Collective Bargaining
 

As many Americans (and maybe some non-Americans) know that the state of Wisconsin (where cheesehead and I live) is experiencing numerous protests and fierce debates as the newly elected governor wants to curb some collective bargaining rights. This is all part of a larger bill intended to save money by requiring most public employees to pay more into their health care and pensions than they currently do.

Most public employees are willing to pay more for health care and pensions, but do not want to give up collective bargaining.

I find it difficult to side with the Democrats. I have a few reasons for it. One is that I am a private sector employee. I don't have collective bargaining. I don't have a pension. (I do have a 401K, but the company does not fund it.) I can't retire at 55. When I do retire I will have to pay for my own health insurance. I can be fired at any time.

What I am not hearing in the debate is what would really happen if public sector employees lost collective bargaining. I hear a lot of references such as "slavery" and references to working conditions of the 19th century. Those are disingenuous at best.

I suspect that some of you have opinions on this ongoing debate as it affects more than just Wisconsin.

Another distinction the protesters in Wisconsin and most in the MSM seem to be oblivious to is that there is a big difference in labor/management dynamics in the private versus the public sector. If a private-sector union manages to get its employer(s) to overpromise on salary/pensions/benefits, the employer will eventually go bankrupt, end of story: "Enjoy those now-nullified perks, guys."

(Caveat: Unless the union can get the government to bail them out: See "GM Bankruptcy". But I consider that an intrusion of government into the private sector, i.e. at that point one is no longer dealing with any semblance of free-market private-sector economics.)

In the public sector, the temptation to overpromise (in order to basically buy votes) and simply stick one's political successors and future taxpayers with the bill appears to be overwhelming and nearly ubiquitous. The following letter from FDR (written August 16, 1937) which has been making the internet rounds nicely captures the danger:

[url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445]Letter from FDR Regarding Collective Bargaining of Public Unions[/url]
[quote]All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.

A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.[/quote]

[QUOTE=rogue;254288]As many Americans (and maybe some non-Americans) know that the state of Wisconsin (where cheesehead and I live) is experiencing numerous protests and fierce debates as the newly elected governor wants to curb some collective bargaining rights. This is all part of a larger bill intended to save money by requiring most public employees to pay more into their health care and pensions than they currently do.

Most public employees are willing to pay more for health care and pensions, but do not want to give up collective bargaining.

I find it difficult to side with the Democrats. I have a few reasons for it. One is that I am a private sector employee. I don't have collective bargaining. I don't have a pension. (I do have a 401K, but the company does not fund it.) I can't retire at 55. When I do retire I will have to pay for my own health insurance. I can be fired at any time.

What I am not hearing in the debate is what would really happen if public sector employees lost collective bargaining. I hear a lot of references such as "slavery" and references to working conditions of the 19th century. Those are disingenuous at best.

I suspect that some of you have opinions on this ongoing debate as it affects more than just Wisconsin.[/QUOTE]

Note also that the Demotwits are being total hypocrites.

Demotwits constantly chastise Republitards for filibusters in Congress,
thereby obstructing legislation.

Now they are doing the same f*cking thing.

I'm not opposed to the idea of unions, and I think they often do good. I am opposed to the power unions are given, whereby freedom is curtailed. In particular, in many ways unions act as monopolies and are not subject to competitive forces. On the other hand, I don't know if workers had access to different unions, which competed with one another, whether that would be beneficial.

Unions are the current focus of public outrage, partly because of real causes -- busted state budgets -- but also because of the usual rich man's priorities: keeping middle class folks blaming immigrants, minorities, and other groups in the middle class so that the military contracts and financial industry can continue to function without interference.

"Three trillion for two wars? Phhbt! Ignore that stuff: check out that fat lazy teacher over there. Why, I do believe he's taking your money. The rascal!"

Some unions are not currently the subject of outrage: right-leaning ones, like the public safety unions in Wisconsin, which the Governor Scott Walker does not propose to deprive of collective-bargaining rights. Or the prison guards union in California, which is a patriotic union that should remain above criticism.

And some sorts of spending are also above outrage: juicy military pensions, farm subsidies, and unnecessary military bases in places which would have no economy otherwise. But much of this money is spent in places where real Americans live. Since such folks are unlikely to be black or liberal, there is little anger currently at such spending.

There should be cuts in some state pensions, but the teachers seem to mostly use their union power to obstruct educational reform instead of boosting compensation, which seems middling or low to me.

If/when the last public-sector union is crushed, what will the next enemy be? Alabama has no teacher's unions, and their public schools absolutely suck. Who do they blame?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254398]Or the prison guards union in California, which is a patriotic union that should remain above criticism.[/quote]I suggest that you read this story. [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prisons-20110302,0,5376090.story[/url]

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254398]"Three trillion for two wars? ...
juicy military pensions ...
farm subsidies ...,
unnecessary military bases ... [/QUOTE]

I don't think these are the reasons Wisconsin is having budget problems.

Scott Walker and the Republicans got their way. They were able to sidestep the requirement for a quorum by removing financial components from the current bill. Collective bargaining is mostly gone from Wisconsin.

It was very annoying to me to see the liberals protesting this bill equating collective bargaining right with human rights. What??? Obviously they haven't been to China. They also act as if the public sector is the last of the middle class. What about the rest of us middle-classers in the private sector? I feel no affinity for unionized employees in the public sector.

Someone at work was telling me how his neighbor (a police officer) was grumbling about his 2% pay raise and that it has averaged at about 3% over the past few years. When my co-worker explained to him that we haven't had a raise in three years AND took a 10% temporary pay cut for one of those years, he was surprised. He had no idea that the non-unionized private sector didn't work the same way as the unionized public sector. It goes to show how much FUD is spread by the unions.

[QUOTE=rogue;254795] I feel no affinity for unionized employees in the public sector.[/QUOTE]Are you attracted or repelled by the ionized employees, or does it depend on their charge?

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;254798]Are you attracted or repelled by the ionized employees, or does it depend on their charge?[/QUOTE]

:smile:

[QUOTE=rogue;254795]It goes to show how much FUD is spread by the unions.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. And whether a teacher was good or bad, he enjoyed a raise, just like CEOs and upper management.

For the past 30 years, the high earners have earned more and more, while the rest of us have fallen behind inflation. Maybe the wealthy just work harder and hard each year while the rest of us slack.

Now that there is less money all around, guess who is being asked to tighten their belts? The little people.

And soon nearly all lobbying and campaign contributions will flow from the wealthy. Even our putative Marxist president is essentially a corporate technocrat.

If you who believe that the United States of 1890 was a great paradise, built on non-union labor singing four-part harmony throughout their 70-hour work weeks, I have good news for you: you may see such conditions again.

Good riddance to most public-sector unions, but I wonder when the top earners will be asked to tighten their belts.