About Damned Time

[Ddrak]

I could give a rats ass about workers organizing in the PRIVATE sector. But not the public sector, for the very fact that all wages and benefits are paid for by the taxpayer.

I don't understand the motivation to distinguish based on their income source. Surely you aren't suggesting people don't have the right of association because they are public servants? How would you classify private companies that are 100% government owned? What about defense contractors who exclusively take government money? What of the companies that exclusively serve those?

I don't think that just because a person works in the public sector is any justification for saying they don't have the right to band together with other workers and bargain together for their wages and benefits. Why would you possibly think the government has the right to tell ANY worker who they can and can't associate with when bargaining for their compensation?

As for public service benefits compared to private sector ones, what does the degree of benefits matter as to whether people have the right to band together? If that were true then you'd have to extend the logic to private companies who delivered excellent benefits for their workers as well wouldn't you?

Sorry, but I see the right to join (or not join) a union as a fundamental worker's right. That choice should not be curtailed and nor should the power of whatever union those workers freely associate with be limited. Similarly, the right of an employer and employee to negotiate contracts freely shouldn't be impeded by parties not invited to the discussion and if the employee decides to bring a union along with him then it's up to the employer to consider the offer presented and act accordingly.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

The biggest thing to remember during all of this is that the hate, name calling and violent rhetoric comes from the right.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I could give a rats ass about workers organizing in the PRIVATE sector. But not the public sector, for the very fact that all wages and benefits are paid for by the taxpayer.

I don't understand the motivation to distinguish based on their income source. Surely you aren't suggesting people don't have the right of association because they are public servants? Dd

Surely I am.

Others have seen it this way too, including FDR, the President that ushered in unions and collective bargaining. And even a card carrying Socialist mayor. Hows that for leftist opposition to public employee collective bargaining?

Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee's mayor in the 1950s and the last card-carrying Socialist to head a major U.S. city, supported labor. But in 1969, the progressive icon wrote that rise of unions in government work put a competing power in charge of public business next to elected officials. Government unions "can mean considerable loss of control over the budget, and hence over tax rates," he warned.

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 08962.html

Hell, even the former head of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, considered public unions unthinkable. And here's what the AFL-CIO had to say about public service unions...

the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Executive Council’s 1959 advice: “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress — a right available to every citizen.”

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... tor-unions

[Embar Angylwrath]

@ Partha

USA Today says you're wrong about public sector employees making lass than comparable private sector workers. Add in the benefits and your statement becoames laughable.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... -pay_N.htm

BLS says you're wrong. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

Here's a good read with lots of meat for you. It raises the big question.. if government workers are so undercompensated, then why do they quit less than people in the private sector? One would think that if they were so undercompensated relative to the private sector, they would leave government work to get higher paying jobs. But that just doesn't seem to be the case.

I'd love to hear you explanation for that.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Oh.. and you're also wrong about Wisconsin public employees not having civil service protections.

http://www.civilservicecentennial.wi.go ... 3&locid=54

For someone who likes to toss out the word liar... just sayin'.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Oh Embar... your foolish support or Governor Mubarak will be the end of your lying ways!

[Ddrak]

Surely I am.

Others have seen it this way too, including FDR, the President that ushered in unions and collective bargaining. And even a card carrying Socialist mayor.

I think they're wrong too then. Of course collective bargaining entails a "loss of control over budget" - that goes for any employer. Why should government get special dispensation? It's a fallacy to think that this leads to any loss of control over tax rates - it means you have to consider costs of employment and cut staff when you can't change the sales cost (which is the tax rate in the public service). It's definitely leftist thinking to suggest upping taxes before shrinking government though.

Roosevelt is similarly wrong. Of course a strike is "preventing or obstructing the operation of Government", just as a strike of private workers is "preventing or obstructing the operation of private industry". So what? If you can't sort out labor relations then labor walks out. Deal with it. Now, collective bargaining doesn't imply "strikes" so the conflation here is a bit dodgy.

Meany is just stupid. Why should government employees put their working conditions at the mercy of the taxpayer? Just as a customers of private companies only decide what they'll put up with in terms of providing revenue to the company, the taxpayer has control over the revenue of government. You could also consider the taxpayer as the shareholder of government, which means you're saying the workers have no rights at all. I believe government workers should have the right to deal independently with their employer, which implies the right to collective bargaining.


As to the BLS stats you provided Partha, they're comparing apples and oranges. You can't just average all public employees, average all private employees and expect to get a meaningful comparison. You need to drill down and determine payment comparisons for particular jobs that have similar entry requirements. As a general rule, public service jobs have a higher "low water mark" for entry so you don't see the mass of minimum wage employees that brings down the average for the private sector.

Dd

[Partha]

As Dd noted quite well (and the study I linked to did, as well), you don't compare all private sector jobs with all public sector jobs. You compare across comparable types of work and education...and in those cases, public sector employees are underpaid. I know you've gotten desperate enough to throw McDonalds employees on the scale to make your numbers work, but that's wrong. Again.

As far as the other part, the bill you referenced was not in line with what I was discussing, which was the Wagner Act or the Social Security Act. Fail again, harder.

And, once more - public service employees are also taxpayers. Unlike two thirds of Wisconsin businesses.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

The biggest thing to remember during all of this is that the hate, name calling and violent rhetoric comes from the right.

You are absolutely correct, because random people tweeting are comparable to national television personalities and political leaders.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Clearly was talking about the left as a whole, but whatever man. Go drink so more Kool-Aid.

[Embar Angylwrath]

@ Dd

I think you're missing hte point that FDR, Meany and others have understood. Think of it in these terms. Why not allow members of the military to strike over wages and benefits? Answer: because it undermines the very reason the military exists. Same with governments. Striking against the government (striking, not portesting, whihc I fully support), undermines government's ability to function.

[Embar Angylwrath]

@ Partha

I ask again. If members of PEUs are so undercompensated, why do they stay in their jobs longer than workers in the private sector? Why don't they "upgrade" into jobs thay ostensibly are better compensated than the ones they are in?

Riddle me this, riddle me that.

[Rykilth]

Just sayin....

Because most people don't like change. Because most people don't want to start back off at the bottom in a new job. Because most people can't just uproot their families, sell their house and move to a different location for a better paying job.

And yes, I'm a Public Serive Employee.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Just sayin....

Because most people don't like change. Because most people don't want to start back off at the bottom in a new job. Because most people can't just uproot their families, sell their house and move to a different location for a better paying job.

And yes, I'm a Public Serive Employee.

Those apply to people in the private sector as well. They don't like change, they don't want to start at the bottom, they don't want to uproot their families and sell homes to move to a differrent location. Yet they do, in greater porportionality the people in PEUs. The only plausble explanation for that is that PEU members don't see enough enticement (wages and benefits) in other postions to go through the hassle of changing jobs. They aren't incentivized to do so merely by a comparison of wages and benefits. In other words, pay and benefit packages that are better than what they have now are harder to find in the private sector. So therefore PEU members are not underpaid or undercompensated when compared to the private sector.

Since you are a PEU member, do you consider yourself undercompensated? If so, why?

[Partha]

Gods, how desperate Embar is.

In other words, pay and benefit packages that are better than what they have now are harder to find in the private sector. So therefore PEU members are not underpaid or undercompensated when compared to the private sector.

It's not the dollars or the compensation, it's how you FEEEEEEEEEL. And if you don't change jobs for WHATEVER REASON, you can't claim to be undercompensated than anyone who makes more than you.

Can you fail any fucking harder? At long last?

Here's Harlowe's favorite little racist on the Break The Union Bill that Embar is desperate to see.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... gn-on.html

Last night, I heard on Fox News from Stephen Hayes that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker had run on a platform to end collective bargaining rights for public sector unions. I can find no evidence of this in the public record. It isn't on his campaign platform where he deals with "government spending and reform". It's clear that he vowed to slash pay and benefits for public sector unions. Here's an obviously liberal-leaning report that says

Republican gubernatorial front-runner Scott Walker is vowing to cut state employee wages and benefits to help reduce state taxes on the wealthy.

But not end their collective bargaining rights on everything but wages. There's no reference to any such bid in the final gubernatorial debate. Here's another substantive piece on Walker's positions on public sector unions from before the election. Again no mention of collective bargaining. The same can be said about his State of the State address on February 1.

Thus showing that Embar asserting that Wisconsin voted for union busting was....you guessed it, WRONG.

The other parts that should be objectionable he doesn't give a shit about, like giving Walker uncontested power to sell the state's power plants without soliciting bids for whatever he wants to whomever he wants. Which will probably be his buddies and financiers the Koch brothers. But that's ok, UNIONS ARE TOOOOOO POWERFUL! Jesus, if Embar got any more tunnel vision, an Illinois Central boxcar would race out of his ass.

[Partha]

Hey, look, kids! Naked coercion!

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ ... 03286.html

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker warned Tuesday that state employees could start receiving layoff notices as early as next week if a bill eliminating most collective bargaining rights isn't passed soon.

Walker said in a statement to The Associated Press that the layoffs wouldn't take effect immediately. He didn't say which workers would be targeted but he has repeatedly warned that up to 1,500 workers could lose their jobs by July if his proposal isn't passed.

"Hopefully we don't get to that point," Walker said

[Torakus]

Hey, look, kids! Naked coercion!

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ ... 03286.html

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker warned Tuesday that state employees could start receiving layoff notices as early as next week if a bill eliminating most collective bargaining rights isn't passed soon.

Walker said in a statement to The Associated Press that the layoffs wouldn't take effect immediately. He didn't say which workers would be targeted but he has repeatedly warned that up to 1,500 workers could lose their jobs by July if his proposal isn't passed.

"Hopefully we don't get to that point," Walker said

He is just returning a volley the Unions have been serving for 50 years.

[Atien]

@ Partha

I ask again. If members of PEUs are so undercompensated, why do they stay in their jobs longer than workers in the private sector? Why don't they "upgrade" into jobs thay ostensibly are better compensated than the ones they are in?

Riddle me this, riddle me that.

I am a member of a PEU in Ohio. I guarantee I could make more in private industry. I stay in my job for two reasons

1) I have 15 years invested in the pension system.

2) I like the job stability and I am willing to work for less in exchange for the stability this job provides.

I have worked in private industry. The idea that government workers are a bunch of lazy, uneducated, leeches of public money is just ludicrous. I work with some of the most intelligent and hard working individuals that I have ever worked with in my life. Most with undergrad or graduate levels of education.

[Torakus]

I am a member of a PEU in Ohio. I guarantee I could make more in private industry. I stay in my job for two reasons

1) I have 15 years invested in the pension system.

2) I like the job stability and I am willing to work for less in exchange for the stability this job provides.

I have worked in private industry. The idea that government workers are a bunch of lazy, uneducated, leeches of public money is just ludicrous. I work with some of the most intelligent and hard working individuals that I have ever worked with in my life. Most with undergrad or graduate levels of education.

The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations.

Tora

[Ddrak]

I don't believe Adam Smith ever said that. It's certainly not in "Wealth of Nations" or "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".

Dd