Arizona Continues To Suck (Banning Public Sector Unions Edition!)

Captain Carrot

override367 wrote:

Is there a way we could eliminate gerrymandering completely?

I like to think it has to be possible to come up with an unbiased computer program that has its source code available for viewing by anyone, to be sure of its impartiality.

Then if we get fucked we at least know no malice was behind it

Some states, like California, have independent redistricting commissions. Of course, I don't think they do the state legislature maps, unfortunately.

emp123

Captain Carrot wrote:

override367 wrote:

Is there a way we could eliminate gerrymandering completely?

I like to think it has to be possible to come up with an unbiased computer program that has its source code available for viewing by anyone, to be sure of its impartiality.

Then if we get fucked we at least know no malice was behind it

Some states, like California, have independent redistricting commissions. Of course, I don't think they do the state legislature maps, unfortunately.

I think the current one does, I seem to remember some hubbub about some state congressmen losing their seats and I think it was sold on the idea that the current state legislature is the way it is because the lines were drawn by the state legislature and not an independent body.

I dont think it matters much as I really dont have any faith in the independent body.

enlightenedbum

Arizona now trying to ban public sector unions entirely, calls Wisconsin "moderate."

override367

Republicans: The left isn't fitting into our caricature so lets see if we can destroy enough pillars of society to create an actual leftist movement

SammyF

Man, AFSCME is going to dump so much money into that state....

Fallout2man

override367 wrote:

Republicans: The left isn't fitting into our caricature so lets see if we can destroy enough pillars of society to create an actual leftist movement

The funny part is, I remember predicting this once before and Jeffe laughed at me saying there was no way there'd be a serious effort by Republicans in office to repeal the 20th century/Social Safety net. (I think this was sometime right after Obama's election or Inauguration just for clarification.) I'm wondering how the inevitable political schism of 2012's elections will play out. There's no way that Romney or Gingritch could beat Obama and Republicans seem to have this trend of running further to the right...

Rchanen

Fallout2man wrote:

override367 wrote:

Republicans: The left isn't fitting into our caricature so lets see if we can destroy enough pillars of society to create an actual leftist movement

The funny part is, I remember predicting this once before and Jeffe laughed at me saying there was no way there'd be a serious effort by Republicans in office to repeal the 20th century/Social Safety net. (I think this was sometime right after Obama's election or Inauguration just for clarification.) I'm wondering how the inevitable political schism of 2012's elections will play out. There's no way that Romney or Gingritch could beat Obama and Republicans seem to have this trend of running further to the right...

It ain't over till its over. Speaking of which, make sure you get involved with your local Democratic party.

Jacobkosh

a5ehren wrote:

Phillishere wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

Alecthar wrote:

And hell, Texas always wanted to be their own country, let 'em!

Point of fact: Texas was its own country. It's the only nation to assimilated into the lower 48, and it's the only state to enter by treaty.

California was an independent state for about a month. It's where you get the flag:



You could also argue that the Confederacy was an assimilated nation, since it was independent for a few years.

No major nation recognized the CSA as independent, though. The US government at the time recognized the Texan Republic so that it could annex it - it would kind of be like if the US encouraged Quebec to fight a war of independence from Canada so that they could be immediately annexed.

If none of you are interested in discussing the topic of the thread then I'll be happy to close it.

CycloneRanger

It seems a little absurd (although, I guess, predictable) that we haven't just started using a computer algorithm to draw up districts. You could make it almost completely fair and objective (just don't give the algorithm any information on how "blue" or "red" an area is) and it would save us money on all this useless argumentation in the government.

enlightenedbum

CycloneRanger wrote:

It seems a little absurd (although, I guess, predictable) that we haven't just started using a computer algorithm to draw up districts. You could make it almost completely fair and objective (just don't give the algorithm any information on how "blue" or "red" an area is) and it would save us money on all this useless argumentation in the government.

Voting Rights Act makes this hard.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Siska

I don't think peoples salary and working conditions being dependent on the ability to make the issue of their particular profession or workplace big enough to sway an election would work. Because most of them are dull, dull, dull unless you are the one stuck in the middle of it. If it's something flashy, like cops yelling "We need new guns! Ours are rusty.", sure. But when it's receptionists needing $0.35 more an hour to make ends meet or janitors wanting a cleaning solution that don't make their eyes itch, people would forget about it in 15 seconds or not care at all.

SammyF

Political organization and electoral influence is, indeed, one of the primary activities of the public sector labor unions, and one of the reasons for joining such a union is so that it's easier for disaffected public sector employees to get their side of the story out to the voters. It's much easier for elected officials to get their narrative about a policy issue out in front of voters; reporters contact those people daily looking for information to publish. It's much harder for one corrections officer at the local jail to get the press to pay attention when his healthcare plan is changed to something less comprehensive because reporters don't generally write stories about one guy. It's also easier to retaliate against individual disaffected employees than it is to retaliate against an entire labor union, so if that hypothetical corrections officer did want to complain about working conditions at the local jail, the union can offer some protection and assistance should his employers attempt to dismiss him from his job. It is perhaps most important for public sector employees to be able to do this, as opposed to private sector employees, because the employers in this instance have the power to unilaterally write and enact the laws which govern such working conditions.

On the broader point, just because you don't understand why public sector employees would want to join a labor union doesn't mean that anyone has to provide justification for it. The laws which affect their remuneration and working conditions are matters of public policy, and they can exercise their first amendment rights to speech and assembly with respect to those areas of public policy howsoever they choose.

Nova_C

There's also the fact that the general public is stupid.

IIRC, in Canada, the average wage for a public sector employee is below the average wage of private, but there is this massive persistent belief that public sector employees are lazy and overpaid, so whenever their union starts an action there is a massive freakout about how 'those' people don't deserve jack.

I'd rather keep those decisions out of the public's hands.

Slider

I have been living in Arizona for almost 2 months and I can safely say that it royally sucks here. I am a transplant from Washington State and noticed (almost immediately) that the intelligence level of the general Arizona populace and state officials is much lower than that of Washingtonians...but maybe not Eastern Washingtonians.

The Arizona State capitol is a pathetic excuse for a capitol building, Phoenix is a pathetic excuse for a major city and the airport was designed by morons.

There is no money here. There are no businesses here. State employees are paid a fraction of what they are paid in Washington. The unemployment rate is very high. Foreclosures are high, but rentals have retained their value.

The Phoenix Suns suck, too.

I have a funny story about an experience I had while being trained by employees of a certain federal security administration.

We were being trained in a large office building a few miles from the airport. A woman was speaking to us about the importance of proper lifting techniques and was trying to show us a video via projector and computer station. However, she couldn't get the sound to play.

She called in our "trainer." He couldn't get it to work. He called in the "computer guy." He couldn't get it to work. Then our "trainer" called in his "supervisor." All three of them couldn't get it to work.

After they left, I walked over to the computer station, closed windows media player, opened up a DVD program and, lo and behold, the sound worked.

It feels great and is also very depressing to know more about computers than people who are 5 levels above my pay scale.

I miss Washington.

RedTide

Siska wrote:

I don't think peoples salary and working conditions being dependent on the ability to make the issue of their particular profession or workplace big enough to sway an election would work. Because most of them are dull, dull, dull unless you are the one stuck in the middle of it. If it's something flashy, like cops yelling "We need new guns! Ours are rusty.", sure. But when it's receptionists needing $0.35 more an hour to make ends meet or janitors wanting a cleaning solution that don't make their eyes itch, people would forget about it in 15 seconds or not care at all.

I'm a professional firefighter and stepping aside from things like contract negotiations and political witch hunts (Who is the mayor going to fire or hire for the fire department today, hmm? let me get my donors list) let me lay out a couple of employee safety scenarios that I've seen play out over the last 5 years (rather how they could have played out differently if we weren't organized).

Scenario 1:
Firefighter Ed: Firefighter Stephens was just killed at a fire scene after a firetruck knocked him over and crushed him while backing up. They have sensors available for the back bumper that will immediately lock the brakes when tripped and backup cameras are available on pretty much all new apparatus models.

Mayor: Sounds expensive, pass. Also I don't want to hear about this again.

Scenario 2:
Firefighter Ed: Six Firefighters just had to jump out of a fourth story window and two are dead, if we had this bailout system retrofitted onto our gear and paid to train our employees to use it we could potentially prevent this from happening ever again.

Mayor: Truly a tragedy, we will mourn our heroes. Also, you're fired.

Yar

Public sector unions are a detrimental check on legitimate government authority, and they unbalance the system. They should not exist.

I'm not saying they should be outlawed. And the AZ bills don't actually ban unions, exactly. They just end the government support of them. No more paying employees for work they do for the union rather than for the government. No more automatic payroll deduction of union dues. And no more negotiating an employee's salary and benefits with a "union rep" instead of the employee. If people still want to form a Union, pay dues, strike, and/or agree to hold a collective stance on pay or benefits or anything else, they are free to do so. More importantly, if government isn't doing something the way it should, that needs to be a political and election issue, not a union issue. Unions are a check on the runaway profit motive of business owners and managers. Government doesn't have a proft motive, and already has the checks and balances it is supposed to have, beholden to the people. A public sector union is equivalent to mob rule. It's a lobbyist group, except it's one that current law forces the government to deal with. And the government should not be in the business of handing over vested political authority to the managment of non-governmental organizations outside its control.

Captain Carrot

Many government officials do, in fact, have a profit motive: contracts they steer into companies owned by them or their friends will make them money directly or indirectly (particularly via campaign contributions), contracts that go to the union make them dick.

RedTide

Captain Carrot wrote:

Many government officials do, in fact, have a profit motive: contracts they steer into companies owned by them or their friends will make them money directly or indirectly (particularly via campaign contributions), contracts that go to the union make them dick.

That and occasionally you have a governor come in and balance the budget on public employees backs and most people won't give a shit since he didn't raise their taxes specifically.

nexuscrawler

RedTide wrote:

Captain Carrot wrote:

Many government officials do, in fact, have a profit motive: contracts they steer into companies owned by them or their friends will make them money directly or indirectly (particularly via campaign contributions), contracts that go to the union make them dick.

That and occasionally you have a governor come in and balance the budget on public employees backs and most people won't give a shit since he didn't raise their taxes specifically.

if there weren't teachers unions being a public school teacher would be like a 3 year temp job

RedTide

nexuscrawler wrote:

RedTide wrote:

Captain Carrot wrote:

Many government officials do, in fact, have a profit motive: contracts they steer into companies owned by them or their friends will make them money directly or indirectly (particularly via campaign contributions), contracts that go to the union make them dick.

That and occasionally you have a governor come in and balance the budget on public employees backs and most people won't give a shit since he didn't raise their taxes specifically.

if there weren't teachers unions being a public school teacher would be like a 3 year temp job

In New Jersey they have a really graduated pay scale, something like 15 years to hit top pay for whatever education level you have (BA, masters, PHD) and you generally start out with an "ok" salary if you don't consider how god damn expensive it is to live in this state. That is without considering how stressful the job could be, long hours and paying out of pocket for school supplies all factored in.

Pi-r8

Yar wrote:

I'm not saying they should be outlawed. And the AZ bills don't actually ban unions, exactly. They just end the government support of them. No more paying employees for work they do for the union rather than for the government. No more automatic payroll deduction of union dues. And no more negotiating an employee's salary and benefits with a "union rep" instead of the employee. If people still want to form a Union, pay dues, strike, and/or agree to hold a collective stance on pay or benefits or anything else, they are free to do so. More importantly, if government isn't doing something the way it should, that needs to be a political and election issue, not a union issue. Unions are a check on the runaway profit motive of business owners and managers. Government doesn't have a proft motive, and already has the checks and balances it is supposed to have, beholden to the people. A public sector union is equivalent to mob rule. It's a lobbyist group, except it's one that current law forces the government to deal with. And the government should not be in the business of handing over vested political authority to the managment of non-governmental organizations outside its control.

The thing is though, public sector unions are prohibited by law from striking. They gave up that power in exchange for the government protections you listed. If you take away the protections, you pretty much force the unions to go on strike in order to protect themselves. Do you really want firefighters going on strike?

MentalExercise

Atomic Ross wrote:

Primaries play for the fringe, the General plays for the middle.


No way do I want the General Primary going to whoever plays the fringe. You'd end up with presidents like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, and H. Ross Perot.

I like Ross Perot! I honestly don't remember much about his politics though. I just like that whole, paid for mercenaries to go save his employees thing. That's some gold star shit.

Yar

Pi-r8 wrote:

The thing is though, public sector unions are prohibited by law from striking. They gave up that power in exchange for the government protections you listed. If you take away the protections, you pretty much force the unions to go on strike in order to protect themselves. Do you really want firefighters going on strike?

No, I want them to be compensated and treated fairly.

Captain Carrot

And when they're not compensated or treated fairly, what do you expect them to do?

Modern Man

Gerrymandering is sort of like the filibuster in the Senate. Politicians rail against it when it's used against them, but are surprisingly mum about the subject when it works to their advantage. A big part of why it is unlikely to go away is because it tends to be very friendly to incumbents since there has been a strong trend towards making Congressional districts less and less competitive.

Captain Carrot

A few states have adopted independent redistricting commissions, though, like Arizona and California. Unfortunately, as I noted at the top of this page, they tend to be only for Congressional maps.

Fallout2man

Yar wrote:

No, I want them to be compensated and treated fairly.

How do you guarantee that this is what will eventually happen though?

Modern Man

Captain Carrot wrote:

A few states have adopted independent redistricting commissions, though, like Arizona and California. Unfortunately, as I noted at the top of this page, they tend to be only for Congressional maps.

I guess for state legislators, it's easy to champion fairness and impartiality in redistricting when it doesn't directly affect you and your home district remain cozy and full of friendly voters.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Modern Man

spacekungfuman wrote:

As a former NJ citizen who now lives in NY, I can say without a doubt that something is wrong with how the government is handling road work projects. They take insanely long, and often don't seem to serve any tangible purpose, other than costing a fortune. I wish someone could run on a platform of fixing how road construction is handled, but based on conversations I have had with friends who actually worked as union construction workers on the NJ high ways, I don't think that is possible while the union contracts exist in anything resembling their current form.

In NJ's case, at least, a lot of the problem there has to do with corruption and organized crime. The unions in NJ have long been riddled with organized crime parasites.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Modern Man

spacekungfuman wrote:

I don't doubt this is true, although I have only seen anecdotal evidence. But regardless, something needs to change with how the state maintains and expands its critically important highway infrastructure. The way it works now is just a waste of money and time. A mall by me recently demolished and rebuilt its parking lots in about 3 weeks, start to finish. The school my wife used to work in demolished a much smaller parking lot and rebuilt it in 14 months. Something is wrong with this picture. I don't know if the union workers are to blame for most of that insane delay, but I have to believe that it was at least part of it.

Ah, see, there's the rub: the system is working as intended. In the case of the private shopping mall, the goal is to get the parking lot construction done as quickly and cheaply as possible. The goal of public works construction in a place like NJ is to create jobs and/or money for union members, organized crime, politicians and people connected to politicians. The graft, corruption and inefficiency is not a bug, it's a feature.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

shryke

Except if you actually thought about it for a minute, you'd realise that there is no difference in this sort of thing between a public and a private sector union. A private sector union also wants to maximize benefits for it's members. That's the purpose of a union.


It's idiotic to say the voting process makes up for a lack of collective bargaining. Does the US voting public also get a say in your salary negotiations?

Public sector unions are just like private sector ones. Except the bosses they fight with over benefits/savings is some member of government bureaucracy instead of some member of the company bureaucracy.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Captain Carrot

Taxes are not your money. Once you've paid them, the funds belong to the government. Or does the $20 you give to the pizza guy remain your property along with the extra-large pepperoni and onion?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Captain Carrot

spacekungfuman wrote:

I can't change the price we pay the workers, or the arcane work rules, because of the union.

And this differs from government contracting of a non-union shop, how? Also, you state apparently as a matter of fact that unions work more slowly and for more money than non-union construction companies, but you haven't actually proved that, nor shown that the work they do isn't superior.

shryke

spacekungfuman wrote:

Captain Carrot wrote:

Taxes are not your money. Once you've paid them, the funds belong to the government. Or does the $20 you give to the pizza guy remain your property along with the extra-large pepperoni and onion?

They are public dollars, to be used by elected officials who I can vote for, and whose offices I can contact to raise concerns. Add a union, with a long term contract that restricts the government in a lot of ways, and now I have lost that. I can call my state senator everyday and complain that the road work is too slow, and is costing too much, and even organize the public to vote every member of the state senate out of office in favor of pro-roadwork efficiency candidates, but I can't change the price we pay the workers, or the arcane work rules, because of the union.

And, to bring this back to the corporate analogy, if I am a shareholder, I don't own both the share and the price I paid for it at the same time, but buying it means I have the right to vote. And if I'm not happy with the direction of the company, I can always sell.

Right, but none of that means it's the shareholders who negotiate with the union. The company does that.

I can decide whether or not to purchase equity in or do business with a company.

And you can decide who to vote for as well.


But in the end, public or private, it's management that negotiates with the union. Not shareholders, not voters, but management. The people who directly employ the workers under the unions purview.