Now Wisconsin

[PLW]

So public sector unions are bad because they're too effective at getting benefits for those they represent?

And the problem lies with effective unions rather than with the politicians that cave to their demands?

I thought unions were evil because they are corrupt institutions that mostly benefit those in power in the union rather than dues-paying members.

Of course that's the problem. People worry that they are too effective at getting benefits for those they represent to the detriment of everyone else (when you say "those in power", now you are just quibbling about exactly who they represent and to what extent) . It's the same reason people worry about every powerful institution.

[GreenGoo]

Huh. While I can see your point I've never looked at it that way and trying to now isn't really working. It could just be that I'm not looking at things from a macro enough perspective.

As Exodor says, public service unions fight to get benefits for their members that their employer is unlikely to provide voluntarily.

As a tax payer I'm sympathetic to the idea of government waste eating my tax dollars. As an employee I see it happening (I also see good work for good value, just so there's no confusion). As a beneficiary of a public service union, I am biased, admittedly. But I like to think I'm not rabidly biased. I'm the kind of guy that you could sell a pay cut to in order to keep the company afloat, so I'm not willing to bite the hand that feeds me. On the other hand as a worker, I understand the dynamic of trying to run any sort of organization while keeping costs down, and benefits for employees are liabilities. Reducing them is all part of managing.

There needs to be a balance. We have a GREAT pension plan. Insanely great. But pensions are all but gone from private industry, and governments are starting to hungrily eye public pensions too. If you're going to start mucking with my retirement planning, then you need to do it in such a way that you don't screw over my last 2 decades of planning. I am working at a (much) lower wage than my private industry counterparts, in part, due to that pension. If you're going to muck with it, don't hang me out to dry just because I valued conservative, steady employment rather than volatile but higher compensation employment. I fully expect my pension to be raided before I get access to it. It will suck, but I understand the reality, which is why I've put my maximum into other retirement savings vehicles too (Oh yes, I'm so very exciting with my money. It will be a great laugh when I die 1 day from retirement, having scrimped and saved in preparation for it).

Aside from the ramble, I think there needs to be a force pushing back, otherwise, for example, cost of living increases will stagnate because the public thinks those fatcats don't deserve any more. You'd be hard pressed to find any tax payer who would ever think a public servant deserved a raise, ever, no matter the state of the economy or how government salaries compare to industry averages. There are reasons, worse, even political reasons, to screw over employees. I don't like having one of the tools I can use to keep from getting screwed getting pulled out from under me by the very people who will be screwing me.

As an example, my salary results in somewhere around a 1% raise each year. No performance bonuses but I get the raise just by sitting in my seat. There's no room for negotiation at the individual level. They can't do it. Removing collective bargaining would hopefully implement individual bargaining, right? Which means you have individual managers negotiating salaries. I'm not a rocket scientist, but that seems like a very bad idea in public service. Did Wisconsin reinstate individual bargaining? If not, how is that supposed to work?

Without collective bargaining, my salary barely keeps up with cost of living, is way behind industry average, and my admittedly awesome benefits are no longer protected by providing a unified front.

I understand the goal is to reduce government spending. I just hope it doesn't result in stepping on the employees throats. They're people too, doing good work for below average wages, not some nameless, faceless government entity that you hate.

[Exodor]

So public sector unions are bad because they're too effective at getting benefits for those they represent?

Of course that's the problem. People worry that they are too effective at getting benefits for those they represent to the detriment of everyone else (when you say "those in power", now you are just quibbling about exactly who they represent and to what extent) . It's the same reason people worry about every powerful institution.

So the solution to a group effectively exercising their rights is to restrict those rights?


I wonder if we'll see similar arguments regarding free speech rights.

[Pyperkub]

So public sector unions are bad because they're too effective at getting benefits for those they represent?

Of course that's the problem. People worry that they are too effective at getting benefits for those they represent to the detriment of everyone else (when you say "those in power", now you are just quibbling about exactly who they represent and to what extent) . It's the same reason people worry about every powerful institution.

So the solution to a group effectively exercising their rights is to restrict those rights?


I wonder if we'll see similar arguments regarding free speech rights.

Only for those with money. Money = Speech after all

[Rip]

Thing is a business has customers that must be willing to pay enough to pay what unions want or the union members and the business owners are out on their asses. Except unfortunately when they become large enough they know they will get bailed out.

In State and especially federal employees they know the "employer" can take from the customer whatever it pleases. I consider denying collective bargaining in these instances as prudent. They are after all as they are so quick to point out "public servants". So just mark it up as something you give up for you country and community just like military people do.

[GreenGoo]

Thing is a business has customers that must be willing to pay enough to pay what unions want or the union members and the business owners are out on their asses. Except unfortunately when they become large enough they know they will get bailed out.

In State and especially federal employees they know the "employer" can take from the customer whatever it pleases. I consider denying collective bargaining in these instances as prudent. They are after all as they are so quick to point out "public servants". So just mark it up as something you give up for you country and community just like military people do.

Fair enough. If you think you're getting poor service now, just start whittling away at the good parts of being a public servant to see how quality of employment affects quality of work.

They've already given up something for their country. It's called salary. I don't know what other aspects of private industry/public service compare, but my salary in the last 2 technical jobs I've had as a public servant (code monkey, sysadmin) were paying significantly less than private industry. Unlike the US there are still jobs to be had up here. Asking me to give up more money might work. I'm not greedy. I see the country is in pain. I see waste. But don't tell me I should be more noble about my employ as you pick my pocket and despise me to my face or at least under your breath (not you specifically RIP).

Also I didn't really follow everything you said above RIP. Why are they quick to point out they're are public servants? Who's getting bailed out? Unions? As for salaries coming directly from tax payers, well, yeah, that's where the money comes from. If it helps the mindset you can consider it money for contracted services, rather than being robbed by the government. Or not. How would you determine what a fair public service wage would be? It sounds like you're saying public servants should be willing to sacrifice money for the honor of being public servants. Well, I DO feel I owe the public value (moreso than I feel I owe my boss) and I do try to provide quality work for my salary. But I've already sacrificed some salary. It's a tough sell when you tell me that it's not enough and that I should be paid less.

Now I get that I'm taking my situation and attempting to spread it across umpteen zillion jobs, workers and services. But that's all I've got to compare to or have a solid understanding of. I don't feel that my particular union is a runaway one, so maybe I'd feel differently if I caught them demanding insane raises during economic downturns or something.

[gbasden]

Fair enough. If you think you're getting poor service now, just start whittling away at the good parts of being a public servant to see how quality of employment affects quality of work.

They've already given up something for their country. It's called salary. I don't know what other aspects of private industry/public service compare, but my salary in the last 2 technical jobs I've had as a public servant (code monkey, sysadmin) were paying significantly less than private industry. Unlike the US there are still jobs to be had up here. Asking me to give up more money might work. I'm not greedy. I see the country is in pain. I see waste. But don't tell me I should be more noble about my employ as you pick my pocket and despise me to my face or at least under your breath (not you specifically RIP).

This. I work as a consultant in a CA State government office. It may localized to IT, but the government employees here work for well under market rate, and they do it because of the retirement benefits. Once you strip them of that, you will see an exodus of people out of government employment. Having a slow worker at the DMV is one thing. Having someone with little to no experience running the systems that process DMV registrations can cause a whole nother level of headaches.

[silverjon]

Much of what GreenGoo has to say applies to my public service job as well.

Maybe Canadian unions are just toothless compared to American ones, and we're happy if we get a little help out with the cost of a new pair of glasses once in a while.

[GreenGoo]

Much of what GreenGoo has to say applies to my public service job as well.

Maybe Canadian unions are just toothless compared to American ones, and we're happy if we get a little help out with the cost of a new pair of glasses once in a while.

I'm not even sure why my wife is unionized. She's a nurse, and they have one of the most spineless, weak-willed, farce of a unions I've had the displeasure to witness.

[LawBeefaroni]

Fair enough. If you think you're getting poor service now, just start whittling away at the good parts of being a public servant to see how quality of employment affects quality of work.

They've already given up something for their country. It's called salary. I don't know what other aspects of private industry/public service compare, but my salary in the last 2 technical jobs I've had as a public servant (code monkey, sysadmin) were paying significantly less than private industry. Unlike the US there are still jobs to be had up here. Asking me to give up more money might work. I'm not greedy. I see the country is in pain. I see waste. But don't tell me I should be more noble about my employ as you pick my pocket and despise me to my face or at least under your breath (not you specifically RIP).

This. I work as a consultant in a CA State government office. It may localized to IT, but the government employees here work for well under market rate, and they do it because of the retirement benefits. Once you strip them of that, you will see an exodus of people out of government employment. Having a slow worker at the DMV is one thing. Having someone with little to no experience running the systems that process DMV registrations can cause a whole nother level of headaches.

Pensions are guaranteed so they won't take them away from existing workers. They'll just offer them early retirement or for young ones, just just mark them off on the expense ledger. And then they'll do it like the USPS is starting to, hire new employees who get a decent salary and shit benefits (no pension, low health insurance).

It's what corporate America has been doing for years.

[Rip]

Thing is a business has customers that must be willing to pay enough to pay what unions want or the union members and the business owners are out on their asses. Except unfortunately when they become large enough they know they will get bailed out.

In State and especially federal employees they know the "employer" can take from the customer whatever it pleases. I consider denying collective bargaining in these instances as prudent. They are after all as they are so quick to point out "public servants". So just mark it up as something you give up for you country and community just like military people do.

Fair enough. If you think you're getting poor service now, just start whittling away at the good parts of being a public servant to see how quality of employment affects quality of work.

They've already given up something for their country. It's called salary. I don't know what other aspects of private industry/public service compare, but my salary in the last 2 technical jobs I've had as a public servant (code monkey, sysadmin) were paying significantly less than private industry. Unlike the US there are still jobs to be had up here. Asking me to give up more money might work. I'm not greedy. I see the country is in pain. I see waste. But don't tell me I should be more noble about my employ as you pick my pocket and despise me to my face or at least under your breath (not you specifically RIP).

Also I didn't really follow everything you said above RIP. Why are they quick to point out they're are public servants? Who's getting bailed out? Unions? As for salaries coming directly from tax payers, well, yeah, that's where the money comes from. If it helps the mindset you can consider it money for contracted services, rather than being robbed by the government. Or not. How would you determine what a fair public service wage would be? It sounds like you're saying public servants should be willing to sacrifice money for the honor of being public servants. Well, I DO feel I owe the public value (moreso than I feel I owe my boss) and I do try to provide quality work for my salary. But I've already sacrificed some salary. It's a tough sell when you tell me that it's not enough and that I should be paid less.

Now I get that I'm taking my situation and attempting to spread it across umpteen zillion jobs, workers and services. But that's all I've got to compare to or have a solid understanding of. I don't feel that my particular union is a runaway one, so maybe I'd feel differently if I caught them demanding insane raises during economic downturns or something.

The bailout I am referring to is the auto industry for instance. They were forced by the unions to give pay/benefits that were unsustainable and then when the wheels started coming off ran to the taxpayer to keep them solvent. The issues were foreseeable but the unions didn't really give a shit whether they were able to make a profit.

As far as public servants most of them are no more highly qualified than working at taco john's sure there are some but I am confident those with skills will still be able to negotiate a reasonable salary and at the point the private sector pays enough more they will have to live with unfilled positions or raise the pay. I am fine with public servants being at the lower end of skill set in their professions. In most cases they are that way already and the union makes sure you have to pay them the same or more as the more talented and skilled new hires.

[Rip]

Fair enough. If you think you're getting poor service now, just start whittling away at the good parts of being a public servant to see how quality of employment affects quality of work.

They've already given up something for their country. It's called salary. I don't know what other aspects of private industry/public service compare, but my salary in the last 2 technical jobs I've had as a public servant (code monkey, sysadmin) were paying significantly less than private industry. Unlike the US there are still jobs to be had up here. Asking me to give up more money might work. I'm not greedy. I see the country is in pain. I see waste. But don't tell me I should be more noble about my employ as you pick my pocket and despise me to my face or at least under your breath (not you specifically RIP).

This. I work as a consultant in a CA State government office. It may localized to IT, but the government employees here work for well under market rate, and they do it because of the retirement benefits. Once you strip them of that, you will see an exodus of people out of government employment. Having a slow worker at the DMV is one thing. Having someone with little to no experience running the systems that process DMV registrations can cause a whole nother level of headaches.

So what is that 1000 slow DMV workers for every one skilled person running the systems. Easy as an administrator I cut the 1000 by 20% and give half to the few jobs where I actually need good people.

[Exodor]

The bailout I am referring to is the auto industry for instance. They were forced by the unions to give pay/benefits that were unsustainable and then when the wheels started coming off ran to the taxpayer to keep them solvent.

Forced? How?

I keep reading about unions as if they're some irresistible force that can simply get everything they want. Union leaders are not Ben Kenobi, they can't just wave a hand and get whatever they wish - someone had to agree to whatever benefits they won yet the blame always falls on the unions for "forcing" big business to provide pensions and health benefits.

There's no doubt that public pensions are unsustainable and that the auto makers had huge health-care cost problems - but to place all the blame on the unions is silly. They won those benefits at the negotiating table.

Instead of arguing that politicians should take a harder line at the table Walker just upturned the table completely.

[Rip]

The bailout I am referring to is the auto industry for instance. They were forced by the unions to give pay/benefits that were unsustainable and then when the wheels started coming off ran to the taxpayer to keep them solvent.

Forced? How?

I keep reading about unions as if they're some irresistible force that can simply get everything they want. Union leaders are not Ben Kenobi, they can't just wave a hand and get whatever they wish - someone had to agree to whatever benefits they won yet the blame always falls on the unions for "forcing" big business to provide pensions and health benefits.

There's no doubt that public pensions are unsustainable and that the auto makers had huge health-care cost problems - but to place all the blame on the unions is silly. They won those benefits at the negotiating table.

Instead of arguing that politicians should take a harder line at the table Walker just upturned the table completely.

Forced in that they can't say you are asking for to much so you are all fired and we will hire and train new employees. The way I would handle my employees (if I had any anymore) if they asked for more than I felt the business could afford.

[Exodor]

Forced in that they can't say you are asking for to much so you are all fired and we will hire and train new employees. The way I would handle my employees (if I had any anymore) if they asked for more than I felt the business could afford.

Maybe I'm not familiar with how collective bargaining works in Wisconsin but why can't they tell the unions to fuck off if they ask for 20% raises and full pensions?

Instead of out-bargaining them they're just taking away their right to participate in the discussion at all. It's a weak out for a group that can't seem to say "no" the big, mean unions.


It's like if the DAs in California got tired of being pwned by Fed and instead of upping their game tried to have him disbarred.

[Rip]

Forced in that they can't say you are asking for to much so you are all fired and we will hire and train new employees. The way I would handle my employees (if I had any anymore) if they asked for more than I felt the business could afford.

Maybe I'm not familiar with how collective bargaining works in Wisconsin but why can't they tell the unions to fuck off if they ask for 20% raises and full pensions?

Instead of out-bargaining them they're just taking away their right to participate in the discussion at all. It's a weak out for a group that can't seem to say "no" the big, mean unions.


It's like if the DAs in California got tired of being pwned by Fed and instead of upping their game tried to have him disbarred.

Because then they get this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI16Zo_eAR8

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja ... c-hostage/

[Mr. Fed]

Maybe I'm not familiar with how collective bargaining works in Wisconsin but why can't they tell the unions to fuck off if they ask for 20% raises and full pensions?

Because there's no money in it.

Unions give vast amounts in donations for -- and against -- candidates, all in service of "give us what we want."

By contrast, there's no constituency giving vast amount of money to candidates to be tough in bargaining against unions.

When GM and Ford bargain against auto workers, the countervailing financial interest is built-in: GM and Ford are playing with their own money.

Whereas the people in state capitols are playing with taxpayer money, and can always tax more, or run a higher deficit.

It's like P.J. O'Rourke's hierarchy of spending, which goes something like this: When we spend our own money on ourselves, we care about price and quality. This is how middle-aged men spend money on cars. When we spend other people's money on ourselves, we care about quality but not price. That's how the middle-aged men's trophy girlfriends spend their money. When we spend our money on others, we care about price but less about quality. That's how grandmothers buy us underwear for Christmas. And then there's spending other people's money on other people -- in which case who gives a shit?

[PLW]

Interesting fact from here:

But which groups-of all special interest groups of all types- were the nation's top contributors to federal elections from 1989 to 2009? Answer: teacher unions.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Mr. Fed nailed it.

The fundamental problem with public sector unions is that they inevitably insist upon creating laws, and electing politicians, to serve their interests -- which often comes at the expense of the common good.

In the private sector, unions are a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they helped create. But government workers do not generate profits. They simply negotiate for more tax money. The problem being, as Daniel Disalvo writes:

When it comes to advancing their interests, public-sector unions have significant advantages over traditional unions. For one thing, using the political process, they can exert far greater influence over their members' employers — that is, government — than private-sector unions can. Through their extensive political activity, these government-workers' unions help elect the very politicians who will act as "management" in their contract negotiations — in effect handpicking those who will sit across the bargaining table from them, in a way that workers in a private corporation (like, say, American Airlines or the Washington Post Company) cannot. Such power led Victor Gotbaum, the leader of District Council 37 of the AFSCME in New York City, to brag in 1975: "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss."

Since public-sector unions began to develop in earnest, their importance in political campaigns has grown by leaps and bounds. Starting from almost nothing in the 1960s, government-workers' unions now far exceed private-sector unions in political contributions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, from 1989 to 2004, the AFSCME was the biggest spender in America, giving nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections (98.5% of it to Democrats). It is important to stress that this was spending on federal elections; the union represents mostly state and local workers. But given the magnitude of federal contributions to state budgets, the AFSCME is heavily involved in electioneering to shape Washington's spending in ways that protect public workers and the supply of government services. And so over that 15-year period, the AFSCME was willing and able to outspend any other organization in the country.

And that's why, as he also writes, even President F.D.R. and George Meany, the first president of the AFL-CIO, drew a line when it came to the collective bargaining of government workers:

Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to 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." Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

[Defiant]

Only been skimming through but...

The fundamental problem with public sector unions is that they inevitably insist upon creating laws, and electing politicians, to serve their interests -- which often comes at the expense of the common good.

This would also be the fundamental problem of people.

[Exodor]

By contrast, there's no constituency giving vast amount of money to candidates to be tough in bargaining against unions.

Other than the voters who pay taxes. I think being able to claim you saved X tax dollars by standing up to the unions is an electoral winner. Walker constantly trumpets the savings he's achieved after kneecapping the unions.

The fundamental problem with public sector unions is that they inevitably insist upon creating laws, and electing politicians, to serve their interests -- which often comes at the expense of the common good.

"The common good" as interpreted by whom?

Michael Bloomberg thinks the common good requires restricting access to large sodas. Lots of idiotic liberals think having the FCC censor Hannity and Rush would serve the common good. A frightening number of people want to restrict the rights of gays or other minority groups "for the common good." I'm pretty resistant about restricting rights based on someone's conception of "the common good."

Every actor in the political arena insists on creating laws and electing politicians to serve their interests. Why are public workers different from everyone else? Because politicians are too craven to stand up to their union reps?


This is more of a theoretical discussion for me than anything. I recognize that public employees often have costly benefits that are far in excess of anything seen in the private sector. I just struggle with the idea that they should have fewer rights than everyone else simply because they choose to be a teacher or a fire fighter.

[gbasden]

Pensions are guaranteed so they won't take them away from existing workers. They'll just offer them early retirement or for young ones, just just mark them off on the expense ledger. And then they'll do it like the USPS is starting to, hire new employees who get a decent salary and shit benefits (no pension, low health insurance).

It's what corporate America has been doing for years.

Well, yes and no. The employees are not only getting furloughed, but are having to absorb larger and larger contributions to retirement every year. They are chiseling that benefit away even for long time workers.

[GreenGoo]

The bailout I am referring to is the auto industry for instance. They were forced by the unions to give pay/benefits that were unsustainable and then when the wheels started coming off ran to the taxpayer to keep them solvent. The issues were foreseeable but the unions didn't really give a shit whether they were able to make a profit.

The solution to that is let the unions take their medicine, not pour public money into a corporation. If they bite the hand that feeds them badly enough that the hand dies, perhaps they'll be more flexible if they are ever lucky enough to be employed again.

And that's a weird example since we're talking public service unions, not decades old private unions formed during the industry's heyday.

[GreenGoo]

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja ... c-hostage/

The main gist of that article seems to be that unions are bad because unions go on strike and then he can't get to work or have the fire on his house put out.

Well, duh. What bargaining chips do employees have outside of a strike?

I get that strikes are unpleasant. They are supposed to be. If they weren't uncomfortable no one would care and they wouldn't be too useful in the negotiating room, now would they?

Strikes, even with strike pay, are major burdens for the strikers. Bankruptcy seems haunt an awful lot of strikers.

I'm not a huge fan of unions, and I would prefer not to take the PRO side of this debate, but when I see articles like the one above I have to wonder what the dude is thinking. Striking is inconvenient? Um, ok? Legislate away a union's right to strike because it annoys you? That should fix the problem.

[silverjon]

Do they not have essential services legislation in place?

Oh yeah. Right. Laws are bad.

[GreenGoo]

Do they not have essential services legislation in place?

Oh yeah. Right. Laws are bad.

I didn't want to get into the whole legislate them back to work side of things either.

[silverjon]

Do they not have essential services legislation in place?

Oh yeah. Right. Laws are bad.

I didn't want to get into the whole legislate them back to work side of things either.

It's a fine line to walk, but I was looking at the "jeopardizing public safety" argument in the article. I've never known a strike to actually endanger lives. Inconvenience, yes. Actively harm the public, not so much.

[Anonymous Bosch]

The fundamental problem with public sector unions is that they inevitably insist upon creating laws, and electing politicians, to serve their interests -- which often comes at the expense of the common good.

"The common good" as interpreted by whom?

Voters in Wisconsin, San Diego, and San Jose, to name but a few. As the professor concludes in the above-linked article regarding the trouble with public sector unions:

It is true that ending government workers' ability to organize is politically inconceivable today in the states where it exists. But if states' and cities' fiscal ills grow painful enough, the unthinkable could someday become political necessity. For all Americans — including public-sector employees — it would of course be better if the situation did not reach that point of catastrophe. We can all hope that a robust economic revival will take the pressure off of states and cities and give policymakers more room to maneuver. If such a rapid recovery is not forthcoming, though, the most appealing solution will be for everyone to re-enter the real world — if only public officials and public-sector unions can be sensible enough to try.

"Reaching a point of catastrophe" = detrimental to the common good, and voters in Wisconsin, San Diego, and San Jose, would all seem inclined to agree (and they can hardly all be dismissed as rabid anti-union extremist types). Alas, since the rapid and robust economic revival DiSalvo hopes for seems somewhat unlikely anytime soon to say the least, I would not be surprised to see voters in other states and cities following the precedents set in the landslide support for pension cuts in San Diego and San Jose (and even Walker's restrictions on collective bargaining by public sector unions).

[stessier]

Actively harm the public, not so much.

Guess it depends on your definition of "actively harm", but teacher strikes are not completely uncommon and they certainly aren't helping the kids by giving them a couple weeks/months off.

[GreenGoo]

Actively harm the public, not so much.

Guess it depends on your definition of "actively harm", but teacher strikes are not completely uncommon and they certainly aren't helping the kids by giving them a couple weeks/months off.

The article talks about endangering peoples lives when the cops or firefighters go on strike.

Kids missing some school is probably a few orders of magnitude below that, especially if we subtract the "won't somebody think of the children" factor.

Silverjon was referencing actual, physical harm. Which all but unheard of up here. I'm sure somewhere at some point in time a union strike put the public at risk of physical harm, but it is not the norm and not even possible the extremely large majority of the time.

I get this vibe from media, comments here, other aspects of exposure to American culture. It's like everyone who's not you (the individual) is the enemy. I can understand *some* people in a union being willing to watch a building burn to the ground with people inside despite it being their job (I call those people sociopaths), because they are on strike, but there is NO WAY. I mean literally impossible, for a union up here to let that sort of thing happen. Besides the laws preventing it, people here (on the whole) just aren't willing to let other people die to increase their bargaining power. The very tone of the article is laughable, at least from a Canadian perspective. And even if the union was willing to do something so heinous, the public backlash would be so extreme that the union would be done. Either smashed by legislation or simply public pressured into oblivion. Anyone left would be a pariah.

If we're going to use "kids missing school" as a measuring stick for whether a strike causes harm, then all strikes cause harm. That's pretty much their purpose. Striking should be a last resort as well. It shouldn't be a guaranteed Step 3b in the negotiating process. Sometimes I wonder if either side of the table knows that.

[GreenGoo]

I would not be surprised to see voters in other states and cities following the precedents set in the landslide support for pension cuts in San Diego and San Jose (and even Walker's restrictions on collective bargaining by public sector unions).

I actually expect that, and think it's a good thing. It will give states a chance to loosen the grip the unions have, but also give the public a taste of the consequences of reducing a labour forces ability to negotiate with its employer.

As I said, if people are unhappy with the service they get now, it should get interesting when they make it less pleasant to work in jobs that provide those services. Being a public servant is already fun when the general opinion of the public is that they hate you. It's like being a doctor/nurse for a patient who just wants to die and is pissed at you for doing your job. My job is supporting our troops on operations. Actual lives are at stake. But thanks for making me feel like a parasite on society. You can see why suggesting I take an additional pay cut for the honor of serving the public might not be the best way to motivate me or others.

If the government's plan is to privatize a lot of the services the government is providing right now, then this is a great way to do it. Public is upset, hurt public work force. The public is more upset from backlash from work force, fire work force and give cash to cronies in private sector. That'll make the msd's of the world happy, and if done ethically might even have some advantages. My admittedly limited experience in this area is that the advantages won't materialize, the costs will double but be hidden from direct view, requiring an audit to track accurately, service will remain iffy, but those who hate the government will be happy. As I said, I can't speak for every success or story of failure, but my time spent in public service has not given me confidence in the private sector's ability to be more efficient at providing service for the tax payer's dollar.

Can you imagine a private company, telling their staff that their customer service sucks, so as a way to deliver those services more efficiently, we're cutting your future opportunities for pay raises. Oh, and bonuses don't exist. And don't get too attached to your pensions. Ok, everyone, let's get to work and do a great job!

Fear of losing your job can be motivating, but in the end it's just morale breaking at which point everyone just sorts of gives up. Working with a dagger hanging over you is not the best way to get quality work out of people. Or so my education and experience tell me. That said, the government could use more stick in their carrot/stick arsenal.

[noxiousdog]

Other than the voters who pay taxes. I think being able to claim you saved X tax dollars by standing up to the unions is an electoral winner. Walker constantly trumpets the savings he's achieved after kneecapping the unions.

It depends. Saving X tax dollars is often nebulous as it's preventing a rise in costs in most of these cases, not actually reducing spending. In addition, if it doesn't translate into lower taxes, who cares?

On the other side, you have teachers and police unions saying how terrible the current politician is.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, yes and no. The employees are not only getting furloughed, but are having to absorb larger and larger contributions to retirement every year. They are chiseling that benefit away even for long time workers.

What is already vested is guaranteed. If future benefits are changed, that's different and they can do that. But we're getting at the same thing. Reduction of benefits. I don't think that you'll see the mass exodus in this economic climate though because some is still better than none.


Another problem is that much of the pensions are underfunded and they can't make that up by lowering future benefits. That's a timebomb for another day.

[GreenGoo]

Well, yes and no. The employees are not only getting furloughed, but are having to absorb larger and larger contributions to retirement every year. They are chiseling that benefit away even for long time workers.

What is already vested is guaranteed. If future benefits are changed, that's different and they can do that. But we're getting at the same thing. Reduction of benefits. I don't think that you'll see the mass exodus in this economic climate though because some is still better than none.
.

You keep saying guaranteed. By who? I don't know the specifics of pensions down there, but the government of Wisconsin just pulled one of the bargaining chips off the table for their employees. Do we really know how many hands and arms they are going to tie behind the employees backs before "negotiating" with them?

I agree that the risk to current pensions is small. But you seem to think they are sacrosanct, and I'm just wondering what makes you think that the entity that is responsible for the pensions, which is also responsible for the laws governing the pensions, is beholden to something which prevents them from savaging the pensions.

They just made it much harder for employees to negotiate by changing the law. When you control what's legal or illegal, who watches the pension guarantee?

[GreenGoo]

Another problem is that much of the pensions are underfunded and they can't make that up by lowering future benefits. That's a timebomb for another day.

For the record, when I was reading more about this when it first came to light, the Wisconsin public service pensions were well funded and robust when Walker came to town. He then (intentionally? I don't recall) created a budgetary crisis and pointed at the pensions (which were well funded and basically self sufficient) as the root cause. Whether you agree with his goals or not, that's pretty low politics imo.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, yes and no. The employees are not only getting furloughed, but are having to absorb larger and larger contributions to retirement every year. They are chiseling that benefit away even for long time workers.

What is already vested is guaranteed. If future benefits are changed, that's different and they can do that. But we're getting at the same thing. Reduction of benefits. I don't think that you'll see the mass exodus in this economic climate though because some is still better than none.
.

You keep saying guaranteed. By who? I don't know the specifics of pensions down there, but the government of Wisconsin just pulled one of the bargaining chips off the table for their employees. Do we really know how many hands and arms they are going to tie behind the employees backs before "negotiating" with them?

I agree that the risk to current pensions is small. But you seem to think they are sacrosanct, and I'm just wondering what makes you think that the entity that is responsible for the pensions, which is also responsible for the laws governing the pensions, is beholden to something which prevents them from savaging the pensions.

They just made it much harder for employees to negotiate by changing the law. When you control what's legal or illegal, who watches the pension guarantee?

I'm talking about pension benefits for which you have contributed and are vested. They are yours. If they take them away it's essentially a default. I'm not talking about the right to a pension or a certain pension. There is no gaurantee for future pensions benefits (aside from appreciation of existing principal), just an expectation.

[GreenGoo]

I'm talking about pension benefits for which you have contributed and are vested. They are yours. If they take them away it's essentially a default. I'm not talking about the right to a pension or a certain pension. There is no gaurantee for future pensions benefits (aside from appreciation of existing principal), just an expectation.

Yep, my mistake. My contributions are meager compared to other contributions.

I was thinking about the pension as a whole (what it's currently worth) versus the portion of the pension comprised of my personal contributions.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Another exemplification of public sector unions being detrimental to the common good:

San Jose police officers and firefighters Wednesday made good on promises to legally challenge San Jose's voter-approved pension reform with a pair of lawsuits filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

San Jose voters Tuesday approved Measure B by a nearly 70-percent margin. Mayor Chuck Reed championed the measure to control pension costs that have soared from $73 million to $245 million in a decade and are projected to continue rising, outpacing revenues and forcing the city to cut staffing and services to residents to cover the bill.

But unions maintained the measure violates court rulings that prohibit government employers from reducing workers' pension benefits during their career without offering something comparable in return.

"Measure B is unlawful and unconstitutional," said Christopher Platten, an attorney for the firefighters. "Measure B impairs promises made to current and retired San Jose employees for decades."

In other words, even if it means "Every San Jose branch library shuttered. All city community center programs shut down. No more school crossing guards or park rangers. Even fewer cops.", public sector union pension benefits should seemingly remain unmodified in perpetuity, will of the voters be damned.

[GreenGoo]

Sigh.

Just because you go broke does not mean you get to tell the bank you're not going to be able to pay your mortgage any longer and still keep your house.

When negotiations break down, and one side passes laws to screw over the other side, you think it's unreasonable to use to the law to fight back?

I sure as hell didn't see a whole lot of execs voluntarily giving up their bonuses during the financial meltdown, even when those bonuses were being paid out of bailout money. Expecting people to give up compensation out of the goodness of their hearts just because they have a public service job is unfair and unacceptably naive.

I mentioned Rip's comments about sacrificing for the honor of being a public servant to a few of my co-workers, and that didn't go over well too well.

Should the firemen and police lose some or all of their pensions? I don't know, I don't know enough about the situation. But to blame them for having a legally binding contract that guarantees compensation when their employer is having financial difficulties seems a bit misguided.

Do I think employees should sacrifice when their employer is struggling? Personally, I think yes, there has to be some give and take. But there are plenty of people in private industry who would laugh at the very idea of personal sacrifice for the company. The age of 50 years of service and loyalty are gone.

I get that you think public service is "special". I think it's "special" too. But plenty of people look at it like it's just another job. And they are right too. Thinking they are bad people for playing hardball over their compensation is again, unfair.

I might be able to get behind the idea that it's a bad idea for police to strike, and to criticize them for it. I don't even think they are legally allowed to strike up here. I can't get irate when they fight for a contract that was legally signed in good faith by both sides, when one side decides to change the law so the contract is no longer valid. That's not good faith. That's dirty pool. Perhaps dirty pool is the only option they had left. I'm not predisposed to crap on either side of this without knowing more.

I'm not pro union, but I don't think unions are inherently bad or a problem. Perhaps they have grown to have too much power down there, and perhaps some legislation is in order to break their stranglehold over their employer. The answer is not to put the employee in a position of weakness, because that just reverses the situation and causes labour unrest.

The idea that public service compensation should be based on voter opinion is something I struggle with. There's a whole slew of reasons why it's a bad idea, and very few for it being a good one.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Sigh.

Just because you go broke does not mean you get to tell the bank you're not going to be able to pay your mortgage any longer and still keep your house.

When negotiations break down, and one side passes laws to screw over the other side, you think it's unreasonable to use to the law to fight back?

I sure as hell didn't see a whole lot of execs voluntarily giving up their bonuses during the financial meltdown, even when those bonuses were being paid out of bailout money. Expecting people to give up compensation out of the goodness of their hearts just because they have a public service job is unfair and unacceptably naive.

I mentioned Rip's comments about sacrificing for the honor of being a public servant to a few of my co-workers, and that didn't go over well too well.

Should the firemen and police lose some or all of their pensions? I don't know, I don't know enough about the situation. But to blame them for having a legally binding contract that guarantees compensation when their employer is having financial difficulties seems a bit misguided.

Do I think employees should sacrifice when their employer is struggling? Personally, I think yes, there has to be some give and take. But there are plenty of people in private industry who would laugh at the very idea of personal sacrifice for the company. The age of 50 years of service and loyalty are gone.

I get that you think public service is "special". I think it's "special" too. But plenty of people look at it like it's just another job. And they are right too. Thinking they are bad people for playing hardball over their compensation is again, unfair.

I might be able to get behind the idea that it's a bad idea for police to strike, and to criticize them for it. I don't even think they are legally allowed to strike up here. I can't get irate when they fight for a contract that was legally signed in good faith by both sides, when one side decides to change the law so the contract is no longer valid. That's not good faith. That's dirty pool. Perhaps dirty pool is the only option they had left. I'm not predisposed to crap on either side of this without knowing more.

I'm not pro union, but I don't think unions are inherently bad or a problem. Perhaps they have grown to have too much power down there, and perhaps some legislation is in order to break their stranglehold over their employer. The answer is not to put the employee in a position of weakness, because that just reverses the situation and causes labour unrest.

The idea that public service compensation should be based on voter opinion is something I struggle with. There's a whole slew of reasons why it's a bad idea, and very few for it being a good one.

They can certainly waste more tax dollars in a legal squabble over whether their pension benefits can ever be reduced during their careers. Though that would still seem rather detrimental to the common good, in a city that has already had to lay off police officers and other city employees, close firehouses, reduce library hours, and cut maintenance of parks and streets. Alas, generous public employee pensions approved during good times are simply unsustainable, both politically and economically. Their costs have tripled in a decade even as the number of employees has shrunk. And as the old aphorism goes, when something is unsustainable it will, by definition, no longer continue.

A more moderate course from the unions on pensions would help balance the budgets, preserve services, and perhaps even preserve much of the power of the unions. But even if the unions win in court, it's likely to be a Pyrrhic victory at best. The next election cycle would simply produce ballot measures that would result in state constitutional changes that would not only make the pension reforms legal, but possibly bring forth right-to-work collective bargaining rules, and union dues campaign spending rules that could undo the unions in a much more fundamental way. Bankrupting the government at every level with runaway pensions, while insisting on a monarchical level of entitlement for those pensions, is just plain political suicide. One need only look at the overwhelming election results for Measure B, in a union town and Democratic Party stronghold, for evidence.