Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Victory For Wisconsin: Court Upholds Union Limits  
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s contentious law stripping most public workers of nearly all of their collective bargaining rights in a decision hailed by Republicans but not undoing a state court ruling keeping much of the law from being in effect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...-11e2-a2bd-7e4099229686_story.html

Symbolically, this is pretty huge and hopefully the start of a trend throughout the US.

Public unions have put a stranglehold on budgets across the 50 states with bloated pension schemes, inflated pay and the like. I'm not saying for a second that legislators don't share the blame since they signed off on such agreements - but the impetus came from public unions in most cases if you ask labor experts.

Law enforcement personnel, teachers, ATCs, etc do have difficult jobs that should be well-paid, but these individuals should be on the hook to adequately prepare for their retirement needs the same as anyone in the private sector. This is just plain common sense. Pension obligations that pay these workers 1/2 or even up to 3/4 of their final salaries in public service are flat out unsustainable.

Let's put aside for the moment the idea that individuals in public service jobs don't even need unions when looking at the original purpose of unionization in America. The bottom line is something needs to be done about out of control budgets, and this is a good step in that direction.

[Edited 2013-01-19 17:57:12]


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
95 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Law enforcement personnel, teachers, ATCs, etc do have difficult jobs that should be well-paid, but these individuals should be on the hook to adequately prepare for their retirement needs the same as anyone in the private sector.

It might be just as reasonable to ask why private sector workers don't have these same protections. Sometimes it almost feels spiteful- "these people have secured a decent job and financial future, we'd better put a stop to that."

Also, California is getting ready to turn a surplus and they are crazy with public sector unions, while many other states, including those with these anti-union measures, are deep in the red, so I don't think you've adequately proven your point.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Symbolically, this is pretty huge and hopefully the start of a trend throughout the US.

Public unions have put a stranglehold on budgets across the 50 states with bloated pension schemes, inflated pay and the like. I'm not saying for a second that legislators don't share the blame since they signed off on such agreements - but the impetus came from public unions in most cases if you ask labor experts.

  
Public employee unions are not a good thing, they essentially get to vote for the people they will be negotiating with. And add to that, unlike a private corporation, in general municipalities will not go bankrupt as they have "the power of the purse" with access to tax revenue. Politicians often (have) sweetened benefits that will come due "down the road" in order to secure votes now. This is what has gotten so many municipalities into trouble. Because of this I am very much against PEU's and what happened in Wisconsin addressed the most egregious elements of them.

In truth I do not ever remember hearing of horrible working conditions for public employees that would have needed a union to correct. Today they really just extract more wages and benefits rather than redress detrimental working conditions.


Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Law enforcement personnel,

The one comment I will make is that I do not mind properly/well compensated law enforcement as it makes it more difficult for a pervasive culture of bribery to become established (I did not say it could happen, just that it is more difficult). We all know that if law enforcement does not pay then crime will, it is a problem in much of the world.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6638 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Law enforcement personnel, teachers, ATCs, etc do have difficult jobs that should be well-paid

The problem is that many of those positions aren't well-paid. The pension was supposed to help make up for the fact that the pay was sub-par. And in some careers, like fire/law enforcement, the pension makes up for the shorter than average career expectancy due to the nature of the work. So, if you kill the pension, you make these careers less desirable.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Pension obligations that pay these workers 1/2 or even up to 3/4 of their final salaries in public service are flat out unsustainable.

Not necessarily. If the pensions are properly funded and administered, there wouldn't be such a problem. However, many states chose to underfund their pensions even when they had the money to fund them. You forget that during the boom economic times, many of the states contributed almost NOTHING to their pension plans. Unfortunately, this came back to bite them when times got tough.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
individuals should be on the hook to adequately prepare for their retirement needs the same as anyone in the private sector.

Unfortunately, early evidence is showing that few people are doing this successfully. Most people have next to nothing in their 401k's. They get eaten alive by fees. They don't understand the funds they have available to them and/or are offered terrible funds by their employer. And when they get desperate, say after losing a job, they tend to raid their 401k's only making matters worse in the long run. Barring an unlikely change, the 401k will go down in history as one of the biggest failures in economics.


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Also, budgetary requirements and conflicts of interests are reasonable concerns, but I really don't like the argument that collective bargaining ability, in the public or the private sectors, should be defined by whether or not the workers in question "need" it. Who the heck sets that standard?

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21680 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 3034 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
Public employee unions are not a good thing, they essentially get to vote for the people they will be negotiating with.

So do private businesses.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 3028 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 1):
It might be just as reasonable to ask why private sector workers don't have these same protections. Sometimes it almost feels spiteful- "these people have secured a decent job and financial future, we'd better put a stop to that."

Are you suggesting working folks should be guaranteed enough money to live on when they are no longer working, without any responsibility for how they conduct their own spending?

In other words, do you replace all the allowance money your kid wasted when they come asking to have it back?

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 1):
Also, California is getting ready to turn a surplus and they are crazy with public sector unions, while many other states, including those with these anti-union measures, are deep in the red, so I don't think you've adequately proven your point.

Ask yourself how California got out of its $16 billion hole. Mostly by deferring interest payments on some $40 billion in state debt that is still due. Putting state employees on furlough and increasing university fees 30% in 5 years has helped a bit too. The pension problem remains a huge part of this.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
The problem is that many of those positions aren't well-paid. The pension was supposed to help make up for the fact that the pay was sub-par.

The way government jobs usually pay based on locality makes sense to me. Why should a cop in Butte, CA make anywhere near what one in San Diego does?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
However, many states chose to underfund their pensions even when they had the money to fund them.

That legislators squarely deserve blame for.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
Unfortunately, early evidence is showing that few people are doing this successfully. Most people have next to nothing in their 401k's.

It's not only 401Ks. Despite far less job security than in the 1950s and 60s, middle class Americans are still hell bent on spending above their means, evidenced by $200 monthly cable+smartphone bills, foreclosures, and the like. Pensions wouldn't be necessary if people were exercising more household restraint.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39906 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week ago) and read 3029 times:

I wonder what Mike (the Crying Man) is going through now. He had some very strong opinions after the failed recall election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy8FSyI_Djg

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

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Symbolically, this is pretty huge and hopefully the start of a trend throughout the US.


Already is happening. The Democratic mayor of San Jose, California did the same thing and there were no protest, riots, media attention or recall elections.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
Are you suggesting working folks should be guaranteed enough money to live on when they are no longer working, without any responsibility for how they conduct their own spending?

To live? For sure. I don't want the elderly starving in the streets. My point was this: part of the reason these anti-union measures have taken off has been the high cost of pensions, but part of it has on occasion been punishing public employee unions for existing, sometimes using rhetoric that begrudges the very idea that they should get the benefits that they do. Before the Wisconsin measures came to pass, the unions that they were opposed to were offering major concessions.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
Ask yourself how California got out of its $16 billion hole. Mostly by deferring interest payments on some $40 billion in state debt that is still due. Putting state employees on furlough and increasing university fees 30% in 5 years has helped a bit too. The pension problem remains a huge part of this.

This is what has happened for several years in the state. Deep cuts to very important public services, and moving around payments to make temporary situations more appealing. Certainly some of the more intransigent unions have something to do with this (the prison guards come to mind) but I feel it owes more to a gradual economic recovery than to most of what our policymakers have been able to accomplish that we're moving towards the black. On a local level, you also have to factor in the cost of providing public services versus the temporary revenue of granting new development and the growing and shrinking of the property tax take, which is very much based on the strength of the local economy. Though on the local level you also find some of the largest excesses of workers finding ways to game the system.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6609 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
Public employee unions are not a good thing,

Unlike private sector?

Doesnt the NFL and the NHL and have unions too? Its all fun and games when they strike. - Less people care -



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6638 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2969 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
Pensions wouldn't be necessary if people were exercising more household restraint.

Even if you cut down on spending, it wouldn't be enough. Most middle/lower income American's don't make enough. To make a 401k really work, you need to be saving 20% of your income....not really feasible when much of the population makes between 20k-40k.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
Pensions wouldn't be necessary if people were exercising more household restraint.

Even WWII era folks (who grew up in the Depression and were notoriously frugal) would have struggled to retire if not for pensions. My grandmother was very frugal and never wasted a dime, but without a pension her retirement would have been pretty bleak...particularly since she has lived far longer than expected (she's 91).


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8634 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

Mostly, it is about the rate of return promised by pensions. This high promised rate of return gives a big promised pension with hardly any contribution by the worker. This is the explosive part of the contracts.

In California or Illinois, there are plenty of cops making $300k per year when you include pensions, amortized at more realistic rates of return. That is more than some cardiologists make. Is is flat out stupid. It is wrong to tax people just because government workers have the power to tax via their cronies in local government. It is a model destined to fail. Wisconsin is showing a healthy survival instinct here.

If I don't have the power to tax and get rich, I don't want joe down the street to have that power over me.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21680 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
In California or Illinois, there are plenty of cops making $300k per year when you include pensions, amortized at more realistic rates of return. That is more than some cardiologists make. Is is flat out stupid.

It absolutely is. But remember that police and firefighters unions are often untouched by government cuts for some inexplicable reason, so instead the budget is balanced on the backs of those other unions whose members don't make that much. Maybe some school administrators make $300k, but I'm not aware of any teachers that do. So the government would seem to be barking up the wrong tree if they want to cut pension costs.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):
It is wrong to tax people just because government workers have the power to tax via their cronies in local government. It is a model destined to fail.

Government workers aren't the only ones with cronies in local government.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8634 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

Mir, the guts of what I said is that govt workers should be paid like everybody else. No games. If cops want $300k a year, let them put that on the table just like we (non pension) workers do. Then let's see if we can replace those cops with more qualified individuals for $150k per year. And so on. That is how these problems get solved...


Union teachers are typically around $100k when you include pensions. In Milwaukee during the Scott Walker protests, the cost per teacher was >$100k when you include even the very low pension allocations and health care. The real HR cost is probably a good deal higher than $100k by the time the pensions go out.

Not saying teachers should get paid poorly. But let's offer a $100k cash package to every new applicant. Will there be a shortage of qualified teachers? Nope. Even at $90k and no pension, you could get fabulous applicants in Milwaukee. So, why aren't they doing that?

Because the union would never go for that. Their interest is in protecting the existing club of union members, not society.

[Edited 2013-01-20 11:45:54]

User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2869 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 1):
It might be just as reasonable to ask why private sector workers don't have these same protections.

Because the employers of private sector workers don't have the power to send someone to jail if they fail to purchase their widgets?

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
Politicians often (have) sweetened benefits that will come due "down the road" in order to secure votes now. This is what has gotten so many municipalities into trouble

I work with many life insurance companies. If any of my clients ran their business as the trustees of municipal, state or federal pension plans run theirs (and for all intents and purposes the two businesses are functionally similar) they would be in jail, as simple as that. But because you work for the government, making unrealistic assumptions for your reserving, not having any sort of capital in the business and running massively risky investment portfolios (often invested in your own securities) is somehow acceptable.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
Barring an unlikely change, the 401k will go down in history as one of the biggest failures in economics.

The 401k will likely go down in history as what saved the economy, by facilitating job mobility, equalizing access to retirement products by employees of small businesses and allowing people to keep what is theirs in the case of a bankruptcy by the sponsor. Industrial corporations and municipalities should not be in the business of running life insurance companies on the side, as simple as that.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 9):
Doesnt the NFL and the NHL and have unions too?

The NFL and NHL are not real good examples, as those are two employers that, for some unknown reason, managed to get anti-trust exemption. Those unions are actually justified because if any other employer ran their business as the owners of professional sports teams do they would be sent to jail for creating a cartel.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 177 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2805 times:

I work in the private sector and one of my clients is a very powerful union. Having attended their local board meetings the most important issue they discuss is the survival of the union istelf. Not the members. It's all about how much $$ they can bring in to support the union leadership and staff. The local union head makes 3x what he made as an employee of the municipality and he is paid a bonus for increase in dues and membership. I tend to look at a union as a leach. It sucks the blood out of the organism it lives off of without providing a tangible benefit to that organism.


Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
Because the employers of private sector workers don't have the power to send someone to jail if they fail to purchase their widgets?

I know you're one of the biggest fans of hyperbole around here but I have no idea what you're referring to here.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
Those unions are actually justified because if any other employer ran their business as the owners of professional sports teams do they would be sent to jail for creating a cartel.

It's not that they're justified or not, it's that professional sports players are in a position where they are way less transferrable or replaceable than almost any other type of labor, so management can't apply the same clout/political arguments against them that they can against unions in other cases. Though some sports leagues getting literal sanctioned monopolies is pretty dumb.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
It absolutely is. But remember that police and firefighters unions are often untouched by government cuts for some inexplicable reason, so instead the budget is balanced on the backs of those other unions whose members don't make that much.

So that makes it OK?

Meanwhile, the New Jersey Senate, on a party-line vote, passes a law mandating Hurricane Sandy cleanup work be done only by union workers.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...j_senate_passes_bill_regardin.html

"a Corzine administration study showed project labor agreements increase the costs of projects from 18 to 24 percent"



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11720 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

I just asked this question on FB but I will ask it here to the "enlightend" ones: Right-wingers are trying like everything to drive down wages and make all states right-to-work states. Then, they complain all those awful low-wage workers are a drain on the economy by getting food stamps and state sponsored health care because they have no union representation. So: which is it? Union representation so people have a living wage and health benefits or recieve food stams and state health care?


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15781 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 18):
Right-wingers are trying like everything to drive down wages and make all states right-to-work states.

Why do left wingers and unions fear right to work so much? If unions are as beneficial and important as they believe they are, it shouldn't matter. Workers will line up to join unions to get better conditions and employers will demand better trained union workers, right? Or do they fear erosion of power and the loss of their position as a de facto labor cartel? Do they realize that unions have in many cases been rendered redundant, ironically by government regulations and bureaucracy? Is that why they fight right to work, or as some might call it, the free market, tooth and nail at every opportunity?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 18):
Union representation so people have a living wage and health benefits or recieve food stams and state health care?

Many workers not on food stamps do not have union representations. Your correlation of unions with not having welfare is disingenuous.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 16):
I know you're one of the biggest fans of hyperbole around here but I have no idea what you're referring to here.

Either you don't understand or you pretend you don't... If you work in the private sector making widgets, and a recession drives down the demand for widgets there is not much your employer can do to prevent its revenues from going down. If you work for the government, your employer can always raise taxes on the poor schmucks in the private sector to make sure they will have enough cash to pay your salary, and if those schmucks don't pay their taxes they go to jail.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 16):
It's not that they're justified or not, it's that professional sports players are in a position where they are way less transferrable or replaceable than almost any other type of labor, so management can't apply the same clout/political arguments against them that they can against unions in other cases.

Actually, in a normal environment you would be right, but the question is a good player isn't just free to move around as it should (there are draft rules, free agency rules, salary caps, etc.) so management can in fact apply that pressure (which I agree they should not be allowed to). The similarity with a normal economic environment is that, by agreeing to those rules, just like other unions, sports players unions have the exact same effect as regular ones - benefit the mediocre players at the expense of the outstanding ones.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
Why do left wingers and unions fear right to work so much? If unions are as beneficial and important as they believe they are, it shouldn't matter. Workers will line up to join unions to get better conditions and employers will demand better trained union workers, right? Or do they fear erosion of power and the loss of their position as a de facto labor cartel? Do they realize that unions have in many cases been rendered redundant, ironically by government regulations and bureaucracy? Is that why they fight right to work, or as some might call it, the free market, tooth and nail at every opportunity?

-If you're just saying "well okay join a union or don't the money to pay for them just kind of goes wherever" you're allowing people who haven't bought in to get workplace-wide things that the union provides, and its power is based on mobilizing as much of the workforce as possible.

-Those regulations came into being because unions fought for them, and again, I don't buy dismissing unions based on how much they're needed for the same reason 2nd Amendment advocates don't want to decide what arms civilians can buy on the basis of how much they need them- no one can find an objective standard for what that "need" is, and who sets it.

-So the free market is more important than freedom of association? Should we be happy to settle for anything because we're only allowed to have what the mighty market deigns to give us?


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 20):
Either you don't understand or you pretend you don't... If you work in the private sector making widgets, and a recession drives down the demand for widgets there is not much your employer can do to prevent its revenues from going down. If you work for the government, your employer can always raise taxes on the poor schmucks in the private sector to make sure they will have enough cash to pay your salary, and if those schmucks don't pay their taxes they go to jail.

No, I understand taxation and violating laws perfectly well, I just don't quite see the bright line that puts a direct line between public employee wages and the freedom of some idiot who didn't want to pay his taxes. It's almost as if policymaking is way more complicated than that!


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15781 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2741 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 21):
If you're just saying "well okay join a union or don't the money to pay for them just kind of goes wherever" you're allowing people who haven't bought in to get workplace-wide things that the union provides, and its power is based on mobilizing as much of the workforce as possible.

That's exactly what should happen. If union workers are being overpaid, they will be replaced. In nonunion workers are poorly trained, they will be replaced. If nonunion workers see their union counterparts working for better pay, they'll go join the union.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 21):
Those regulations came into being because unions fought for them,

And now they have them. Unions were useful for making sure workers wouldn't be fired for getting the flu or have no recourse should they be injured on the job. Unions forced those issues to be addressed and now they are via government regulation and we're better off for it. Despite this, unions have continued to exist for mostly other reasons so let me as you this: when was the last time you heard from an abolitionist or women's suffrage group?

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 21):
they're needed for the same reason 2nd Amendment advocates don't want to decide what arms civilians can buy on the basis of how much they need them- no one can find an objective standard for what that "need" is, and who sets it.

Nobody should be telling gun owners that they can't have guns, but nobody should be telling those of us who do not own guns that we must own guns.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 21):
So the free market is more important than freedom of association?

Freedom of association carries with it the freedom of non-association. There is a massive difference between saying "You do not have to join the union" and saying "You cannot join the union."

And why should free association apply only to workers? The employers should be able to associate or not themselves with any and all employees they choose. Let them choose whether they want a union, non-union, or combined workforce.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1378 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 6):
It's not only 401Ks. Despite far less job security than in the 1950s and 60s, middle class Americans are still hell bent on spending above their means, evidenced by $200 monthly cable+smartphone bills, foreclosures, and the like. Pensions wouldn't be necessary if people were exercising more household restraint.

While I think you're right, I also think there's more to the story than that. I earn right about 5% more than my folks did, age per age, adjusted for inflation (they were feds with the associated pensions). But my disposable income spending, is on average about 20% less than theirs was, at this age. Same number of kids, all that.

And though I do eschew a lot of non-essentials (I don't own a television, so no cable), I do still pay for things like a smartphone, internet, car, etc. I think the difference is that there is a greater proportion of nondisposable income spending within my generation (I have a tremendously higher percentage of student loans than the folks ever did, for example, and also file "single" for taxes), but also the job security quotient seems less stable than it was for them in the 70s & 80s.

As I said, I agree that people spend a lot beyond their means, but I think a lot of that is also things like Student Loans as much as cable.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):

Why do left wingers and unions fear right to work so much? If unions are as beneficial and important as they believe they are, it shouldn't matter. Workers will line up to join unions to get better conditions and employers will demand better trained union workers, right?

The problem is that in a lot of RTW states, it really doesn't matter what your training is. If ACME airlines can pay a line tech $15 an hour less in South Carolina, they're going to, and this reduces the bargaining power of a Union in say, San Francisco or Boston. This is a factor completely without regard to the level of training for that job code.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 20):
If you work for the government, your employer can always raise taxes on the poor schmucks in the private sector to make sure they will have enough cash to pay your salary, and if those schmucks don't pay their taxes they go to jail.

Unless those schmucks find all manner of loopholes and deductions, as they do here in America. And it really isn't the "poor" schmucks that treat it that way either, as most of the poor generally don't pay taxes anyway. I think "Rich" schmucks is what you're looking for here.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 23):
If nonunion workers see their union counterparts working for better pay, they'll go join the union.

Not necessarily, no. I'm non-union, but I do about 2 - 8% better (depending on the competing companies' unions) overall, when salary & defined benefits are counted out. But I have no illusions about this. We don't want our people jumping ship to unionized competition.

Now if I were to be transferred to a RTW state's station (and we have a few), this equation is up for change, and I'd have to redefine my contract just to keep what I already have.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 23):

Freedom of association carries with it the freedom of non-association. There is a massive difference between saying "You do not have to join the union" and saying "You cannot join the union."

Uh-huh. And if the situtaion is rigged (as it is in most RTW states) to where companies have a lot more bargaining power than unions specifically because there are no "closed" shops, then all we are doing is tagging "that has any bargaining ability at all" to your second line there. That is the reality in most RTW places.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
25 Newark727 : That's a disingenuous comparison. Abolitionism had a very specific legal goal; women's suffragists got theirs too but there are still plenty of group
26 BMI727 : In a lot of jobs it doesn't really matter what your training is. Unless it increases costs further on down the line, which is sometimes the case. Bar
27 Mir : I never said it was ok. If you're going to go after public sector unions, go after all the public sector unions, including the police and fire unions
28 seb146 : Here's the problem: The right has made is so difficult to organize in all states that forming and joining a union is impossible. Plus, with their rig
29 Post contains images tugger : The standard is set by the public in this case as that is who sets the standards for the government. The courts then validate that the standards are
30 BMI727 : Impossible or just pointless? Allowing the free market in will erode the power and artificially high prices that monopolies and cartels can get away
31 FlyPNS1 : Correct, but it's interesting how many of the right to work states have the highest rates of poverty and are most reliant on federal government assis
32 Mir : Which businesses have gone bankrupt because they requested too many favors from the government? -Mir
33 seb146 : Impossible. I guess it would be pointless if you want child labor, no minimum wage, and no maximum hours per week. ummmm.... the "free market" ends u
34 Geezer : A couple of things here; First, how many people discussing this issue belong to labor unions ? Second, are you employed by a corporation, a private bu
35 flyguy89 : True, but correlation is not causation. Do you have data indicating that the ones receiving food stamps and government benefits in these states are e
36 BMI727 : Unions still popped up in the late 1800s and 1900s, despite the cards being stacked in favor of corporate interests. I don't see how organizing is mo
37 Superfly : Already happened. No media circus, no protest, no Michael Moore appearances, no crying man throwing temper tantrums or anything.
38 seb146 : So is Congress. Every time we have a chance to throw the bums out, it does not happen. The bums use their corporate money to convince us they are hum
39 BMI727 : Right to work means that joining the union cannot be a condition of employment. In non-right to work states, union membership can be made compulsory.
40 flyguy89 : Please, you're pretty much forced to join a union in every other sense of the word. No, technically you do not have to become a member of the organiz
41 Geezer : I didn't grow up in Kentucky but I sure hauled a hell of a lot of loads of Toyotas out of that Georgetown plant and I can guarantee you one thing; ev
42 Mir : If you didn't pay dues, but were still able to take advantage of the stuff that the union was able to provide for the workers (not necessarily pay, b
43 SFBdude : My neighbor works as a pipefitter down here in Orlando and he says that everyone has to pay dues even the guys that are retired. I was just curious a
44 windy95 : But the left and illegal alien's are not? If we rid ourselves of the illegal alien problem there would be more job's for the legal citizens. There ar
45 flyguy89 : So tyranny of the majority in other words? Why is it that the people who don't want to be a part of the union have to bow down to those that do and p
46 Mir : Why is it that people should be able to get things without paying for them? -Mir
47 flyguy89 : Because they didn't want those things in the first place. You can't yell at someone for not wanting to pay for a product you shoved into their hands
48 DeltaMD90 : Should soldiers be the only ones that enjoy full freedom? They were the ones that paid for it. If there are too many "free loaders" I think you'll se
49 tugger : Wouldn't the simplest thing be to just have those that are in the Union, those that make the commitment and join and pay dues, be covered by the Unio
50 BMI727 : You can have different rules for different workers. For instance, union workers can be allowed to smoke weed and drink beer on their lunch breaks whi
51 tugger : Blood or treasure, whichever is more important to you. Its an age old question. Tugg
52 flyguy89 : I was thinking about that as well, but I guess the simplest answer would be that it would be too expensive or unsustainable to have two sets of work
53 Darksnowynight : The left are indeed after higher wages for workers, yes. And I'm willing to bet most illegals would take a raise if you offered them one. But most am
54 Maverick623 : Um, entire nations that print their own money have gone "bankrupt". There's nothing stopping a municipal corporation from going under. Even in a righ
55 DeltaMD90 : I agree but that's not my point, just trying to make an analogy
56 flyguy89 : If we were simply talking about a specific policy companies themselves were enforcing then I would agree, but with the exception of right-to-work sta
57 tugger : I know that, which is why I said "in general". Don't know why you are splitting hairs when I am fairly certain that you understand what I am saying:
58 seb146 : No. On the only thing we have that is close to a "liberal" talk radio station, they run ads letting everyone know that, if you work in a union shop,
59 BMI727 : Paying the union dues, however, is compulsory. You pay the union dues whether you actually join the union or not. That's just part of living in a sma
60 Post contains images flyguy89 : Wow, ad hominem attacks are just so classy
61 Mir : I have no problem with them not wanting it. But the fact remains that they've got it, and it's not right that they should get it for free while other
62 Maverick623 : One word: taxes. We make people pay up to half their salary in taxes to pay for things for other people. That reminds me of a story from a while back
63 tugger : Why? Most (all?) unionized companies already exist with two systems, one for the union employees and another for management. I am also pretty sure th
64 flyguy89 : And how do you know that? Unions are businesses/organizations just like everyone else, and they need to learn how to streamline, become efficient and
65 windy95 : How many union's have you been in? In closed shop you are 100% required to join the union when taking a job with the company that they are representi
66 DeltaMD90 : Perhaps it's a poor analogy, and you should know by reading my posts I'm very much against troop worship. I guess the crux of my argument is I'm very
67 Maverick623 : I said you should be careful about trusting people when they say they don't want to pay for a certain benefit or service, and then provided an exampl
68 Mir : It's a tragedy of the commons situation. If people don't need to pay to get the benefits of the union, they probably won't. But then the union will r
69 Darksnowynight : I did it once, a little over a decade back, at another job. I got fired zero times as a result. Yeah, I split the hell outta that hair, didn't I? I s
70 windy95 : Was it a closed shop? Did you still have to pay dues?
71 flyguy89 : Because the real market cost to employees of having a union is artificially suppressed by legislation in states where non-union employees are forced
72 Maverick623 : Considering the other thread that says union membership is at the lowest point since the 1930s, your argument falls on its face. That's what the Corp
73 flyguy89 : It makes no difference how many unions there are, but as long as you have legislation forcing people to pay into an organization they don't want to b
74 Maverick623 : Don't want to be a part of it? Don't work there. Isn't that the conservative mantra, to vote with your feet? (See, I can do the meaningless partisan
75 tugger : But why? If I don't want the health insurance my company offers (and I don't) then why should I have to pay for it? And I get my health insurance thr
76 flyguy89 : That's coercion via the force of the state, it's not right. And they are by moving to right-to-work states and voting for representatives supportive
77 Maverick623 : Huh? Being free to move between jobs is coercion? Source? Actually, it has. Not that is was ever right, but that's for another thread. Sorry to say t
78 flyguy89 : Forcing someone to move between jobs because they don't want to pay for a private organization is coercion. Texas, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, Utah and
79 Darksnowynight : Oh, re-he-he-heally? Care to explain the Affordable Healthcare Act? And which of these companies are not on a hiring freeze or reducing hours now? Yo
80 Maverick623 : Now if you can show where people moved to those places because of "right-to-work" laws and vote for politicians that support them, that'd be great. I
81 flyguy89 : Wait, so the Affordable Care Act was about helping private insurance stay solvent and not about providing more coverage? Oh I have my own qualms with
82 Post contains images Maverick623 : Bull. It is exactly the same. In other words, you have no sources to back you up except stereotypes about certain states. BTW, the fastest growing ci
83 flyguy89 : Nope, you're given the option to stay or go if you don't like the wages, you are not given the option to pay or not pay regarding union dues. I just
84 Post contains images Maverick623 : Except you are given the option: if you don't like it, you're free to go elsewhere. I don't know why it's so hard to comprehend that or why you feel
85 Dreadnought : You have to consider government employees and their cost as G&A - aka overhead. DC growing like it is is an indication that our G&A is growin
86 Post contains images flyguy89 : Except that you're not free to keep your job, which isn't right. As we were talking about people voting with their feet, it says a tremendous lot abo
87 Darksnowynight : I doubt it. Given that wages and standards of living in RTW regions tend to be closer to 3rd world than what you find in NY or SF, you would would ne
88 Post contains links Dreadnought : Study dated September of last year. Read it and weep. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.UQSINB3LTY8
89 WarRI1 : I would imagine people headed to Texas when there were no jobs, desperation can do things like that. Now that jobs are reappearing that trend should
90 Darksnowynight : You first. Your article there shows an unmistakable decline in migrations away from CA, which would be why I said something more recent than 2008 was
91 Dreadnought : I never said anything about Unions and California. The most commonly quoted reason is taxes. Kinda like Phil Micholson's recent statement that he is
92 Post contains links flyguy89 : And you say I need to stop with the hyperbole? Have you been to Oakland and Compton? If you have ever visited a 3rd world country you'd know this isn
93 Post contains links and images Darksnowynight : Bullshit. I've spent a good deal of time in quite a few 3rd world places. And I mean it very sincerely when I say that I would live in Namibia or Alb
94 flyguy89 : And I'm going to have to call bullshit on your bullshit. I've lived in Kentucky, Ohio and France, and I've visited such places as Serbia, Congo and t
95 Dreadnought : And you, my friend, are nuckin' futs. If you can truthfully say that, you've never been to Namibia or Albania. RTW is only a part of it. The fact of
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Victory For Murkowski posted Wed Nov 17 2010 13:13:44 by Ken777
Obama To Nominate Sotomayor For Supreme Court posted Tue May 26 2009 07:21:22 by Homer71
Who Would You Nominate For The Court? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 20:45:19 by Pope
Democrat Candidates For Supreme Court Justice posted Tue Jul 12 2005 22:22:50 by SFOMEX
Bush Gives Another Victory For The Banks posted Fri Apr 15 2005 19:28:36 by Superfly
Another Victory For The Conservatives posted Mon Jan 10 2005 21:23:46 by Superfly
Victory For Outsourcing Firms posted Fri Nov 12 2004 03:00:10 by Superfly
Federal Court Upholds Texas Redistricting Map posted Tue Jan 6 2004 22:39:42 by B757300
Great Victory For Ariel Sharon posted Tue Jan 28 2003 23:52:29 by TodaReisinger
Ireland Goes For Bailout From The European Union posted Sun Nov 21 2010 13:06:37 by OA260