Well, two separate issues here - one is the argument that public-sector unions are not subject to similar opposition to excessive wage increases as private-sector ones are, and the other is that public-sector unions defend some unsustainable pension system. The latter is the budget-busting one; from my vague recollection of state budgets, spending on existing services is not crazily large.
There's nothing obviously wrong with unions plus defined contribution pensions, though. The problem, I suspect, is closer to "your predecessors designed pension plans for your employees really badly".
ronya on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I just don't think that Unionization has the best outcome for public goods.
It doesn't, really. Unions and governments need to realize that being taxpayer funded should mean that certain exchanges are made, and most unions seem to really, really want their cake and eat it, too.
Like right now, I have to negotiate my own wages with the company I work for. I'm fairly skilled and have a decent amount of experience, so I'm able to leverage that into a fairly decent wage. Also, I'm lucky enough to have very good benefits and a 401(k) through them. However, I'm not on any kind of contract and my hiring is at-will. It's a trade-off; I understand my role, and if things don't work out, I'm not entitled to any kind of security or wage beyond what was promised when I hired on.
Unionized government jobs, on the other hand, are fairly impossible to lose, don't generally involve a high amount of skilled labor, and yet comfortable pay with a guarantee of pension and retirement benefits.
The labor market simply doesn't have a model where that kind of relationship can consistently remain viable and stable, and certainly not in times of economic collapse and massive trade deficits. We can't operate if 80% of our State budgets (i.e. tax dollars) is going to entitlements instead of new infrastructure and new jobs.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Well, two separate issues here - one is the argument that public-sector unions are not subject to similar opposition to excessive wage increases as private-sector ones are, and the other is that public-sector unions defend some unsustainable pension system. The latter is the budget-busting one; from my vague recollection of state budgets, spending on existing services is not crazily large.
There's nothing obviously wrong with unions plus defined contribution pensions, though. The problem, I suspect, is closer to "your predecessors designed pension plans for your employees really badly".
It's more "yet another way Reagan fucked us." It was during his administration that the rules about how pensions are funded were changed (so Milken and his ilk could take pension reserves to fuel their hostile takeovers.)
Well, two separate issues here - one is the argument that public-sector unions are not subject to similar opposition to excessive wage increases as private-sector ones are, and the other is that public-sector unions defend some unsustainable pension system. The latter is the budget-busting one; from my vague recollection of state budgets, spending on existing services is not crazily large.
There's nothing obviously wrong with unions plus defined contribution pensions, though. The problem, I suspect, is closer to "your predecessors designed pension plans for your employees really badly".
It's more "yet another way Reagan fucked us." It was during his administration that the rules about how pensions are funded were changed (so Milken and his ilk could take pension reserves to fuel their hostile takeovers.)
Oh? This isn't an area I am knowledgeable about; got any recommended reading?
The worst public sector unions are the police unions, which are being untouched by this guy's proposal. I suppose prison guard union in CA is pretty bad, but generally the police union seems to be the worst, in that the police union will go to the mat to fight for the right of policemen to not only keep their jobs, but be immune from discipline, even after they're videotaped tazering 14 year olds, or whatever.
Nobody bitches about public sector employees during good times, when they see their wages fall compared to private sector. Then the idea of highly educated people giving up their chance to cash in is seen as idealistic(or as suckers). Certainly nobody became a millionaire by being a public school teacher.
Its only in bad times they become the leeches on the public purse. Leeches or suckers... I say let them take the public for all they got, its not like they will get any respect either way.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The worst public sector unions are the police unions, which are being untouched by this guy's proposal. I suppose prison guard union in CA is pretty bad, but generally the police union seems to be the worst, in that the police union will go to the mat to fight for the right of policemen to not only keep their jobs, but be immune from discipline, even after they're videotaped tazering 14 year olds, or whatever.
Yeah, nurses are pretty bad about this, too.
Anytime action is taken against them, it's always back to the "you don't understand how it is, putting your life on the line and saving lives every day!" crap.
What I DO understand is that both of those jobs allow for a lot of authority and control over the well-being of people without a lot of requisite education or training. So yeah, fuck their unions.
Atomika on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Nobody bitches about public sector employees during good times, when they see their wages fall compared to private sector. Then the idea of highly educated people giving up their chance to cash in is seen as idealistic(or as suckers). Certainly nobody became a millionaire by being a public school teacher.
Its only in bad times they become the leeches on the public purse. Leeches or suckers... I say let them take the public for all they got, its not like they will get any respect either way.
And since when is compensation in return for labor an entitlement?
The link recommends fully-funding pension plans; a great idea, but one that has a tendency to receive a lot of pushback.
I agree with the point that the crisis goes away if economic growth returns to trend, and I suspect the federal government has the ability to engineer a recovery. I don't see it vigorously or even explicitly attempting to do so for a while, though.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. I mean, they should certainly have the right to unionize, and the unions have the duty to stand up for their members; it's just that the police union here goes far beyond what is necessary to protect cops that shoot civilians. (But god help you if you're a lady cop accused of using drugs, they'll throw you under the bus so fast.... also the bus driver's union is fairly good about standing up for drivers when appropriate, and not going to mats for drivers that cause serious problems).
Same with the nurses that you're referencing. Perhaps the unions shouldn't be involved in 'professional' issues, mainly concerning themselves with workplace problems. But that's an issue for another thread. It does seem odd that this Wisconsin guy is refusing to touch the firemen and policemen's unions. I guess because that is too politically suicidal. Ahnold took on the teachers and the nurses and came out covered in roses, but crossing the firemen and policemen looks bad, especially if you need to look tough for the electorate.
Publish the names and salaries of low-level government employees
Wow. That's pretty ridiculous.
Why would they want to do this? What's the gain?
We have that here in Ontario, but you only get on the list if you make more than...$100,000/year I believe.
My state does it for every employee, no matter how much they got paid. They even list employees who owe wages or travel expenses back to the state.
This environment sucks for me because my job is 100% funded by federal contracts, but we haven't gotten any increase in pay (outside of earned promotions which only happen every 5 years or so) in over 5 years and insurance premiums keep increasing.
I don't see salaries on there. Am I missing the page?
I just don't think that Unionization has the best outcome for public goods.
It doesn't, really. Unions and governments need to realize that being taxpayer funded should mean that certain exchanges are made, and most unions seem to really, really want their cake and eat it, too.
Like right now, I have to negotiate my own wages with the company I work for. I'm fairly skilled and have a decent amount of experience, so I'm able to leverage that into a fairly decent wage. Also, I'm lucky enough to have very good benefits and a 401(k) through them. However, I'm not on any kind of contract and my hiring is at-will. It's a trade-off; I understand my role, and if things don't work out, I'm not entitled to any kind of security or wage beyond what was promised when I hired on.
In other words, you can be fired if your manager doesn't like you, or decides that a new grad is cheaper than you are, and just as capable. This here is a prime example of the "special snowflake" attitude.
Unionized government jobs, on the other hand, are fairly impossible to lose, don't generally involve a high amount of skilled labor, and yet comfortable pay with a guarantee of pension and retirement benefits.
Bullshit.
First off, it's not impossible (or even that fucking hard) to fire a unionized worker. What it does require, however, is that the superior has to actually build a case against you, as per the procedure outlined in the CBA. Furthermore, if you feel that the case built against you is bullshit, you can contest it. Virtually every time I hear of union jobs being "impossible to lose", it winds up that management doesn't want to do the actual fucking legwork, or is trying to use edge cases to erode union protections.
Second off, most government jobs do require a decent amount of skill. Furthermore, the non-professional grades (GS-9 and below, if we're talking the federal government) have wages that are commensurate with office work in the US. Professional grades are higher salaries, but are also staffed by professionals with degrees and specializations. To be honest, your average government worker can make a higher salary in the private market.
Finally, why shouldn't people have a comfortable standard of living? Is a workforce teetering on the edge of paranoia over the future really a healthy thing for us as a society? This sort of crab thinking is why workers here have been getting a decades-long shafting.
The labor market simply doesn't have a model where that kind of relationship can consistently remain viable and stable, and certainly not in times of economic collapse and massive trade deficits. We can't operate if 80% of our State budgets (i.e. tax dollars) is going to entitlements instead of new infrastructure and new jobs.
Or, you know, we should have treated our obligations as, well, obligations.
In other words, you can be fired if your manager doesn't like you, or decides that a new grad is cheaper than you are, and just as capable. This here is a prime example of the "special snowflake" attitude.
What's wrong with that?
Why don't you support giving younger people opportunities?
Ensuring workplace justice is expensive; the difficulty is ensuring that unionized labor or employers bear the costs, rather than potential or non-union workers. If the guarantee of fair treatment is appealing enough, of course, then the benefits outweigh the costs.
ronya on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
It just really annoys me when attitudes like Hedgie's using hand-wringing rhetoric instead of pragmatism when discussing issues like labor eligibility and entitlements.
It's table-pounding, to make an allusion. Appealing to humanism is generally the last of the ammunition in rhetorical skirmishes. Think the children, and whatnot.
Basically, it's trying force is/ought arguments into a mathematical debate.
What if someone younger can do my job cheaper? It's my obligation to make myself more employable and more vital to my workplace, not the company's obligation to provide me with continued employment, saying nothing of a lifetime of benefits.
It just really annoys me when attitudes like Hedgie's using hand-wringing rhetoric instead of pragmatism when discussing issues like labor eligibility and entitlements.
It's table-pounding, to make an allusion. Appealing to humanism is generally the last of the ammunition in rhetorical skirmishes. Think the children, and whatnot.
Basically, it's trying force is/ought arguments into a mathematical debate.
What if someone younger can do my job cheaper? It's my obligation to make myself more employable and more vital to my workplace, not the company's obligation to provide me with continued employment, saying nothing of a lifetime of benefits.
The company does not exist to provide employment.
Except the Company can't fire you without valid cause and somebody younger willing to do the job for less is not a valid cause. In fact most companies are obliged by contract to fire according to seniority, firing the younger workers before the senior ones. So there is no difference between public/private in that regard.
And if we are talking about qualifications; Experience is a qualification. You pay more for more experienced workers, that way you avoid rookie mistakes and the cost of training.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
It just really annoys me when attitudes like Hedgie's using hand-wringing rhetoric instead of pragmatism when discussing issues like labor eligibility and entitlements.
On the other hand, he also used facts, as opposed to your common misconceptions.
In other words, you can be fired if your manager doesn't like you, or decides that a new grad is cheaper than you are, and just as capable. This here is a prime example of the "special snowflake" attitude.
What's wrong with that?
Why don't you support giving younger people opportunities?
Why should those opportunities come at the expense of others?
It's nice to see, in a thread about the suppression of worker's rights and the right to collective bargaining, including the threat of government force to enforce that suppression, we can't go more then a page before people start railing against those evil unions.
It'd be ironic if it wasn't so terrible fucking sad.
In other words, you can be fired if your manager doesn't like you, or decides that a new grad is cheaper than you are, and just as capable. This here is a prime example of the "special snowflake" attitude.
What's wrong with that?
Why don't you support giving younger people opportunities?
Why should those opportunities come at the expense of others?
Lets take Mrt144s idea to their logical conclusion. How about firing anybody that isn't a white christian heterosexual man? To make way for younger whiter men. They used to do that you know, until unions made them stop.
Help wanted, no irish need apply.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
That seems like a system extremely favorable to baby-boomers and unfair for anyone else.
Its been standard practice for over a 100 years, so it predates them considerably.
There have been riots and revolts when factory owners tried to institute Ross's model instead.
So... it's fair because it's old? It's fair because violence happens when it's removed? Or are you conceding that it is unfair but there's no way to change it?
I should note that seniority-based employment rules exists regardless of unionization prevalence, at least according to a quick glance over Google Scholar. But it seems like a terrible system.
Companies are always competing, going for the best contracts, and lobbying for laws to be written in their favor. Why, precisely, is it considered a social problem if the people working for those companies chose to do the same?
Younger people tend to have more flexibility in their employment opportunities, and are less likely to have anyone else to support on their salary. Thus, firing them when you need to cut employment is, by and large, going to result in the least amount of screwing over of people.
Companies are always competing, going for the best contracts, and lobbying for laws to be written in their favor. Why, precisely, is it considered a social problem if the people working for those companies chose to do the same?
Because benefits to either come at the expense of those not politically organized, like the unemployed?
Companies are always competing, going for the best contracts, and lobbying for laws to be written in their favor. Why, precisely, is it considered a social problem if the people working for those companies chose to do the same?
Because how can the poor companies compete if they can't fuck.workers over?
Companies are always competing, going for the best contracts, and lobbying for laws to be written in their favor. Why, precisely, is it considered a social problem if the people working for those companies chose to do the same?
Because benefits to either come at the expense of those not politically organized, like the unemployed?
If you're going to call -both- a bad thing, that's one thing. Its when people pick out one or the other that gets to me. Its the same behavior.
That seems like a system extremely favorable to baby-boomers and unfair for anyone else.
Its been standard practice for over a 100 years, so it predates them considerably.
There have been riots and revolts when factory owners tried to institute Ross's model instead.
So... it's fair because it's old? It's fair because violence happens when it's removed? Or are you conceding that it is unfair but there's no way to change it?
I should note that seniority-based employment rules exists regardless of unionization prevalence, at least according to a quick glance over Google Scholar. But it seems like a terrible system.
I was answering your railling against the baby boomers for a practice they didn't invent. Boomers may be assholes, but they are not the source of all the worlds problems(and this isn't one of them)
And it is fair, you give a employer years of your life, passing up other chances, Fufilling your work obligations, only to get stabbed in the back by your employer? Companies demand that their workers be loyal, demanding said loyalty with contracts and regulations. Its not unfair for workers to demand loyalty in return.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Companies are always competing, going for the best contracts, and lobbying for laws to be written in their favor. Why, precisely, is it considered a social problem if the people working for those companies chose to do the same?
Because benefits to either come at the expense of those not politically organized, like the unemployed?
Those who are not politically organized routinely get fucked over in our society in dozens of ways.
Companies are always competing, going for the best contracts, and lobbying for laws to be written in their favor. Why, precisely, is it considered a social problem if the people working for those companies chose to do the same?
Because benefits to either come at the expense of those not politically organized, like the unemployed?
except Unions have no say in hiring. There are closed shops, where you have to become a member of a union upon hiring, but not a single job requires union membership before being hired.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Companies are always competing, going for the best contracts, and lobbying for laws to be written in their favor. Why, precisely, is it considered a social problem if the people working for those companies chose to do the same?
Because benefits to either come at the expense of those not politically organized, like the unemployed?
except Unions have no say in hiring. There are closed shops, where you have to become a member of a union upon hiring, but not a single job requires union membership before being hired.
Closed shops are illegal in the US. What you're describing is a union shop. And you don't have to join the union if you don't want to, but you are obligated to pay a fee to the agent for your collective bargaining unit, whcih can either be dues or a straight fee.
Posts
Good union > no union > bad union.
Where bad depends on the amount of internal politicking, limiting productivity, and general goosery.
There's nothing obviously wrong with unions plus defined contribution pensions, though. The problem, I suspect, is closer to "your predecessors designed pension plans for your employees really badly".
It doesn't, really. Unions and governments need to realize that being taxpayer funded should mean that certain exchanges are made, and most unions seem to really, really want their cake and eat it, too.
Like right now, I have to negotiate my own wages with the company I work for. I'm fairly skilled and have a decent amount of experience, so I'm able to leverage that into a fairly decent wage. Also, I'm lucky enough to have very good benefits and a 401(k) through them. However, I'm not on any kind of contract and my hiring is at-will. It's a trade-off; I understand my role, and if things don't work out, I'm not entitled to any kind of security or wage beyond what was promised when I hired on.
Unionized government jobs, on the other hand, are fairly impossible to lose, don't generally involve a high amount of skilled labor, and yet comfortable pay with a guarantee of pension and retirement benefits.
The labor market simply doesn't have a model where that kind of relationship can consistently remain viable and stable, and certainly not in times of economic collapse and massive trade deficits. We can't operate if 80% of our State budgets (i.e. tax dollars) is going to entitlements instead of new infrastructure and new jobs.
So much this.
And I strongly feel that bad unions make up the majority of organized labor in the US. Certainly in the automotive and healthcare markets.
It's more "yet another way Reagan fucked us." It was during his administration that the rules about how pensions are funded were changed (so Milken and his ilk could take pension reserves to fuel their hostile takeovers.)
Oh? This isn't an area I am knowledgeable about; got any recommended reading?
And since when is compensation in return for labor an entitlement?
Its only in bad times they become the leeches on the public purse. Leeches or suckers... I say let them take the public for all they got, its not like they will get any respect either way.
Yeah, nurses are pretty bad about this, too.
Anytime action is taken against them, it's always back to the "you don't understand how it is, putting your life on the line and saving lives every day!" crap.
What I DO understand is that both of those jobs allow for a lot of authority and control over the well-being of people without a lot of requisite education or training. So yeah, fuck their unions.
I bitch about them in good times.
The link recommends fully-funding pension plans; a great idea, but one that has a tendency to receive a lot of pushback.
I agree with the point that the crisis goes away if economic growth returns to trend, and I suspect the federal government has the ability to engineer a recovery. I don't see it vigorously or even explicitly attempting to do so for a while, though.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. I mean, they should certainly have the right to unionize, and the unions have the duty to stand up for their members; it's just that the police union here goes far beyond what is necessary to protect cops that shoot civilians. (But god help you if you're a lady cop accused of using drugs, they'll throw you under the bus so fast.... also the bus driver's union is fairly good about standing up for drivers when appropriate, and not going to mats for drivers that cause serious problems).
Same with the nurses that you're referencing. Perhaps the unions shouldn't be involved in 'professional' issues, mainly concerning themselves with workplace problems. But that's an issue for another thread. It does seem odd that this Wisconsin guy is refusing to touch the firemen and policemen's unions. I guess because that is too politically suicidal. Ahnold took on the teachers and the nurses and came out covered in roses, but crossing the firemen and policemen looks bad, especially if you need to look tough for the electorate.
Slightly better link. Scroll to the bottom and hit "I Understand: Proceed".
From there you can search by name, title, or organization.
In other words, you can be fired if your manager doesn't like you, or decides that a new grad is cheaper than you are, and just as capable. This here is a prime example of the "special snowflake" attitude.
Bullshit.
First off, it's not impossible (or even that fucking hard) to fire a unionized worker. What it does require, however, is that the superior has to actually build a case against you, as per the procedure outlined in the CBA. Furthermore, if you feel that the case built against you is bullshit, you can contest it. Virtually every time I hear of union jobs being "impossible to lose", it winds up that management doesn't want to do the actual fucking legwork, or is trying to use edge cases to erode union protections.
Second off, most government jobs do require a decent amount of skill. Furthermore, the non-professional grades (GS-9 and below, if we're talking the federal government) have wages that are commensurate with office work in the US. Professional grades are higher salaries, but are also staffed by professionals with degrees and specializations. To be honest, your average government worker can make a higher salary in the private market.
Finally, why shouldn't people have a comfortable standard of living? Is a workforce teetering on the edge of paranoia over the future really a healthy thing for us as a society? This sort of crab thinking is why workers here have been getting a decades-long shafting.
Or, you know, we should have treated our obligations as, well, obligations.
What's wrong with that?
Why don't you support giving younger people opportunities?
It's table-pounding, to make an allusion. Appealing to humanism is generally the last of the ammunition in rhetorical skirmishes. Think the children, and whatnot.
Basically, it's trying force is/ought arguments into a mathematical debate.
What if someone younger can do my job cheaper? It's my obligation to make myself more employable and more vital to my workplace, not the company's obligation to provide me with continued employment, saying nothing of a lifetime of benefits.
The company does not exist to provide employment.
Except the Company can't fire you without valid cause and somebody younger willing to do the job for less is not a valid cause. In fact most companies are obliged by contract to fire according to seniority, firing the younger workers before the senior ones. So there is no difference between public/private in that regard.
And if we are talking about qualifications; Experience is a qualification. You pay more for more experienced workers, that way you avoid rookie mistakes and the cost of training.
Well, that's one of the benefits of staying with a union for so long but will turn off younger and more skilled workers.
Its been standard practice for over a 100 years, so it predates them considerably.
There have been riots and revolts when factory owners tried to institute Ross's model instead.
In fact I suspect Ross would be amongst the first to sue if he was the victim of his own idea.
You're turned off only if you're a short sighted special snowflake. Those who look at the bigger picture can see the benefits.
Edit: For an example of this dynamic at work, see the H-1B debacle.
Why should those opportunities come at the expense of others?
It'd be ironic if it wasn't so terrible fucking sad.
Lets take Mrt144s idea to their logical conclusion. How about firing anybody that isn't a white christian heterosexual man? To make way for younger whiter men. They used to do that you know, until unions made them stop.
Help wanted, no irish need apply.
So... it's fair because it's old? It's fair because violence happens when it's removed? Or are you conceding that it is unfair but there's no way to change it?
I should note that seniority-based employment rules exists regardless of unionization prevalence, at least according to a quick glance over Google Scholar. But it seems like a terrible system.
Companies are always competing, going for the best contracts, and lobbying for laws to be written in their favor. Why, precisely, is it considered a social problem if the people working for those companies chose to do the same?
Because benefits to either come at the expense of those not politically organized, like the unemployed?
Because how can the poor companies compete if they can't fuck.workers over?
If you're going to call -both- a bad thing, that's one thing. Its when people pick out one or the other that gets to me. Its the same behavior.
I was answering your railling against the baby boomers for a practice they didn't invent. Boomers may be assholes, but they are not the source of all the worlds problems(and this isn't one of them)
And it is fair, you give a employer years of your life, passing up other chances, Fufilling your work obligations, only to get stabbed in the back by your employer? Companies demand that their workers be loyal, demanding said loyalty with contracts and regulations. Its not unfair for workers to demand loyalty in return.
How is this a Union issue?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
except Unions have no say in hiring. There are closed shops, where you have to become a member of a union upon hiring, but not a single job requires union membership before being hired.
Closed shops used to be legal(or at least ignored). So there is that.
Increased wages = Increased demand = Increased production = increased employment = fewer unemployed.
Closed shops are illegal in the US. What you're describing is a union shop. And you don't have to join the union if you don't want to, but you are obligated to pay a fee to the agent for your collective bargaining unit, whcih can either be dues or a straight fee.