About Damned Time

[Ddrak]

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.

The military are under a separate category (they can't quit at will, for example) so any discussion involving them is pure strawman. The "same" does NOT exist for governments. You're also still conflating "collective bargaining" with "striking" when the two are separate issues. Whether you agree with the ability for workers to go on "strike", they should still be permitted a collective stake in the negotiation of employment contracts if they choose to do so. Their only obvious "out" if striking is off the table is to quit.

Personally I feel that any worker should be allowed to go on strike if they are directly affected by the complaint in question. I have a much less open view towards people going on strike in sympathy for an issue when they aren't directly affected.

I still don't understand why you feel government workers shouldn't be permitted the same rights as non-government workers. Why should a government employed garbage collector not be permitted to strike when a privately employed one performing the same duty on a government contract is? Why should a defense contractor supplying food to troops be permitted to strike when a DoD employee doing the same job not be permitted to strike? With the degree of privatization of government tasks to contractors, how does your distinction make any sense at all?


I would also like to see your evidence that private workers move less than public workers when you compare people with equivalent jobs (rather than across the board). If anything, the incentive to move depends more on the job you are moving TO rather than the one you move FROM, so people moving TO private jobs more than TO public jobs (assuming it's even accurate) seems to suggest that the private sector is offering better incentives?

Dd

[Atien]

Ahh ok so working full time, taking care of a new baby, going to graduate school at night, and staying up till 2-3AM several nights a week to do school work in order to get a masters in Computer Engineering means I have no aspirations. Check! So what DOES constitute having aspirations?

[Rykilth]

My particular job has no real "private sector" comparison. However to answer your question Embar, yes I feel I am very well compensated.

[Partha]

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

Dd

It's also attributed in some places to T.S. Eliot.

[Partha]

Ahh ok so working full time, taking care of a new baby, going to graduate school at night, and staying up till 2-3AM several nights a week to do school work in order to get a masters in Computer Engineering means I have no aspirations. Check! So what DOES constitute having aspirations?

You should have aspired to being born to wealthier parents.

[Embar Angylwrath]

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

You mean like.. uh... threatening to strike?

[Torakus]

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.

Don't get all butt hurt. You wrote that your aspirations were to stay in a lower paying job because it was secure and you were invested in a pension that is largely paid for by other people's taxes. If you feel that your economic self interest and aspiration to achieve higher status cancel out the cost to society created by the nanny state that protects your ability to do so with little or no risk, you are sadly mistaken. And frankly I am tired of funding it.

The military are under a separate category (they can't quit at will, for example) so any discussion involving them is pure strawman. The "same" does NOT exist for governments. You're also still conflating "collective bargaining" with "striking" when the two are separate issues. Whether you agree with the ability for workers to go on "strike", they should still be permitted a collective stake in the negotiation of employment contracts if they choose to do so. Their only obvious "out" if striking is off the table is to quit.

The same SHOULD exist for government workers. I have no problem with them being able to negotiate their employment contracts within reason. The problem is, the Unions have taken it too far, created a situation where they effectively control the budget and ability of the government to function effectively. Neither the Union or the workers they represent have this right. I can think of no reason to give 5% of the population so much power to interfere with the operation of government.

I still don't understand why you feel government workers shouldn't be permitted the same rights as non-government workers. Why should a government employed garbage collector not be permitted to strike when a privately employed one performing the same duty on a government contract is? Why should a defense contractor supplying food to troops be permitted to strike when a DoD employee doing the same job not be permitted to strike? With the degree of privatization of government tasks to contractors, how does your distinction make any sense at all?

Actually most DoD support contractors cannot strike. Most of us are not union represented but as a condition of employment, even union represented support contractors are generally asked to waive that right. For corporate contracts you are talking about, the workers can strike, because they are not considered support contractors, they are considered employees of the support contractor, but the delivery order will almost certainly contain language that punishes the company for non-performance if their employees strike, or allow the government to re-compete the job to other companies.

I have to admit, that after reviewing all 7 volumes of The Glasgow Edition of The Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, that I cannot find that quote, so perhaps he did not say it. I still find wisdom in it.

Tora

[Rykilth]

I can only speak for my current public employee position. Part of our bargaining agreement prohibits us from striking, having sick outs, etc..

[Embar Angylwrath]

Rye... would you be comfortable disclosing your PEU?

[Atien]

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

Don't get all butt hurt. You wrote that your aspirations were to stay in a lower paying job because it was secure and you were invested in a pension that is largely paid for by other people's taxes. If you feel that your economic self interest and aspiration to achieve higher status cancel out the cost to society created by the nanny state that protects your ability to do so with little or no risk, you are sadly mistaken. And frankly I am tired of funding it.

Tora

Thank you for being so concerned about my butt. It is fine Also you are not directly paying for my higher education and neither are the citizens of Ohio. I get a discount because a family member works for the University I attend and the union picks up the rest of the bill. The money that the union pays comes out of all union employees pay including my own in the form of union dues. No state tax dollars are directly going into my education. Yes I get paid by the state and the money I am paid goes to the unions which then goes towards my education. So in a round about way, tax dollars are paying for it. But it would be ridiculous to expect me to work for free. So indirectly tax payer money will be used. And if you are really so inclined we could play Kevin Bacon's 6 degrees of separation with where your pay check comes from. So it would be a futile argument to get into from either end. As far as unions and the bill goes.

1) I am in the union because I would have to pay dues whether I am in it or not. So why not have representation. I also get a free sandwich once a year and they pay 3k per year towards my education. (Of which I have to pay taxes on all of my "free" education benefits because they are considered pay.)
2) I am fine with making a union workers' pay based on merit. I am confident in my abilities and work ethic.
3) We do not get guaranteed raises every year. Most of the people I work with have not gotten a raise in over 5 years. In fact, we have had two weeks of furlough days each year for the last couple years.
4) We do not have protected jobs for everyone including bad employees. I had two people in my group that were forced to resign or be fired for abusing the internet last year. Luckily I was too busy doing my job

5) In the end it doesn't really matter to me because I am leaving the state once I get my masters.
6) The main thing I do not want is that I get laid off, not because I am a bad employee, but because I am not a Republican when they take office and they want to fill all of the jobs with their Republican buddies. My employment should be based on how much value I bring to the state and not my political affiliation.
7) In a time when all state workers were taking 2 weeks of furlough days and facing wage freezes the administrator of the department I work for in the state had an increase in their salary from $119k to $196k. A 60% increase! But no one seems to care what the administrative level including the governor makes. Only the evil state workers.

So take what you want out of my comments. I just don' t think you should lump all state employees together and demonize them. That is my only goal in this discussion.

[Rykilth]

Rye... would you be comfortable disclosing your PEU?

Officer, California Highway Patrol.

[Partha]

So take what you want out of my comments. I just don' t think you should lump all state employees together and demonize them. That is my only goal in this discussion.

Without that, you reveal Embar for the meanspirited little prick he is, and we just can't have that. He might cry.

[Ddrak]

The same SHOULD exist for government workers. I have no problem with them being able to negotiate their employment contracts within reason. The problem is, the Unions have taken it too far, created a situation where they effectively control the budget and ability of the government to function effectively. Neither the Union or the workers they represent have this right. I can think of no reason to give 5% of the population so much power to interfere with the operation of government.

The number of people that can significantly screw with the nation by striking is a lot higher than 5%. I'd suggest that there's a significant number of private institutions that could inflict much greater harm than some government drones not coming to work. Say (for example) Verizon's employees went on strike for a week. The resultant communications collapse in the US would be a hell of a lot more damaging than if the California DoT went on strike for the same week. You can say the same for any large private infrastructure organization.

For corporate contracts you are talking about, the workers can strike, because they are not considered support contractors, they are considered employees of the support contractor, but the delivery order will almost certainly contain language that punishes the company for non-performance if their employees strike, or allow the government to re-compete the job to other companies.

Exactly my point though - the workers can strike and the impact would be the same, if not larger given the pain of recontracting the job. Claiming the government can't possibly shut down due to a strike really doesn't hold that much weight. Sure, certain PARTS of the government make sense to have a no-strike or limited-strike policy (police primarily) but they still deserve collective bargaining rights.

If the real problem is their unions have been pandered to and the workers are over-compensated then bring everyone to the table (including the workers) and fix the problem by adjusting compensation. Don't punish overcompensated workers (assuming they are) by taking away their rights when the real issue was the idiots in previous administrations that gave too much ground to the workers who were seeking the best deal they could get.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

The same SHOULD exist for government workers. I have no problem with them being able to negotiate their employment contracts within reason. The problem is, the Unions have taken it too far, created a situation where they effectively control the budget and ability of the government to function effectively. Neither the Union or the workers they represent have this right. I can think of no reason to give 5% of the population so much power to interfere with the operation of government.

The number of people that can significantly screw with the nation by striking is a lot higher than 5%. I'd suggest that there's a significant number of private institutions that could inflict much greater harm than some government drones not coming to work. Say (for example) Verizon's employees went on strike for a week. The resultant communications collapse in the US would be a hell of a lot more damaging than if the California DoT went on strike for the same week. You can say the same for any large private infrastructure organization.

Dd

I have a feeling it'd require more than 1 of the big telecommunications companies to go on strike for any sort of "collapse" to happen.

[Ddrak]

I have a feeling it'd require more than 1 of the big telecommunications companies to go on strike for any sort of "collapse" to happen.

How many people have their home phones and cell phones both dependent on Verizon's network? If Verizon's network goes down (and I mean properly goes dark) then how many 911 calls get nowhere? How many businesses have to shut down because they can't communicate to the outside world? I guarantee it will be vastly more disruptive and costly to the US than any non-emergency service government department going on strike.

Dd

[Partha]

Does anyone from the union busting part of the website want to talk about the privatization of the power plants instead? Or maybe the section where the governor is given control of Medicare?

[Kulaf]

Does anyone from the union busting part of the website want to talk about the privatization of the power plants instead? Or maybe the section where the governor is given control of Medicare?

I know WI owns serveral power plants, but I have not read anything about "privatization of the power plants". Are you asserting that WI doesn't have the right to sell it's own assets? Or are you trying to make some wierd claim that WI is trying to sell plants it doesn't own?

[Kulaf]

After researching what effect this state bill could possibly have on Medicare.....I think you actually must have meant Medicaid. There is language in the bill that would allow the Dept of Health Services to make provisions without public hearing. Is that what you are talking about?

[Partha]

I know WI owns serveral power plants, but I have not read anything about "privatization of the power plants". Are you asserting that WI doesn't have the right to sell it's own assets? Or are you trying to make some wierd claim that WI is trying to sell plants it doesn't own?

Code: Select all

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

Without bid solicitation, for any amount. Tell us that's not a complete giveaway.

After researching what effect this state bill could possibly have on Medicare.....I think you actually must have meant Medicaid. There is language in the bill that would allow the Dept of Health Services to make provisions without public hearing. Is that what you are talking about?

Yep, shouldn't really be posting at that time, I make mistakes easier.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 26821.html

The bill would grant the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) sweeping authority to making changes to the state's Medicaid program -- which covers one in five residents -- with virtually no public scrutiny. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Walker's plan would use "emergency" powers to allow DHS to restrict eligibility, raise premiums and change reimbursements -- all moves traditionally controlled by the legislature.

Part of the reason that advocates are so alarmed at the legislation is that the man who heads DHS is Dennis Smith, someone who has advocated for states to leave the Medicaid program.

In a December 2009 article for the Heritage Foundation, Smith, who was then on staff at the conservative think tank, advocated against health care reform proposals being considered by Congress and argued it would be smart for states to leave the Medicaid program.

Medicaid is a state-federal program, so Wisconsin needs waivers from the federal government to make certain changes, including the one he's proposing. But he's leaving the Obama administration in a tough situation. If Wisconsin doesn't get a waiver by the end of the year, Walker wants to drop adults at a higher income level who aren't pregnant or disabled from Medicaid by July 1, 2012 -- that's approximately 50,000 people -- which Sebelius has told governors is allowed under federal law to help states deal with deficits. Currently, Wisconsin's Medicaid program accepts adults who make up to double the poverty level -- $44,700 for a family of four. This move could save between $57 to $80 million a year.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

SHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAMESHAME