Union Busting or Sound Financial Management?

[Beavah]

you've got to free up local government officials to not be strangled by things like mediation and arbitration

 

Yah, this is where yeh just have to shake your head at da level of ignorance, eh?

 

Mediation and arbitration are alternative dispute resolution strategies, which save yeh from having to go to court most of da time.

 

Da solution to not be "strangled" by disputes is not to make contractual promises that yeh can't keep or that yeh try to renege on, eh? And to treat grey area cases with fairness and compassion so that they don't turn into contract disputes in da first place. In short, yeh can avoid mediation and arbitration in many cases if yeh simply live by the Oath and Law.

 

But when there are disputes, yeh generally want mediation and arbitration. Parties generally agree to mediation and arbitration clauses in contracts because it's MUCH faster, easier, and cheaper than goin' to court. If yeh eliminate alternative dispute resolution, then every dispute goes to a regular trial.

 

Good luck savin' money that way.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[sherminator505]

(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Beavah]

Kerplunk.

 

That would be da sound of sherminator trippin' over Godwin's law and fallin' face-first into da mud pit.

 

Much as we might disagree with people's policy positions or tactics, I reckon it's best not to ascribe as evil what really are just policy disputes, or what can be explained by ham-handedness, ignorance, or incompetence. And even genuinely bad choices very rarely rise to da level of 1933.

 

As we saw in Arizona, there's only one reasonable response if someone is a Hitler or a Quadaffi or whoever, and that's to put a bullet in his brain before he does any more harm. I don't reckon that's an approach we want to encourage in da U.S., so it's incumbent on all of us not to take the rhetoric to that level.

 

Beavah

 

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[sherminator505]

Beavah,

 

Perhaps. I have misunderstood. Are you saying that what happened in Arizona is more acceptable than my choice of rhetoric, because that's certainly how it sounds...

 

I may have chosen a very bad example, but my point was that elections do not always result in the furtherance of the electorate's interests, not to cast Governor Walker or Representative Giffords or anyone else as "that guy."(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[jrush]

The only problem I have with public sector unions is that States cannot declare bankruptcy under US Code. If a union/company relationship isn't realistic and the company goes under, it can have its obligations to the union negated in bankruptcy court. As a result, while the anti-union crowd complains about "unions driving companies out of business", fact is, it's in the unions' best interest to keep the company in business and the jobs in the community.

 

Public sector unions, on the other hand, can use collective bargaining to put the taxpayer on the hook for otherwise unsustainable legacy costs. If the State had the option to declare bankruptcy and get costs back in line with reality, I think you would see more realistic union bargaining and a more forgiving taxpayer.

 

 

[sherminator505]

By "legacy costs," do you mean commitments that were previously agreed to?

[Eagle732]

Yea, those pesky contracts that they want to get out of. Those contracts that they can renegotiate every year.

 

I gave up a job paying twice what I started as a firefighter. I wanted to do the job and never expected to get rich doing it. After 27 years of faithful service I do expect the county to live up to there end of the agreement and pay my pension.

 

What the Republican governors of Ohio and Wisconsin are doing is to ensure the re-election of Pres. Obama. They should have took the concessions they wanted and got, and left collective bargaining alone. Change happens slowly, if you want to make big changes in short time you're gonna get resistance, health care or collective bargaining.

[jrush]

Correct.

 

The problem isn't evil gubbermint trying to hose the poor defenseless teachers/police/etc, it's that when the State gets in a tight, they get bailed out by taxpayers in other States who had nothing to do with what was previously agreed to. I don't want to bail out Minnesota any more than I want to bail out GM. I say, let Minnesotans agree to whatever bennies they want to give teachers. If those costs exceed what they're willing to pay in taxes, let them (as a State) declare bankruptcy and suffer the temporarily higher bond rate in order to get old contracts in line with what the tax base can sustain.

 

 

Eagle72, the problem isn't just the contracts they're negotiating today. It's also the contracts they negotiated 20 or 40 years ago.

[83Eagle]

 

Yea, those pesky contracts that they want to get out of. Those contracts that they can renegotiate every year.

 

If that were truly the case this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

There is also a reason that all sorts of public sector groups are rushing to do contracts now that have languished for anywhere from nine months to two years. Before there was no urgency on the part of unions to "negotiate" because they knew that new contracts would likely call for concessions due to economic reality. But government still needed to provide services, so they knew they could simply run with no contract-essentially extending the old one in perpetuity. So they played chicken with the budget and they lost.

 

And the dirty little secret is that local governments can still give whatever fantastic contracts they feel like doing. Isn't freedom a good thing?

[Eagle732]

jrush, does your line of thinking apply to laws passed 20 or 40 years ago? Or just legal contracts?

 

I've been under anything from a 1 year to a 4 year contract, but they were all agreed to by both parties, and both parties are expected to uphold the contract.

 

Don't know about unions rushing to get contracts signed now, I would think most are in the process of negotiating for the 2011 - 12 fiscal year contract.

[sherminator505]

Contracts made 20-40 years ago should not be a problem, as they have been accepted reality for all that time. Unless of course, things like contractual requirements and stare decisis mean nothing to you, in which case you feel that you can get away with anything under the fig leaf of having been elected to office! That hardly seems like an American notion.

[jrush]

Contracts made 20-40 years ago shouldn't be a problem as long as tax revenues continue to meet the assumptions made at the time.

 

 

[sherminator505]

The only thing that should continue to be paid out 20-40 years down the road are retirement benefits. If the employees were expected to pay into their retirement, and they did, then it is the government's responsibility to manage those funds with the realization that recessions occur.

[OldGreyEagle]

on a lighter note, a contract is essentially a promise, a guarantee of something of value for something else of value.

 

In this case its the service provided by the workers for the pay and retirement plan

 

And the odd thing is that what is happening is we are expecting politicians to honor promises made in the past today. Ask the Native Americans how that worked out for them

 

Why do we absolutely hold politicians to these contracts when we all know the way to tell if a politician is lying is because their lips are moving?

 

OK, the point is, we hold the governmental units to honor these contracts because as a nation of law, its a cornerstone of our society that a contract is to be honored so why do we let policitians off so easy when they break an oral contract, other wise known as a campaign promise.

 

Should not the same ire be raised against any politician who breaks an oral contract with his constituents?

[Lisabob]

Let's say that you work for a company and you have a contract that promises you x% of your healthcare will be paid by the company upon your retirement, as long as you work for the company for 20 years or longer. Or that you'll get a pension of $zzz/month, based on your longevity and earnings with that company during your career.

 

So you do your part of the bargain. You work for that company for however long, passing up other opportunities that might have resulted in different short-term gains. You do this because you have a deal with the company and you plan your retirement strategies around it.

 

Let's say you retire at age 65, having worked 40 years for that one company (I know, who does that any more these days? But let's just say you did.)

 

Now, a few years after that, the company decides no longer to honor its commitment to you, and leaves you high and dry with no more pension, or no more input into your insurance, or no more whatever else was promised to you all those years. You are up the creek, with very few realistic options.

 

I suppose that you can re-enter the workforce (good luck) and try to get a job in your former field again. Or maybe you can be a greeter at Wal Mart for minimum wage. THat assumes you are healthy enough to work at all, of course, and old age eventually catches up with everybody.

 

But the company made you all those promises and you made personal and financial decisions and sacrifices to hold up your end of the bargain all along the way, and now they've pulled the rug out from under you. That is BAD NEWS, unless you also won the lottery along the way.

 

On the other hand, let's say a politician breaks his or her campaign promises. That can be pretty bad news too, but most of the time there is a short- to medium-term solution, and that's to vote the bum out of office if you feel they strayed too far from their promise. Elect someone else who just might abide by their promises.

 

With breech of contract though, you can't get back the time or the lost opportunities that have passed you by, and that's why it is such a problem.