said that a million times in here. Every single credible economist says the same thing. Again, if your income decreases for whatever reason, you cut back. You don't keep spending what you were when your income was higher. You adjust.

These rewards were negotiated through collective bargaining and are signed and sealed with a contract. That is perfectly fair. I wouldn't say that the rest of us don't have access to the benefits that these citizens have. A lot of people (who are working) get health care from their employers and pay into social security (there are a number of unionized teachers who don't have that privilege). If you are poor, you are getting some type of financial assistance. We work a 40 hour work week because of unions. The correct statement would be rewards that some of us don't have access to. Some of us are under age and of course don't work.

Yes it is a contract and it does suck when the contractor cannot fulfill their contractual obligation. I totally get that. But, do you make the ship sink or do you throw some of your belongings overboard to keep the ship afloat? Some of these unions are hilarious. They are given the option to cut back and not cause any firings and time and time again articles have been posted in here showing that unions don't take the cuts and their fellow members have to be let go. Unions will run a company into the ground and have done so numerous times. Take GM for example. Look at Hostess:

"Hostess Brands cited an inability to renegotiate crippling pension and benefit plans, which made the 19,500 worker strong company vulnerable to cash shortages and an economic downturn -- and were key to in its Wednesday bankruptcy filing."

We don't get any where near close to what public employee unions get benefit and retirement wise so I don't want to hear that. Private companies have a limit that they can spend on their employees. If they go over that spending limit they go out of business. If the government goes over their budget guess what...they stay in business.

We work 40 hours a week because of unions. Yes that is correct. They did that decades ago. What have they done for worker's rights in the past 20 years? Why are they still relevant?

Excuse me, but this was in context to a state like Wisconsin, who has a debt to GDP ratio of 16.7% (that means their debt is less than their GDP by about 83.3%). That's is not a reason to cut teachers and other state employees pay by 1% since their agreeement is with the State of Wisconsin (or whatever state they have a contract with). That should be negotiable and not subject to some financial decision made at the federal level.

In 2009 Wisconsin had a public debt of $20.9 billion. Their GDP for 2009 was $244.4 billion with a debt/GDP ration of 8.56%. So...that means that they spent more in 2009 than they took in that year. You want a debt/GDP ratio of 0 or less. That means that things had to be cut to do so.

I have no idea what math you are using.

It doesn't sound dumb at all. How soon we forget that not too long ago those banks refused to lend to those businesses forcing them to shut down. How soon do we forget that those banks are being given money at 0% interest to do what they do best... and what do we do? Yes, blame the worker, say he is asking for too much money, take away his ability to negotiate with his direct employer, and force him to reduce his benefits (through legislation). What is really dumb is that the guy who help build this country, produce its leaders, and shape it's values is getting dumped on and told to like it. That's what's dumb.

Again...you are ignoring a problem by pointing out another problem. Instead of solving a problem that is easily solved and has been in many places, you point to another issue. Banks are a problem yes. Wallstreet is a problem yes. We have threads for those.

What guy are you talking about??????????

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

On my side? We are all in the same boat. Our debt has surpassed our GDP. We will become Greece if something doesn't change. Social programs were part of the problem in Greece. If you are spending $50 a day and bringing in $50 a day it's okay. When your income decreases for whatever reason to $30 a day and you are still spending $50 a day...something has to change.

You do realize the reason there's so much debt is mainly because the government threw away taxpayer money on corporate tax cuts, bailouts, and the bloated military budget, right?

Increasing taxes is not a smart way to increase revenues. YOU DON'T INCREASE TAXES DURING A RECESSION. I have said that a million times in here. Every single credible economist says the same thing. Again, if your income decreases for whatever reason, you cut back. You don't keep spending what you were when your income was higher. You adjust.

Yes it is a contract and it does suck when the contractor cannot fulfill their contractual obligation. I totally get that. But, do you make the ship sink or do you throw some of your belongings overboard to keep the ship afloat? Some of these unions are hilarious. They are given the option to cut back and not cause any firings and time and time again articles have been posted in here showing that unions don't take the cuts and their fellow members have to be let go. Unions will run a company into the ground and have done so numerous times. Take GM for example. Look at Hostess:

"Hostess Brands cited an inability to renegotiate crippling pension and benefit plans, which made the 19,500 worker strong company vulnerable to cash shortages and an economic downturn -- and were key to in its Wednesday bankruptcy filing."

We don't get any where near close to what public employee unions get benefit and retirement wise so I don't want to hear that. Private companies have a limit that they can spend on their employees. If they go over that spending limit they go out of business. If the government goes over their budget guess what...they stay in business.

We work 40 hours a week because of unions. Yes that is correct. They did that decades ago. What have they done for worker's rights in the past 20 years? Why are they still relevant?

The reason your answers are so convoluted is because you're trying to defend a system that can't be fixed. Under the logic of capitalism, somebody has to pay for the world economic crisis. The bankers blew a hole in the global economy, public governments bailed them out, and now in an effort to pay off that debt they're putting the burden of the crisis on ordinary working people.

Unions are an easy scapegoat, and public sector unions are stronger than their private sector counterparts. What you're really advocating is that we punish workers for the crimes of a financial elite.

This is not a separate issue or a distraction. Teachers are just one side of the big picture, which is the need to pay off the debt in any way possible - except politicians rule out raising taxes on the rich or on corporations (or with the federal government, cutting the military budget dramatically).

Raising taxes won't help the economy, you're right. But this is another reason why capitalism is stupid, why it's a no-win scenario. Somebody has to pay off that debt. The corporate press tells us it's ordinary workers instead of the financial criminals who ran up the debt in the first place. I disagree.

By joining in the demonization of teachers' unions, you're playing their game. You really think teachers' pensions have contributed more to government deficits than corporate tax cuts, bailouts and wars?

Unions are workers' last line of defence against the interests of the bosses. They will be relevant as long as we live in a capitalist system. When times are good, the union bureaucrats don't rock the boat, but collaborate with management. During a recession, though, the rank-and-file gets more militant. Corrupt union leaders that don't respond to the demands of their membership will quickly find themselves booted out and replaced.

EDIT: If public sector workers have good wages, pensions and benefits, we should fight to bring private sector wages up to that same level - not bring public sector wages down. Otherwise it's an endless race to the bottom for cheap labor, and that benefits no one but the capitalist.

 

[chaseter]

Since you seem to have a hard time getting off tangents...yes I agree banks and Wallstreet are problems. I was against TARP. I wanted those banks to fail. I wanted those Wallstreet fatcats out of a job.



Now that we have agreed...can we now discuss unions? Do you think given our recent change in revenue outlooks due to the global recession, that maybe public unions should have to be cut back a little like the rest of us are doing? Or, should we continue that spending path despite massive state and federal debt? Most of these are state burdens and have little to do with the national debt. States spent the stimulus money on pensions and not job creation and we wonder why our economy isn't recovering.

 

[dnno1]

If that is true...you do realize that this happened in 2009, according to the article, when Obama was president? That means that on his watch, he allowed this. You going to vote for him in 2012? Backdoor and secret deals I am sure happen all the time. Obama said he was going to increase transparency. I guess not.

The President does not control the Fed. They are an independent entity chartered by the U.S. government. If anything, they are subject to oversight by Congress at best.

On my side? We are all in the same boat. Our debt has surpassed our GDP. We will become Greece if something doesn't change. Social programs were part of the problem in Greece. If you are spending $50 a day and bringing in $50 a day it's okay. When your income decreases for whatever reason to $30 a day and you are still spending $50 a day...something has to change.

The people on my side are not blaming the economic problems of the world on social programs. That is your side.

Increasing taxes is not a smart way to increase revenues. YOU DON'T INCREASE TAXES DURING A RECESSION. I have said that a million times in here. Every single credible economist says the same thing. Again, if your income decreases for whatever reason, you cut back. You don't keep spending what you were when your income was higher. You adjust.

It all depends on who you raise them on. If you are raising it on those who are strapped for cash, then it will prove to be burdensome, On the other hand, if you raise them one those who can either afford it or wouldn't notice it, then that is a good place to start. Furthermore, your notion of it being wrong to increase taxes during a recession is not factual. The truth of the matter is that over the past 80 years, we have increased taxes as part of a suite of measures to help us get out of recessions. We did that when FDR was in office, we did it when Regan and George H.W. Bush were in office, and when Clinton was in office and it only served to help the economy.

Yes it is a contract and it does suck when the contractor cannot fulfill their contractual obligation. I totally get that. But, do you make the ship sink or do you throw some of your belongings overboard to keep the ship afloat? Some of these unions are hilarious. They are given the option to cut back and not cause any firings and time and time again articles have been posted in here showing that unions don't take the cuts and their fellow members have to be let go. Unions will run a company into the ground and have done so numerous times. Take GM for example. Look at Hostess:

"Hostess Brands cited an inability to renegotiate crippling pension and benefit plans, which made the 19,500 worker strong company vulnerable to cash shortages and an economic downturn -- and were key to in its Wednesday bankruptcy filing."

GM is still here with the UAW and is doing quite well now. As for Hostess Brands, the truth of the matter is that the company is actually trying to leverage the fact that the government will insure the employee pensions if they cease to contribute to it. The truth of the matter is also that Hostess Brands would still be liable for nearly $1 billion in contributions since they participate in that industry’s Taft-Hartley multi-employer pension fund. Furthermore it should be stated that retirees would be paid by the multi-employer pension fund (not by Hostess Brands). Hostess' obligations are to the payments they have to make to the fund which were negotiated through collective bargaining. What is really hilarious is that you buy into the crap that these companies tell the public. The reason why Hostess Brands is having financial troubles is because they hired ineffective and incompetent people in their executive posts. They made some bad decisions and suffered financial losses for that. This is the second time in 6 years that they have had to restructure and their competitors in their industry (a vast majority of them) are not at all in as much deep water as they are (and they have unions).

We don't get any where near close to what public employee unions get benefit and retirement wise so I don't want to hear that. Private companies have a limit that they can spend on their employees. If they go over that spending limit they go out of business. If the government goes over their budget guess what...they stay in business.

Speak for yourself. I get just as good in benefits as anyone in my field that is in a union (I am not in a union, by the way). It is because of the union that this is the case. If I were not getting more, then I would wind up joining the union. It only makes sense. Now if you eliminate unions altogether, then people like me wouldn't be as fortunate.

We work 40 hours a week because of unions. Yes that is correct. They did that decades ago. What have they done for worker's rights in the past 20 years? Why are they still relevant?

[YT]184NTV2CE_c[/YT]

Remember the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993? Who do you think is helping to enforce current OSHA regulations? That's all thanks to union influence.

In 2009 Wisconsin had a public debt of $20.9 billion. Their GDP for 2009 was $244.4 billion with a debt/GDP ration of 8.56%. So...that means that they spent more in 2009 than they took in that year. You want a debt/GDP ratio of 0 or less. That means that things had to be cut to do so.

I have no idea what math you are using.

I don't know why you are using 3 year old data. Today Wisconsin has a debt to GDP ratio of 16.7%. They are spending about 11 billion more than they are taking in, but they have a lot of money in the state to make up the difference if they were to raise taxes and fees around the state (as well as cuts across the board). In any case if cutting your deficit is the issue, I would not exclude raising taxes and fees as part of the solution.

Again...you are ignoring a problem by pointing out another problem. Instead of solving a problem that is easily solved and has been in many places, you point to another issue. Banks are a problem yes. Wallstreet is a problem yes. We have threads for those.

What guy are you talking about??????????

I was addressing the comment you made about it being silly to say that the banks were the cause of businesses going bankrupt. I was pointing out that there were numerous cases where the banks were the reason. Now it really seems that you are tying to get out of that argument by spinning it to look like it is not relevant to the topic. If that is the case, then don't bring up the point (false that it may be). You will only leave yourself open to a rebuttal.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

One of the big labor issues here in Canada is the U.S.-based Caterpillar corporation locking out workers at its Electro-Motive plant in London, Ontario, and threatening to move the factory unless workers took a 50% pay cut.

There was a massive demonstration in London a couple weeks ago. Some of my comrades from Toronto went in solidarity, along with masses of union workers from all over North America. But apparently, it was all for nought: the company just voted to close down the plant.

From the Toronto Star:

The timing of Caterpillar Inc.’s decision to close its locked-out London locomotive plant was no accident.

On Wednesday, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law a so-called right-to-work bill making his state the first in the U.S. industrial north to directly take on private-sector unions.

Two days later, Caterpillar — which is based in next-door Illinois — closed its unionized London plant.

Since it locked out 460 Canadian workers in January, the giant U.S. firm had made little secret of its intent to move their jobs to Muncie, Indiana.

All it was waiting for, apparently, was a signal that the state government there was serious about crippling trade unions.

The London plant closing is not an isolated event. It is part of a coordinated attack across North America on unions and wages.

So now Indiana is a "right-to-work" state? Bad news for unions in the northern states.

Workers everywhere need to stand firm together against the aggression of the bosses and their servants in government. I agree with the CEP (Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada): the government "should seize the Caterpillar assets in London and ensure that all community and worker obligations are fully met."

Of course, that'll never happen under the Harper regime. But it's still a good sign that the union is advocating such measures.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Totally predictable news that I'm sure will do nothing to alter the union bureaucrats' support for the Democrats, unfortunately.

Clearly, the only thing that's going to change the battered housewife syndrome of the corrupt union leadership is a revolt by rank-and-file members.

Obama to Unions: See You Later

On Tuesday President Obama signed a bill that will make it harder for workers to form a union. This bill, the FAA Reauthorization Act, passed Congress last week despite an outcry from major unions. Dozens of House Democrats voted for it, as did most Democratic Senators.

To appreciate what that means, try to imagine a Republican president and Republican Senate Majority Leader signing off on a bill with pro-union language despite thundering objections from most big businesses. Your imagination may not be good enough to picture that – which tells you everything you need to know about the asymmetry between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to labor.

Things like this will keep happening over and over and over so long as the unions continue to shackle themselves to the Democratic Party.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Chicago workers occupy another factory!

Republic Windows, redux? Workers occupy Goose Island plant

A group of about 65 workers who occupied a Goose Island window factory in 2008 have once again locked themselves inside the plant in a desperate move to save their jobs.

California-based Serious Energy said Thursday it is closing the plant's doors and consolidating operations in Colorado and Pennsylvania.

"Ongoing economic challenges in construction and building products, collapse in demand for window products, difficulty in obtaining favorable lease terms, high leasing and utility costs and taxes, and a range of other factors unrelated to labor costs, have compelled Serious to cease production at the Chicago facility," the company said in a statement.

Oscar Abarca, 64, said he got a call from union representatives this morning and was told not to leave the building when shift ended at 2 p.m.

He gathered with the other workers in the cafeteria for a few hours. Some played games or sat quietly to wait for news about their jobs. He needed some air and stepped outside. Police showed up, he said, and he wasn't allowed back in. He's been waiting by the front doors since then with a growing number of former employees, students and local labor organizations.

Union leaders say they want time to buy the company or find a buyer. Negotiations inside the plant continue by phone with officials from the company in California.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

 

[SentinelMind]

These Michigan union members are acting like straight up thugs...
Governor Snyder's right to work bill is making Governor Walker's attempts look like a walk in the park...


"There will be blood" Pro-union legislator threatens....
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/11/new-t...-over-right-to-work-vote-there-will-be-blood/

Union thugs assault counter-protestors and police officers...
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/11/a-battle-over-the-right-to-work-in-michigan/?hpt=us_c2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=youtu.be

It's time for a leader stand up to the stagnant unions that are crippling Detriot and the surrounding area.

 

[The Question]

[YT]6mCgbyvb9uw[/YT]

 

[SV Fan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0&feature=youtu.be

It should be pointed out the guy that got a few punches in the clip works for Fox and was out their specifically to poop disturb(doing look what these dumb lefties are saying interviews). Not saying it's right to punch him but he should have backed off when he saw the people getting hostile instead of trying to throw more gas on the fire.

 

[chaseter]

So all Michigan did was take away the Unions' ability to force people to pay dues and join their union and people put up a big fight about this?

People are forced to pay thousands a year in union dues and this is a bad thing that they now have a choice?

 

[SV Fan]

People are forced to pay thousands a year in union dues and this is a bad thing that they now have a choice?

The problem is it's a backdoor way of dissolving the union. Why should somebody get paid the exact same amount and get the exact same benefits to work a union job that the union fought for basically(sure it may suck paying 1-2 dollars to the union each hour but what would you rather having to pay those union dues and making 25 bucks or not paying dues and making less then 20 bucks). Alot of people will opt out saying why should I give the union money which intern will make the union weaker, which intern will make it harder for the union to have any power. It's a basic case of divide and conquer

 

[chaseter]

Looks like the unions already divided and conquered Detroit.