Union Busting or Sound Financial Management?

[OldGreyEagle]

Just had to spin this one

 

First of all, I am for Unions, my father was a member of the IBEW, I respect what Unions stand for ideologically. I do have an issue with some Unions attitudes about the never ending spigot of cash and have no regard for the future

 

That beind said, I have little respect for those who would exploit workers and are the reasons Unions are necessary in the first place. Labor vs Management relations, talk about a place where Scoutlike values would come in handy

[BS-87]

What you say is understandable, but it's gotten to the point where there is no equal balance of power or debate. What the WI governor is doing by refusing to negotiate is exactly what public unions do to municipalities and school districts, making it impossible for them to balance budgets effectively. If the unions didn't use their power to force debt on small governing bodies, this fix would not be necessary. Collective bargaining has become akin to hostage taking.

[sherminator505]

Where is this happening?!

 

I'm not in a union, but my father was (in private industry, BTW), and the conversations I remember revolved around "what benefits are we going to give up to avoid a strike THIS time?" Also, as a public worker where collective bargaining is present, I have seen my contributions toward benefits increase along with my copays and deductibles. These hardly appear to be the fruits of overbearing, strongarm tactics.

 

In my lifetime, I have seen unions make concession after concession, so tell me. Where is this "hostage taking" going on, and could you please provide some examples, as I have done?

[JoeBob]

Gov. Scott Walker on Monday afternoon responded to comments President Barack Obama made earlier in the day about the protests in Madison:

 

Walkers office issued this statement:

 

I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for base pay. And I'm sure the President knows that the average federal worker pays twice as much for health insurance as what we are asking for in Wisconsin. At least I would hope he knows these facts.

 

Furthermore, Im sure the President knows that we have repeatedly praised the more than 300,000 government workers who come to work every day in Wisconsin.

 

Im sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin, and isnt acting like the union bosses in saying one thing and doing another.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117101638.html

[sherminator505]

Outside of sounding more than a little condescending toward the President of the United States, does this statement even begin to address the fact that those workers have agreed to all of the Governor's fiscal demands if they retain their bargaining rights?

 

Or the fact that his budget not only cuts public education but prohibits local governments from passing levies to make up for the shortfalls?

 

Or the fact that this same bill would give sole power to the Governor to spin off public utilities to whoever he pleases for whatever sweetheart deal he feels they've earned?

 

The facts here don't point to a Governor acting as an honest broker in addressing fiscal problems. These facts point to a Governor who wants to take upon himself the powers of King of Wisconsin! So I hope you forgive me if I don't give much credence to King Scott's "statement!"(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Lisabob]

In most states where there is collective bargaining, there are also laws requiring "good faith" bargaining. That means, among other things, that unions (or management) cannot simply refuse to negotiate, as some are claiming. To do so would be a violation of state labor law, and this type of law is usually zealously enforced.

 

As for bargaining, benefits, and "union greed:" Here are some of the "benefits" that my union "won" that matter a whole lot to me. (I teach at a public university).

 

1. An office. Prior to our first contract, the university wasn't required to give us an office space, although we were required to do all sorts of things that having an office would have made easier (like meet with students, meet with other faculty, keep records ad nauseum, etc.)

 

2. Use of office equipment like photocopiers, and of office staff/secretarial support. That's right, before I had a union, some campus departments denied their instructors access to copy machines. Apparently we were supposed to photocopy exams, etc., at the local Staples and pay for this out of our own pockets.

 

3. Library privileges at the campus library. Prior to our contract instructors were not allowed to check out books!!! Or access library databases!!! Though we were expected to teach our students to use these same resources.

 

4. University email accounts & IDs. Again, until our contract, we didn't have these, meaning that we couldn't use a lot of University services that required an ID.

 

These are just a couple of examples. Did they cost the University money? Well probably a little bit (all those plastic ID cards), but realistically, not very much. What they did do is make it easier for us to do our jobs, do them well, and do them in a way that made sense.

 

There are legitimate concerns about pensions & benefits, but what many of the anti-union proposals in many states would do right now, is make it illegal to bargain over these types of provisions, too. And that's beyond silly, it is stupid and shows a real lack of understanding about what modern unions do and how they do it.

 

By the way: median salary for a full time instructor at my public university is now in the low $30,000s. Prior to our first contract, median salary was in the high teens. We actually had full time college professors making so little money that they were eligible for food stamps and public housing assistance. Few of us went into this profession expecting to get rich, but that's just crazy. Don't tell ME I'm overpaid to teach your children.

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

My dad was a union member because he had no choice. In the 32 years he worked at the company, they never went out on strike. I do remember that it looked like they might a few times and he fretted over whether or not he would honor the strike or not. He had a wife and four kids to house and feed and that took precedence over everything else in his mind. Boy, I love my dad! May he rest in peace.

 

I've now been in my industry for 30 years and we aren't a union based industry. I've done well for myself. In fact, by the time I was 28 (53 now) and my dad had been working at his company for those 32 years, I was bringing home more per week than he was.

 

I have nothing against unions. They fixed a lot of work environment issues in years past that the rest of us take for granted today. There seems over time to be a tendancy for union ledaership to become corrupt and for unions to begin making demands that are detrimental to the company. This is known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

I have no issue with private sector unions when they strike an even balance with the company. Public sector unions are an altogether different animal. Governments are not businesses with product and profits, they are governments who provide services thru taxes. Public sector unions don't sit down and negotiate with managment like private sector unions do. They sit down with politicians......politicians who may rely on the unions support in getting elected. In other words, they can and often do work in cahoots with one another to get what they want. If you union backs me in my election bid, I'll see that you get more goodies at the tax payers expense. That smacks of collusion and corruption. In the private sector, unions and management are more of adversaries than buddies.

[83Eagle]

Unions institutionalize mediocrity by preventing performance-based rewards and demanding termination based on seniority rather than merit.

 

When I worked at a union shop I was warned not to be too productive or I'd "break the rate."

 

Public sector unions are especially bad because they sit on both sides of the table, negotiating with people who they've paid to put into office.

 

Get rid of 'em all.

[nldscout]

Unions are the worst thing ever thought of. They serve no legitimate purpose except to suck up peoples money and make life hell for everyone else.

 

Get rid of them all.

[SR540Beaver]

nldscout,

 

Not true. As I said earlier, I've never been part of a union and I don't have a desire to....but I'm in a job where I don't need one. Keep in mind that many of the working conditions and benefits we non-union employees take for granted today came about because of union actions years ago. Things like decent wages, 8 hour work days, 5 day work weeks, sick leave, vacation days and group insurance are in part due to unions. Not totally, but in part.

 

Are they as needed today as the once were? Probably not. Do they have a legal right to exist? Yes. Can they be busted? Yes. My dad was 58 years old and looking and planning on a retirement at 63 after having faithfully worked for the company for 32 years. The company decided to bust the union and did. My dad walked into work one day thinking he had a job for a few more years where he could get his ducks in a row for retirement and went hom that evening unemployeed along with 100 other guys in the same boat as him who had over 30 years service. It was either leave and get your benefits or fight and possibly end up with zip. None of them wanted to risk that, so they walked. Ever tried to find a new job making what you made at 58 years old? Fairly impossible. You can be a greeter down at Wal-mart. Within a few years of busting the union, the company was sucked dry by a corporate raider who bought the company once the union was gone. Close to a thousand good jobs were gone.

[OldGreyEagle]

yeah, that's what I was going to say

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[packsaddle]

I've never been in a union. Neither was my father. When his job-related injury resulted in surgery and a long convalescence, he was wished well with hopes he could find employment after he was healed. Not one single thing more. No paid sick leave. No medical insurance. No workman's comp. Nothing. It was devastating. So I do see how the right of a group of workers to organize and make their point by striking is a good thing. I agree with Sherminator. The workers have given Walker what he claims to want in cost-cutting. The right to collectively bargain doesn't affect the budget under those conditions.

 

When I was involved in representing the federal government during public information forums, there were two alternatives. Either we were going to confront a large number of individual complaints as individuals, each of which would require a significant amount of time to answer, or we might confront a citizen organization, in which case we would be handed a list of complaints which only had to be answered once. It was more efficient to confront the citizen organization.

 

Given what we all have seen in Egypt and Tunisia, it is clear that a mob can indeed organize into a resistance even if they are denied the ability to 'collectively bargain' (form political parties, movements, etc.). Walker should take note of the comparison. Instead Walker is fighting against a bogeyman that is a fantasy of his own making. He'd do well to take the concessions and then get on with actually addressing the budget problem, most of which will still remain even after the concessions.

It IS all about union-busting.

[BrentAllen]

I've had a couple of experiences with unions, though I have never joined one.

 

First was with the IBEW, as a summer helper. Those guys worked their rear-ends off, made good money, had high standards. A 15 minute break was exactly that, to the minute. You worked a full day, and worked hard. I have a lot of respect for those workers.

 

Second was with a Parts Pickers Union, at a GE warehouse. Laziest bunch of whiners and cry-babies I have ever been around. They maybe worked 2 hours a day, even though they had orders backed up on the conveyors. They were all in a collusion not to work fast, so the orders were spread over the line - everyone worked slow. They were paid very well, especially considering most of the time they were goofing off or reading the paper. They hated me because where ever the manager put me (summer helper, college student), I worked too hard and too fast, disrupting the mollasses-speed process. They complained about working in a hot house, and one elevated section was referred to as "the oven." Gross over-statements - it was very comfortable in there (with a/c).

 

A third was when I visited a client's sewing factory near Augusta, GA. The union members were claiming they had to work in a sweat shop. I toured the facility in a business suit and was very comfortable, even cool (a/c). I thought the client was pulling my leg about the complaints, but he was serious. The complaints were absurd.

 

I hear the constant complaint that union workers are always having to give up something. May be, but the UAW workers just about killed GM. Their labor costs were far higher than the competitors. Their benefits were over the top. When Ford closed a plant here in Atlanta, I knew several line workers who took major pay cuts to find other work - they had been over-paid for their actual skill level. That is my impression of unions - they strongarm companies into overpaying workers for the skills they have. Their leadership is corrupt, they are more political operations than labor shops.

[83Eagle]

>>The workers have given Walker what he claims to want in cost-cutting. The right to collectively bargain doesn't affect the budget under those conditions.

 

Simply not true. The big problem is the 3.5 billion dollar budget shortfall. That is being made up in the budget almost exclusively by reduction in expenses at both the state and local (revenue sharing) level. Now before you argue "Tax the rich!," Walker campaigned on a platform of balancing the budget with no tax increases. So his course of action is no big surprise, despite the hue and cry being made now. As a matter of fact, pre-election flyers sent out by public sector unions warned of this exact scenario based on Walker's experience in Milwaukee. Again, this is no big surprise to anyone who had been paying attention.

 

So what's up with collective bargaining and why is it a budget item? Well, local governments need the flexibility to address to address the reduction in local revenue without being constrained by collective bargaining over NON-WAGE issues (keep in mind they can still bargain for WAGE issues). Otherwise, thousands of workers will need to be laid off.

 

That's just a fact and is basic mathematics. It is a finite sum of money that the state can spend. It cannot simply roll the printing presses like our federal government.

 

The dirty little secret here is that, even if the Walker plan passes as written, municipalities are completely free to continue to provide whatever benefit levels the public sector unions desire, should they wish to do so! In fact, after the Walker announcement, Milwaukee quickly rushed to get contracts resigned in order to "lock in" higher benefit levels for its public employees! This makes absolutely no sense because they could have done this at any time no matter what--so all this has done is made it more difficult for the area to respond to the shared revenue shortfall in the months ahead. (Read: Layoffs.)

 

Everyone needs to understand that this is NOT about the "little guy." The union leadership doesn't give a darn about you. If the union is so great, why do we hear this continued complaint about how underpaid public sector employees are? Why didn't they do a better job advocating for you then?

 

The truth is the little guy is gonna get screwed no matter what, whether by the union or by the employer, either in benefits/salary or layoffs. It will happen. It is basic math. This, as always, is about power, and which "side" is going to blink first.

 

 

[scoutingagain]

Fret not all. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same rights as people. I have no doubt they'll soon rule individuals will not be allowed to freely associate and bargain collectively. All workers will be evaluated individually by an all knowing and scrupulously fair and subjective supervisor/or manager.

 

SA