Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If that's true then it's a horrible thing for the middle class. What is most disturbing is middle-class Republicans cheering the fall of unions, as if lower wages and longer hours are good for them. Just keep voting against your own interests, and voting Republican, and that's what you deserve.
Most republicans don't care if a private employer wants to use union workers. There may be advantages for the employer, like a pool of qualified workers, better rates on insurance due to the large group etc. The private employer is paying the union wages and benefits and also negotiating the contract.
The problem is when taxpayers are paying government union workers way more than than the taxpayer can earn for themselves. When politicians bargain with these unions there is a quid pro quo that the union gets higher wages and benefits and the politician gets support in the next election. The poor taxpayer has no input.
Most republicans don't care if a private employer wants to use union workers. There may be advantages for the employer, like a pool of qualified workers, better rates on insurance due to the large group etc. The private employer is paying the union wages and benefits and also negotiating the contract.
The problem is when taxpayers are paying government union workers way more than than the taxpayer can earn for themselves. When politicians bargain with these unions there is a quid pro quo that the union gets higher wages and benefits and the politician gets support in the next election. The poor taxpayer has no input.
The whole idea that union excesses are at the core of state and local fiscal problems is false, and only deliberate obfuscation keeps that from being obvious.
The whole idea that union excesses are at the core of state and local fiscal problems is false, and only deliberate obfuscation keeps that from being obvious.
You are ignoring a key part.
The Public Unions own their own health insurance provider and use collective bargaining to create a monopoly for it. They then overcharge the government/tax payers/school districts an excessive amount well above fair market value for the service of health insurance coverage.
The reason that you don't hear Democrats defending collective bargaining like they were at the start of Walker's term is because they can not defend this Public Union practice by any honest means.
The Public Unions own their own health insurance provider and use collective bargaining to create a monopoly for it. They then overcharge the government/tax payers/school districts an excessive amount well above fair market value for the service of health insurance coverage.
The reason that you don't hear Democrats defending collective bargaining like they were at the start of Walker's term is because they can not defend this Public Union practice by any honest means.
First, do you have evidence that is true?
Second, collective bargaining means that both sides negotiate. It doesn't mean that WI has to cave. The same governor trying to strip rights could negotiate the HC costs.
Third, if true that's the big problem -- unions overcharge on their health insurance? That's the rationale for stripping collective bargaining rights?
No, the reason why this is a big deal is because unions are the only force countering big corporate money in WI. Without unions big business can spend as much as it needs to control the election process in WI. They'll fund GOP candidates who will do their bidding and nobody on the other side will have enough money to stop them.
First, do you have evidence that is true?
Second, collective bargaining means that both sides negotiate. It doesn't mean that WI has to cave. The same governor trying to strip rights could negotiate the HC costs.
Third, if true that's the big problem -- unions overcharge on their health insurance? That's the rationale for stripping collective bargaining rights?
No, the reason why this is a big deal is because unions are the only force countering big corporate money in WI. Without unions big business can spend as much as it needs to control the election process in WI. They'll fund GOP candidates who will do their bidding and nobody on the other side will have enough money to stop them.
Unions are there to protect jobs and negotiate the best contract, not to be advocate for politicians. Many union members are not left wingers and don't support the people the union supports. Why should their moneys be going to a candidate they don't support?
There is a general belief that public sector workers earn more than private sector workers. that's part of the plan to pit the middle-class against itself. The truth is that public sector workers do not earn more than private sector workers, and the research proves it. Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Five Things You Might Not Know About Public Employees
This is a skewed article, cherrypicking groups to try to make it fit the writers thesis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
This article is purely anecdotal. Here is some other anecdotal info for you to chew on. Second grade teachers in NYC suburbs earn $115,000 a year plus benefits. 15 sick days a year, 18 paid holidays, almost 3 months off in the summer.
The whole idea that union excesses are at the core of state and local fiscal problems is false, and only deliberate obfuscation keeps that from being obvious.
If that's true then it's a horrible thing for the middle class. What is most disturbing is middle-class Republicans cheering the fall of unions, as if lower wages and longer hours are good for them. Just keep voting against your own interests, and voting Republican, and that's what you deserve.
What a load of crap. You're obviously a union thug member lying to yourself and everyone else to try and make your tired and stale argument. You're being left behind by thinking Americans. Time to grow up and get on board and stop repeating the thug talking points.
Unions are there to protect jobs and negotiate the best contract, not to be advocate for politicians. Many union members are not left wingers and don't support the people the union supports. Why should their moneys be going to a candidate they don't support?
According to whom? That view is contrary to history. If you studied the labor movement, you would have learned that unions, organizing and protesting low wages and safety were either illegal or a firing offense. The local governments where factories located were all in bed with the factory owners and frequent used the police as a means of discouraging labor organizing.
The early labor movement succeeded in removing these local elected officials with ones that didn't side with the owners. But you say that using the ballot box is an illegitimate role for unions. If you say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed from California
What a load of crap. You're obviously a union thug member lying to yourself and everyone else to try and make your tired and stale argument. You're being left behind by thinking Americans. Time to grow up and get on board and stop repeating the thug talking points.
If I recall, the flaw in the USAtoday article was they didn't account for the types of jobs in the public and private sectors. So, there are lots of lawn keepers and minimum wage burger flippers, which the government has none, being compared to the highly educate scientists, which the government has many. This study Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee (pdf) finds that:
Quote:
controlling for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity and disability, reveal no significant overpayment but a slight undercompensation of public employees when compared to private employee compensation costs on a per hour basis. On average, full-time state and local employees are undercompensated by 3.7%, in comparison to otherwise similar private-sector workers.
On our previous discussion you claimed unions overcharge for benefits. David Cay Johnston has a terrific piece up about the nonsense of comparing government workers to private-sector counterparts by claiming that the government pays for more of their benefits. As he says, Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.
First, do you have evidence that is true?
Second, collective bargaining means that both sides negotiate. It doesn't mean that WI has to cave. The same governor trying to strip rights could negotiate the HC costs.
Third, if true that's the big problem -- unions overcharge on their health insurance? That's the rationale for stripping collective bargaining rights?
No, the reason why this is a big deal is because unions are the only force countering big corporate money in WI. Without unions big business can spend as much as it needs to control the election process in WI. They'll fund GOP candidates who will do their bidding and nobody on the other side will have enough money to stop them.
#1 I am a teacher that has been involved in the negotiations in a neighboring state that has the same thing going on. I am fed up with this system, it is BS, and I will never vote for a Democrat who doesn't publicly disavow this practice as long as the practice is in place.
#2 Walker ended Collective Bargaining for Teacher Benefits...not for everything. CB was used in many school districts to state that the school district can only negotiate with the union owned health insurance. When you can only negotiate with one company what happens?
#3 The Union is a big greedy corporation. The Union is essentially stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars to even over a million dollars per year per school district that is unfortunate to have to buy coverage from the Union.
This means less teacher jobs, less computers, less textbooks, more pay to play sports, more unrepaired roofs -- all so the Democrats can be funded through public money.
Democrats are the biggest hypocrites in the world, they scream for more education funding - while stealing from education budgets to get themselves elected and their union leaders fat. Then they try to justify it.
Furthermore, how can Democrats justify:
A) public union votes instead of voting in private, is this not anti-democracy so the union can intimidate union members
B) No need to recertify, current union members did not vote to have a union, maybe the majority does not want a union or would like to form a union that better represents them. Is it not anti-democracy for Democrats to oppose recertification?
"In the past, Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust -- a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. "It was in the collective bargaining agreement that we could only negotiate with them," says Arnoldussen. "Well, you know what happens when you can only negotiate with one vendor." This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums.
Now, the collective bargaining agreement is gone, and the school district is free to shop around for coverage. And all of a sudden, WEA Trust has changed its position. "With these changes, the schools could go out for bids, and lo and behold, WEA Trust said, 'We can match the lowest bid,'" says Republican state Rep. Jim Steineke, who represents the area and supports the Walker changes. At least for the moment, Kaukauna is staying with WEA Trust, but saving substantial amounts of money."
"The problem for Hartland-Lakeside was that WEA Trust was charging significantly higher rates than the school district could find on the open market. School officials knew that because they got a better deal from United HealthCare for coverage of nonunion employees. On more than one occasion, Superintendent Glenn Schilling asked WEA Trust why the rates were so high. "I could never get a definitive answer on that," says Schilling.
Changing to a different insurance company would save Hartland-Lakeside hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on key educational priorities -- especially important since the cash-strapped state government was cutting back on education funding. But teachers union officials wouldn't allow it; the WEA Trust requirement was in the contract, and union leaders refused to let Hartland-Lakeside off the hook........"It's going to save us about $690,000 in 2011-2012," says Schilling. Insurance costs that had been about $2.5 million a year will now be around $1.8 million. What union leaders said would be a catastrophe will in fact be a boon to teachers and students."
Last edited by michiganmoon; 06-02-2012 at 06:51 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
