Union Busting or Sound Financial Management?

[Beavah]

And that's why governmental liberalism fails, eh?

 

Can yeh point to any democratic government anywhere that has ever responsibly managed a long term, large pot of money to ensure meeting its obligations?

 

Nope. There's not a single state in da Union that has a solvent government-run pension fund. Whenever the government has a pot of money it attracts vultures da way manure attracts flies. Robbing social security to pay for guns and butter for your present voters is irresistible. Doesn't matter if you're a democrat like LBJ paying for Vietnam and expanded social programs with IOUs or you're a republican GWB paying for Iraq and expanded prescription drug coverage with IOUS.

 

What are the incentives to be responsible? NONE. Yeh get rewarded for spending now in every way, and you're long gone when da chickens come home to roost.

 

So it just mystifies me that people think da government will ever be responsible about such things. Heck, businesses often aren't and they at least have a stake in da stock price.

 

Beavah

[Lisabob]

But the answer to that, Beavah, is not to strip public workers of their bargaining rights. Maybe the answer is (in part) to change the basic system the entire country depends on for health insurance and retirement savings (raise the social security retirement age again, put more means tests in place, or go the other route and have universal health care so that people don't have to worry about it so much when they retire or lose their job or their employer goes bankrupt,etc. ), but it isn't to exclude one particular group of workers from having the right to negotiate with their employers.

 

By the way I don't have the time to dig out the data right now, but I don't think your claim about no state's public employee pension program being solvent is accurate. I seem to recall that there are some that are, although the majority are not. I'll find a few minutes over the upcoming weekend to see if I can track down the data, though.

 

 

[AlFansome]

Regarding solvent pension funds:

 

See Exhibit B1 in Appendix B of the PDF at http://downloads.pewcenteronthestates.org/The_Trillion_Dollar_Gap_final.pdf

 

Short answer from the Executive Summary:

 

"In 2000, slightly more than half the states had fully funded pension systems. By 2006, that number had shrunk to six states. By 2008, only fourFlorida, New York, Washington and Wisconsincould make that claim."

 

The number of solvent pension funds would be larger, depending on your definition. Of course, the numbers are from 2008 so some salt should be added when digesting.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

In my simplistic view of the world 'the government' is not some alien thing that is outside normal human existence. In a representative democracy 'the government' IS essentially a thing created BY 'the people'. Because the politicians are our elected representatives, they speak for US. We The People made those bargains. We The People agreed to the terms of those deals. We The People promised public servants whatever it is that their contracts state. And We The People, each and every one of us, are the ones who are going to renege if our elected representatives make that decision.

If I promise to pay someone in return for a service, if they give me the service I damn well pay them. If I owe someone I will sacrifice whatever I have to personally to make sure that debt is paid. I don't care if I am in a minority of 'one' on this but I don't like it one bit for a majority consisting of deadbeats to force me to be among them in reneging on an agreement like this. And as far as I'm concerned that's what 'We The People' are whenever we fail to live up to our obligations.

 

Oops, what am I saying? Yep, considering what we've loaded onto future generations, 'deadbeat' is a generous term.

 

[Beavah]

But the answer to that, Beavah, is not to strip public workers of their bargaining rights.

 

I never claimed that it was. I thought my position on that was made pretty clear in all these multiple threads, eh? For da record, again, I consider the action against bargaining rights (and the way it was done in the end) to be contrary to the Oath and Law. You must be thinkin' of one of them other Beavers, eh? There are a lot of us!

 

Yep, as packsaddle says, as honorable people we put up our houses and our livelihoods as collateral to pay our "government" obligation to these workers when our representatives spent da money on other things to make us happy.

 

At da same time, one can fault the public sector unions for even negotiating for that level of benefit, eh? Not good citizenship to try to gouge your neighbor when yeh know your neighbor can't afford it. And perhaps they had some responsibility, too, to ensure that the pension benefits they bargained for were properly funded.

 

But da real issue is systemic. Few citizens have the time or ability to track likely pension fund liquidity, and even those that do have a dickens of a time gettin' the necessary information. If the union didn't do it, it's hard to imagine average Joe voter exercising that level of oversight. The few alert and responsible voters don't have da voice or the votes to scare off all da vultures.

 

That's why liberal government programs fail, eh? Any time yeh put that much money in a pot yeh attract bad actors. The People just don't have the time or wherewithal to monitor it, and the elected representatives have no incentive to be responsible (if they even have the knowledge to understand how to be responsible).

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[Eagle732]

Beavah, state run pension funds are having problems but my county run pension fund is 105% funded according to the last figures I saw. Two reasons for that, 1. the fund is overseen by an elected board of county appointees and elected employees who all have vested interest in making sure the fund stays solvent, and 2. because we raised holy hell when they tried to tap the fund to make up a fiscal shortfall in '92! We've been able to keep the politician's hands out of the till, although they did manage to vote themselves into the fund without ever having to actually pay into it. So if there is a problem with pensions it's not the employees who by law must pay into the fund but the politicians who either raided the funds or failed to live up to their contractual obligations and didn't pay their share into the fund.

[Eagle732]

Interesting how Wisconsin is now demanding under penalty of law that teachers, fire and police live up to the no strike clauses in their contracts while the state prepares to break the collective bargaining portion of the contracts.

 

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore. The end is near!

[Venividi]

Promises have to be backed by the ability to keep them. Else, what we think are promises are not.

 

Promises also seem to be dependant on who the promise is made to, and the perspective of the parties, as was made apparent by our local school board. At their January board meeting, the board president took time to comment on Illinois financial mess. He made a statement that the state had made promises to state workers and teachers (regarding pensions and medical benefits), and that the state had an obligation to keep their promises.

At the February board meeting, the board voted to raise the tax cap. After promising 4 years prior that they would not do so when the community approved a building referendum.

A bit ironic - school board believes that promises made by other govt bodies must be kept no matter the circumstances, but promises made by themselves, those are OK to reneg on when conditions change.

 

 

[packsaddle]

If a promise is made that can't be kept, then it could be called a lie especially if the people making the promise know it can't be met. However, in the case of the school board the fact that politicians reneged on a promise with regard to taxes (did anyone really believe a promise like this?) does not relieve the people of the legal and moral commitments associated with THEIR promise to public employees. Moreover, while the school board has a clear problem with a promise like they made (many unforeseen circumstances could require a tax increase), the ability to keep a promise to public employees only has the constraint that the people simply don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to keep their promise.

In other words, whereas the school board could fall on their swords and it would have no effect on their ability to avoid breaking the stupid promise they made, 'we the people' have no such constraint. If we decide not to keep our promise to public employees it is because we want to keep it for ourselves. It's that simple. In the promise to pay pensions the words, "...but only if we feel like it" probably don't occur at the end of the agreement.

 

To return to the original question in the title of this thread, consider that in this very RED region, the very RED state of Georgia's system returns about 68% of the employee salary in the form of a pension. It is a right-to-work state and only 14% of its public employees have collective bargaining.

In contrast, Vermont, with over 50% of the work force with collective bargaining, only returns about 20% of salary as pension.

The impact of collective bargaining on the costs to the state is unclear at best. This combined with the fact that the split bill made collective bargaining the clear point of the conflict, tends to support the contention that the action in Wisconsin is mostly about Union Busting.

But it's done now and now we can sit back and watch the drama unfold now that Walker won.

[Lisabob]

"pocket full of mumbles, such are promises"

 

(unless they're on paper and signed by both parties, then we call it a contract)

[scoutingagain]

A Tea Party member, a Wall Street Banker and a Public Union employee walk into a coffee shop for coffee and share a dozed cookies. The Banker takes 11 and tells the Tea Party member to watch it, the Public Union worker wants a piece of his cookie.

 

Virtually all wealth created in the last decade has been accumulated by those in the top 10% income. 70% of that wealth has been accumulated by the top 1%. In the mean time, middle class taxpayers, bicker with middle class public servants for scraps.

 

Public emplyee unions are not the problem. Anyone that they are, probably also believes that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction, Obama was borne in Kenya, Global Climate Change is a hoax, and the moon landing was a hoax.

 

SA

 

 

[jrush]

Eagle 732, enforcing no strike clauses is to be expected. The problem with the public unions is they expect the same rules to apply to them as to private unions, and that's not the case. Bottom line, UAW can hold Ford's feet to the fire regarding a 50 year contract, no matter what Ford's current financial status is, unless bankruptcy is declared. When dealing with the government, the government is only required to do what is Constitutionally mandated...and I don't think any State is Constitutionally mandated to fullfill financial agreements. The current electorate has the right to change the terms of an agreement at will. Consent of the governed, and all that. Hypothetically, unless barred by their Constitution the electorate in a State could decide to completly halt all taxpayer funding of public pensions, and tell teachers, fire, police etc they will fund 100% of their medical and retirement themselves.

 

Bottom line, the taxpayer has the ultimate right to decide how tax dollars are spent.

 

 

[jrush]

scoutingagain, everyone has heard that before, but there are two problems with getting support for large-scale wealth redistribution beyond what is already being conducted via the tax code.

 

First, economics are not a zero-sum game, because wealth isn't finite; it can be created. The primary limiting factor of wealth creation isn't wealth or income or even education...it's vision and will.

 

Second, public service is not the place to become wealthy. We are performing a service to the taxpayer. We deserve AT MOST the market rate for the service we are providing, and not one dime more. If we can't afford a 3,000 sf house, 2 new cars and private school for the kids, that's not the fault of the rich banker, nor is it the responsibility of the lawmaker to force him to give us more of the cookies. The wage for a public employee shouldn't be driven by granting us the ability to achieve a certain "standard of living", it should be driven by market value for the service we provide.

 

It is not the place of the government (i.e., the voter) to force the taxpayer to grant you what you failed to achieve on your own. If you want to serve the public, become a teacher/cop/soldier/firefighter/ems/etc. If you want a bigger slice of the pie, invent the post-it note or the personal computer or facebook.

[CalicoPenn]

"it should be driven by market value for the service we provide."

 

My area got hit with a 24" snowstorm at the beginning of February. The streets AND sidewalks in my town were clear within 24 hours of the storms end. The work was all done by public employees - all union members. They got salary plus overtime - and worked as many hours in 2 days as most of us work in one week. How do we determine the market value for the work they did? Plowing a street is much different from plowing a commercial parking lot. Do we really want to pay the guys that plow our streets the same amount that we're paying a mope with a plow on a pick-up truck to plow out a 7-11? If your answer is yes, do me a favor - please don't run for office in my town.

 

What is the market value for a police officer? Is it the same as the cost for a private security guard at Walmart?

 

What is the market value of a fire fighter?

 

What is the market value of a teacher? Is the market value of a public school teacher with a Master's degree and 25 years of experience really the same as the market value of a private school teacher just out of college? Want to hear a little secret? A lot of private school teachers are folks that weren't good enough to get a job at a public school. It's not the other way around.

 

 

 

 

[scoutingagain]

"Second, public service is not the place to become wealthy. "

 

Agree with that 100%, which is why I don't think public employees should be vilified if other folks don't feel like their getting their fair share.

 

"It is not the place of the government (i.e., the voter) to force the taxpayer to grant you what you failed to achieve on your own. "

 

Agree with this as well. If you feel your not getting your fair share based on your efforts, doesn't mean you should take back the promises you made to public employees when you hired them. They signed on based on the market rate at the time, which included an assumption of certain benefits when they retired. To do otherwise is untrustworthy and unscoutlike.

 

"If you want a bigger slice of the pie, invent the post-it note or the personal computer or facebook."

 

Agree with this as well. Investment bankers havn't done any of this though. They are money changers.

 

 

SA