Discussion: All Things Union

[Kelly]

Ahhh, so then what you are now saying is.... that "fair" to unions, does not mean "at least" equal pay or "somewhat" better pay than the average non-union worker? Is that what you are saying?

Because to me, that is "fair"....Also, "fair" to me is medical insurance comparable to mine...and I would even be ok with them paying in a little less than I do.

So our definition of "fair" must be different...

 

[BlackLantern]

I know that unions have driven many a company out of my state and the one big company that still deals with unions (Sikorsky and United Technologies) face strikes every couple years

I know that same company was forced to layoff many of the salaried non union workers because they needed room to negotiate with the union next year

I know that a friend of mine spent two years unemployed and had to leave a union so he could even interview for a job


so you can spout all the philosophy you want, but the reality is people need jobs and right now unions are getting in the way of that

 

[chaseter]

Where that may be the case in some instances to say that is true of all public employees is not even close to be factual. In many sectors over time is not even authorized without a ton of red tape. It especially does not hold water when looking at those who are salaried and not hourly.

If we did look closer at those people you would see many who end up donating many, many hours over the course of career or diminishing their overall hourly earnings… depending how you want to look at it.

So much of that is more myth than fact... but hey is sounds real good when it is supporting the argument.

I have yet to see you post anything 'factual' or 'fact'.

Look around you, public unions are eating each other alive. Throwing each other under the bus and demanding that they not have to cut back like everyone else is. They are complaining that they have to pay more into their healthcare and pension while we have record unemployment. Tenure has allowed complacency and collective bargaining has trampled productivity. While not every public union member is a lazy, corrupt, vampire...the corrupt unions that represent them are.

Just think how many more people could have jobs if all the money that goes into union dues were used to hire more people instead of going to union heads and DNC campaigns.

 

[dnno1]

Would you rather pay $5000 dollars for a laptop or $1000? Would you rather pay $60,000 for a vehicle or $20,000?

If the same thing can be produced else where for cheaper, we all benefit with lower costs. So what if electronics are produced over seas. I love being able to get an amazing tv for $800. You shop at Walmart. You shop at Best Buy. You shop at Target. You are guilty of supporting jobs being shipped over seas. Only buy American made products and see how much money you have then.

Sometimes I think you view the world with rose tinted glasses.

Kell, the truth of the matter is that labor costs are almost negligible compared to material costs. Look at the automobile industry. The assembly is being done here in America, but yet you can still find an American made car for about $25,000. The idea that the price would be that much higher because of the difference in labor is a myth. Now, at one time (back in the 1980's) a computer did cost around $5,000, but that was only because manufacturers were trying to recover their non-recurring costs. Once that is done, you tend to see the price of an item go down. If a laptop computer were made in America again, it would have to come in at the $450 - $1,500 price point because that is what the market can bear at this time.

 

[chaseter]

Amazing response.

Imma bump this because...it...was...that...good.

 

[Kelly]

Chase, I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question you have asked like 20x in this thread....lol

 

[chaseter]

Kell, the truth of the matter is that labor costs are almost negligible compared to material costs. Look at the automobile industry. The assembly is being done here in America, but yet you can still find an American made car for about $25,000. The idea that the price would be that much higher because of the difference in labor is a myth. Now, at one time (back in the 1980's) a computer did cost around $5,000, but that was only because manufacturers were trying to recover their non-recurring costs. Once that is done, you tend to see the price of an item go down. If a laptop computer were made in America again, it would have to come in at the $450 - $1,500 price point because that is what the market can bear at this time.

Material costs? Do computer chips grow in a field somewhere? Are car tires mined?

 

[Denny67]

I have yet to see you post anything 'factual' or 'fact'.

Look around you, public unions are eating each other alive. Throwing each other under the bus and demanding that they not have to cut back like everyone else is. They are complaining that they have to pay more into their healthcare and pension while we have record unemployment. Tenure has allowed complacency and collective bargaining has trampled productivity. While not every public union member is a lazy, corrupt, vampire...the corrupt unions that represent them are.

Just think how many more people could have jobs if all the money that goes into union dues were used to hire more people instead of going to union heads and DNC campaigns.

Where like in Wisconson? That has been going on the longest so lets look at some facts there.

Some facts here about Wisconsin's budget deficit.

1. Public-employee pensions didn't cause this. In fact they conceded to every concession that was asked of them. hardly the behavior of the big bad evil union.

2. What did cause this was the same thing that caused it in every states budget. Housing sector tax revenues sharp decline, mass unemployment, large in state income and sales taxes.

From there governor called a special session of the legislature and signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment which will create $120-$140 million in deficit spending between 2011 and 2013 in the state of Wisconsin. What does that translate to? $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups. He gambled and lost the state’s shirt. Now he is looking to recoup with the only group he can push around. The State’s employees.

Guess what? They said they would take cuts and pay more to help but no that is not enough for him. He wants to take political lemons and make lemonade for him and his party by trying to kill collective bargaining. Killing collective bargaining does nothing to help their budget at all. It is a political move and power grab. They are bargaining and they gave the state what it asked for. That being the case what exactly is to gain from a monetary standpoint by taking that way?

As are part of those concessions he is asking that everybody pays lip service to:

• $25 million for an economic development fund for job creation, which still holds $73 million because of anemic job growth.

• $48 million for private health savings accounts -- a perennial Republican favorite.

• $67 million for a tax incentive plan that benefits employers, but at levels too low to spur hiring. Along with removing bargaining rights.
In essence, public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this flawed and failed agenda and being made into scapegoats.

Don’t my word for it though.

Read the public public record from 1/31/2011 for yourself.

Nowhere to hide in there.

 

[chaseter]

What is your point?

 

[Denny67]

Really?

 

[chaseter]

Really?

That they took cuts but threw a fit over collective bargaining that got them to that point in the first place and would put them back in the same place in the future? Teachers still got fired there.

Collective bargaining is NOT a right. Forcing people to join a union and forcing them to pay dues or they can't be employed is stupid and wrong. People being paid the same regardless of merit or performance has lead to complacency and decreased quality while at the same time raising costs.

 

[Denny67]

That they took cuts but threw a fit over collective bargaining that got them to that point in the first place and would put them back in the same place in the future? Teachers still got fired there.

Tell me. What is the monetary value of collective bargaining and how much did it save WI a dime by taking it away? Also was it not the action OF collective bargaining that allowed them to agree to those concessions in the first place?

That statement right there shows a clear lack of understanding of not only the situation at hand but the deeper issues that stem from this.

Talk about a masisve straw man.

 

[BlackLantern]

the only issues I saw were people who had jobs acting like spoiled kids while millions of Americans, some of whom have been out of work for 2+ years now are trying to figure out how to keep the lights on

 

[chaseter]

Tell me. What is the monetary value of collective bargaining and how much did it save WI a dime by taking it away? Also was it not the action OF collective bargaining that allowed them to agree to those concessions in the first place?

That statement right there shows a clear lack of understanding of not only the situation at hand but the deeper issues that stem from this.

Talk about a masisve straw man.

How much did it save? Possibly millions in future budgets. Once a Democratic legislature and governor are elected, guess what is going to happen again?

What does collective bargaining have to do with them taking concessions? How do you know that the union leadership didn't agree to it as a political move to keep collective bargaining and make Walker look bad if he went after their ability to do so?

Is collective bargaining a right? No. Does collective bargaining increase productivity? No. Does collective bargaining reward success and punish failure? No. Now that is a formula for success.

A massive straw man is saying Walker is taking away their rights.

 

[Denny67]

So the rebuttal is back to back to back straw men with an asserted straw man?

I hope there was some stretching prior to pulling that maneuver. Leaps of logic like that without a proper warm up can result in serious injury. t:

 

[BlackLantern]

I've bought up some actual real life s*** but that seems to get ignored

 

[dnno1]

Material costs? Do computer chips grow in a field somewhere? Are car tires mined?

Sure, but the cost of the materials are more than the cost of the labor and the world market price is the same in China as it is in the USA (that's why it's a world market price). the only difference is the labor and the shipping costs. It costs about $45/ton to ship steel from the U.S. to china. Had it been produced in the US, the labor rate would only be about $35/ton. Even though the labor rate in China is lower, the cost of transporting the goods offsets the U.S. labor rate. Hence it would be cheaper to produce in the U.S. excepting for the fact that a company can defer paying taxes on any money made overseas until they repatriated it in the U.S. This is the real reason why jobs are going overseas.

 

[redhawk23]

the only issues I saw were people who had jobs acting like spoiled kids while millions of Americans, some of whom have been out of work for 2+ years now are trying to figure out how to keep the lights on

what i've seen are contracts not being followed. In illinois for instance, contracts with the teachers unions were set up in a certain way, funding for their pensions were set up through a certain fund. after funding for judges pensions ran dry, the state grouped their pensions in with the existing fund for teachers, and attempting to bring huge cuts to teachers pension funding through legislation rather than through renegotiation.
what i've seen are people not operating in good faith. both corporations and the unions have gotten their hands dirty in this, but the demands of many unions are not that astounding or unacceptable and there are many instances of unions being flexible about things. Most of them realize that certain things are not sustainable, and that they have to accept changes or else the companies they work for will go under or move elsewhere.

There are unions that take things too far, or are completely inflexible, but I've also seen corporation trying to force massive cuts in wages and benefits in the name of saving the company but then giving huge increases in wages and bonuses to its executives.

Other times employers are simply dishonest, making any kind of rational negotiation impossible.

Take for instance the example of a certain midwestern Jesuit University. They force changes in the health insurance offered to its maintenance workers and in the universities contribution to it, with the workers required to pay 200 dollars extra every month. they offer no raises to possibly help offset some of these costs. for many families an extra 200 bucks a month is extremly hard to come by.

At the same time the president of this university puts out his anual letter to the students, declaring that the 11-12 school year will have a 10% in tuition and a 5% increase in housing. The reason cited for this increase in cost? Specifically, increased costs for maintence workers. (despite, once again, decreasing the universities contribution to health insurance costs)

All of this done despite the universities endowmant increasing by over $200,000,000 over the course of 3 years. And this is a Non-profit organization, whose motto is "being women and men for others." Do you really think for-profit organizations are really being all that more forthcoming or reasonable in their dealings with their workers?

Are the workers in these situations "acting like spoiled children" when they consider possibly going on strike? (they ended up not by the way, they ended up just eating the extra-cost for the sake of keeping their jobs)

Are any of these things really theirs by right? no.

should they just be thankful to have a job and any insurance? probably, but life is relative.

No matter how lucky these workers truly are in their own situations it doesn't change the matter that some of the employers' actions are certifiable d*ck moves.

 

[redhawk23]

double

 

[Handsome Rob]

Progressive Government is Obsolete

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6189011057064084.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

It's really more about public-sector unions, but it's written by the Deputy Mayor of NYC (a Republican).

Some interesting quotes:

A system that hires without discretion, promotes without considering performance, and lays off teachers without regard to merit cannot truly serve its citizens.

I absolutely agree. No system using tax dollars should promote/hire/fire an individual employee--if at all possible--for any reason other than merit. That's how you get (and keep) the best people.

Would an increase in the "progressivity" of the tax system be the way out of our budget woes? More and more, urban mayors understand the futility of trying to tax their cities into prosperity. Few would dispute the fairness of a progressive tax system—but there are limits. In New York City, the highest-earning 1% of tax filers pay approximately 50% of the city's income taxes. Those paying the most are also best-positioned to relocate.

I'll disagree on the fairness of a progressive tax system, but he's right about the rest of it.

In fiscal year 2012, New York City will pay $8.4 billion from its operating budget to fill a hole in its unfunded pension obligations. An expense of this magnitude leads directly to budget cuts for social programs and education, and to higher taxes that squeeze working families' budgets and kill jobs.

Money doesn't grow on trees, and tax increases aren't without consequences.

 

[hippie_hunter]

imma bump this because...it...was...that...good.

pwnt

 

[Tao43]

Chase, I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question you have asked like 20x in this thread....lol

Heck, I'm still waiting on someone to try and rationalize and/or retort to the laundry list of things collective bargaining has gotten unions members that you posted three or four pages back.

 

[dnno1]

Progressive Government is Obsolete

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6189011057064084.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

It's really more about public-sector unions, but it's written by the Deputy Mayor of NYC (a Republican).

Some interesting quotes:

I absolutely agree. No system using tax dollars should promote/hire/fire an individual employee--if at all possible--for any reason other than merit. That's how you get (and keep) the best people.

I'll disagree on the fairness of a progressive tax system, but he's right about the rest of it.

Money doesn't grow on trees, and tax increases aren't without consequences.

Pay by merit doesn't mean a hill of beans unless it's backed up by a contract and contracts are negotiated. If two parties agree to pay and incentives based on merit and put it in writing that is one thing, but then again if they agree that everyone get the same raise regardless of merit, then that's a contract as well and that has to be honored. If that is not what they want, then either party shouldn't agree to it. As it turns out, merit raises are not all they are cracked up to be anyway. A 2002 study showed that ofttimes the raise or promotion was given based on loyalty more so than merit.

 

[dnno1]

Wisconsin Judge Blocks Gov. Walker's Collective Bargaining Law For Now

 

[Handsome Rob]

Pay by merit doesn't mean a hill of beans unless it's backed up by a contract and contracts are negotiated. If two parties agree to pay and incentives based on merit and put it in writing that is one thing, but then again if they agree that everyone get the same raise regardless of merit, then that's a contract as well and that has to be honored. If that is not what they want, then either party shouldn't agree to it. As it turns out, merit raises are not all they are cracked up to be anyway. A 2002 study showed that ofttimes the raise or promotion was given based on loyalty more so than merit.

I like this part:

Both employees and supervisors complained that the merit process takes too long to fill vacancies, a problem that supervisors blame on slow service from human resources offices.

I'm not talking about a highly formalized process that, unsurprisingly, is slow and tedious--it comes from the federal government, after all--although it lends even more evidence to the idea that government-run healthcare would be AWESOME!

So really, your proof is criticism of a process in place at the federal government, not merit-based promotions themselves. The article goes to say exactly that:

. . . a "significant portion" of supervisors said the process does not help them pick the best person for the job, MSPB found.

Oh, and then we've got the all-too-common perception that if Johnny got promoted over me, it must be favoritism . . . it couldn't possibly be me, right? Together, those don't really refute anything about rewarding/retaining/promoting employees based on merit.

When I mean "merit," I mean bosses looking at employees and promoting them based on their abilities, work ethic, etc. No complex, mind-numbingly dull bureaucratic hoops to jump through. People always want to make it more complicated than it has to be.

And, interestingly enough, your link supports my original position. Consider this quote:

However, supervisors said they were less concerned about rewarding employees for their service to the government and more interested in getting the best possible person to fill the vacancy.

Exactly.