Another Very Sad Day for the USA

[TrainTrac]

And speaking to the origin of this thread, why is it a sad day? The Federal courts have already ruled and set precedent that there is no "right" to public-sector collective bargaining.

By The Examiner

Created Feb 21 2011 - 8:05pm



There is no right to collective bargaining



Protesters in Madison, Wis., and Columbus, Ohio, are defending the "right to collective bargaining." Guess what? There is no right to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a legislated privilege given to unions by friendly lawmakers.



The federal courts have been very clear on this. A federal district court in North Carolina put it quite eloquently in a decision upholding the Tar Heel State's law prohibiting public-sector bargaining, saying, "All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision-making process."



A law granting public-sector unions monopoly bargaining privileges gives a union, a special interest group, two bites at the apple. First, it uses its political clout to elect public officials. Then it negotiates with the very same officials.



When you consider that between 70 and 80 percent of all local government expenditures are personnel costs, you begin to get an idea of the magnitude of the power such laws give unions.



Not only is there no right to collective bargaining in public employment, it is wrong. Collective bargaining distorts and corrupts democratic government.



Collective bargaining is a process for employer-employee relations that was designed for the private sector. This process served as the model for the development of public-sector collective bargaining without taking into account the fundamental differences between the two sectors.



Government is inherently a monopoly. If you don't like a decision of government, you can't check with the competition to see whether you can get a decision more to your liking. Business, on the other hand, is competitive. If you don't like the cars being made by one manufacturer, you can check with another to see whether you can find one you like better.



In business, the bottom line is dollars. No matter how politically popular a business decision might be, if it bankrupts the company it is a failure. In government, the bottom line is votes. No matter how financially ruinous a decision might be, if it gets you re-elected, it is a success.



More importantly, government is sovereign, while all other institutions in our society depend on free choice. Sovereignty is the right to use force to enforce decisions. We may not think about it in our everyday lives, but lurking in the background behind every government rule or regulation is the fact that government has the right and the power to use force to enforce it.



We might resent that when it comes to things like taxes, but we need it when it comes to things like murder and mayhem. A sovereign institution might choose to seek input from interested parties about a decision, but when the decision is made, it is the law.



How different this is from a typical public-sector bargaining situation which the union makes demands and those demands are backed up by the threat -- whether legal or illegal -- of a strike.



There is a consequence to this distortion. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2010, the total compensation costs of state and local government workers were 44 percent higher than private industry; pay was only 33 percent higher, but benefits cost 70 percent more.



Public-sector collective bargaining was a creature of the social revolution that took place in this nation in the '60s and '70s. It was the wrong thing to do, but unlike many other mistakes it created a very powerful institution that will fight furiously against any effort to repeal or reform it. That's what's happening now in Wisconsin and Ohio and in many different ways in states all around the nation.



David Denholm is president of the Public Service Research Foundation, a research and education organization that studies labor unions and their influence on public policy.

 

[Bill V]

Bill V,



I submit that the taxpayers DO NOT have a voice. I wish they did. I wish they had a say. But I as a state and local taxpayer don't get to define, directly, the budgets that various government bodies and offices have at the state and local levels. I don't directly get to vote on the services they do, or should, or shouldn't provide. The only thing I get to vote on are the representatives, and they more often than not are more interested in getting elected, and re-elected, than in serving me. And, since in some parts of the country there are MORE voters employed in the public sector than in the private sector, what say do I as a taxpayer NOT employed by the government really have?



Getting a vote for the guy or gal that gets to vote isn't enough. The inmates are running the asylum. Time to stop feeding them.



TJR

TJR, even if I were to stipulate all those points (and I'm not)--nothing you mentioned is an issue with regard to the EMPLOYEES' side of such negotiations. It's all an issue with the GOVERNMENT side of the equation. So because one side of the negotiations is defective, they get to break the other side to match? That makes no sense. Fix the side that's broken.



Also, if that's the case, then why do we let the government enter into any contracts with any businesses whatsoever? Dealings with defense contractors, construction contractors, etc., aren't requiring the contractor corporations to break up their board of directors, do away with the open bid process, and simply do the work for whatever price the government desides to pay them, without any recourse available to the contractors.



Oh wait--those contractors are more frequently run by Republicans, while the unions are more likely run by Democrats. The distinction suddenly becomes very clear.

 

[Tom Schindler]

But you work for a gov't contractor, correct? You're not an acutual employee of the Federal gov't, right? Big difference there.

How do you figure? We are held accountable by the Federal Government for everything we do.



In the end, the Wisconson governor will do nothing to help budget the state and will end up digging his own grave.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Right. Your personal situation does not the global, single, truth, for everyone, and every situation make.





Bill V,



Yada, yada. ;-). You seemed to go off on several tangents.



So...



Simple question time: Do you think allowing govt employees to unionize is in the best interest of taxpayers, yes or no?







TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Right. Your personal situation does not the global, single, truth, for everyone, and every situation make.

Of course, yours always does...right?

Simple question time: Do you think allowing govt employees to unionize is in the best interest of taxpayers, yes or no?

I think having a contract that stipulates wages, work hours, and punishment is good for everyone.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Cayman,



No, Cayman. My personal situation and experiences define what is true for me, only. That is why on the rare occasion that I speak in absolutes I preface my statement with something like: "for me..." or "given my experience...". I didn't qualify in this way when I made my statement above, but that wasn't required because there was no absolute stated or implied. Had I said "All" instead of "too many"' then I would have been wrong. But, since I said "too many"' then it becomes a matter of opinion, assuming there is even just one govt agency that spends money unwisely...and I think we can all agree there is are several. Maybe not where you work, but that is why I never said "all!"



Most of the workers in the USA disagree with you. Value should define wages. Hours worked are best negotiated between employer and employee. Clarifying punishment especially before there is any infraction breeds distrust, an adversarial relationship between employer and employee, and sets up an expectation of what can and can't be "gotten away with."



There was a time in this country when many of the workers were unskilled, nor extremely well educated, and they punched a clock. Unions helped these people. Unions can still help such cogs in the machine. But for professionals that are educated and work in an office, those things you describe tend to only aid the underperforming employee at the sake of those employees that achieve and over achieve.



If you are valuable, you get to help define your wage and your hours. If you are not valuable, well, then I guess you probably need a union on you side. See my point?



TJR

 

[TrainTrac]

I think having a contract that stipulates wages, work hours, and punishment is good for everyone.

If that's your way of answering the question, then here's a follow-up: If the "stipulated wages, work hours, and punishment" aren't agreed to by the union, then is it "good for everyone" (specifically the taxpayers) if the union then decides to strike, thereby holding the taxpayers hostage until they get what they want?



Remember we're talking about public-sector employees, not private-sector employees.

 

[Tom Schindler]

If that's your way of answering the question, then here's a follow-up: If the "stipulated wages, work hours, and punishment" aren't agreed to by the union, then is it "good for everyone" (specifically the taxpayers) if the union then decides to strike, thereby holding the taxpayers hostage until they get what they want?

Were you aware that most union contrcts have anti-strike clauses in them?



The company I worked for had an agreement. The company will not lock the employees out and the employees will not strike.



I am a supervisor in a union shop. I love having that contract book. If a guy isn't working up to his side of the bargan, I can walk him out. There is nothing he can say or the union can say.



I know how unions work. I worked both union and non-union. If I am working in a factory, I would want to be part of the union. If I am working in the capacity I am in now, then I work non-union.



I have the skills to take me to the top of my industry. I do not have the skills to eat lunch under the bosses desk. If that makes me weak enough to need a union, than I am weak.





Tom

 

[Bill V]

So...



Simple question time: Do you think allowing govt employees to unionize is in the best interest of taxpayers, yes or no?

TJR--



No, I don't think allowing employees to unionize is in the best interest of taxpayers. Just like I don't think that allowing employees to unionize is in the best interest of any employer. As unions typically help balance the playing field between employers and employees, instead of it typically being lopsided in favor of the employers.



But actually, your question is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether allowing unionization is best for employers, what matters is whether allowing unionization is best for Americans. The former looks at the question from strictly fiscal perspectives, while the latter also takes into consideration ethical perspectives. And in my opinion, the very clear answer to that question is Yes.



Bill

 

[Don Pertz]

The Sad Day was when some of the people in this country realized that all of this bickering over BS is just what Obama's crowd wants. Their objective is to make sure this system fails miserably so that they can re-engineer it to what they have always wanted. If you don't believe this, think about some of the things being done. Social Security deduction was reduced, WHY when it's not taking in enough to support it? Maybe so it fails sooner! Will they let the government shut down, rather than cut spending? WHY, so it fails quicker and they can start their Socialist form of government? Yeh , we tried democracy and it failed so we will do this now. These people have been in power so long that there is no legal or sane way of getting rid of them. They refuse to enforce the laws already on the books and they damn sure aren't going to bend to what the people want.



We are our own worst enemy, sit on our asses and bicker back and forth , but refuse to act.

Sad to say that some people will deserve what they get when this is all over.



Go ahead flame me, its easier than getting up and doing something about it!

 

[Kevin Lang]

Social security is a socialist program though.

We are our own worst enemy, sit on our asses and bicker back and forth , but refuse to act. These people have been in power so long that there is no legal or sane way of getting rid of them

And what would you have us do? For starters, you'll have us all become insane vigilantes, but once we have that title, what then? Revolution? (Where's the Jefferson quote in your post?)

 

[Tom Schindler]

The Sad Day was when some of the people in this country realized that all of this bickering over BS is just what Obama's crowd wants.

Couldn't the same be said about the conservitives? There have been so many lies spread about Obama that it keeps the country divided, or do you just think that Obama is the devil trying to destroy the greatness of the USA?



It goes both ways, it just depends on what we believe if it is plausable or not.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



I don't think unions, for the most part, are required anymore for the things you mention. I think the playing field is level between employers and employees today. If anything, I think in most cases the employee has more power than ever before.



Oh, and my question is NOT irrelevant. What a freaking condescending thing to say. How about you say something like "A more appropriate question is...", or, "A question of arguably equal value to ask is..." See the difference? Telling people (me) that their (my) POV, argument, etc., is irrelevant is a pretty sure way to say that you simply do not respect my opinion or what I am saying, or my right to say it.



The question of whether or not unionization of govt employees is good for taxpayers is very relevant, because, first and foremost the BUCK STOPS with the taxpayers. Period.



Sure, there are other questions that are relevant, arguably more relevant. When someone uses an absolute, they typically make an absolute arse out of themselves. The term "irrelevant" is an absolute, meaning WITHOUT RELEVANCE. Please choose your words wisely when responding to me. Essentially if you had been talking to me face-to-face just now, you would have seen a red face, dart-like eyes pointed your way. You pi$$ed me off..plain and simple. Yeah, I know you were probably typing quick, didn't mean anything by it, etc. I'm just telling you, it's not a good technique nor tone to use when discussing things with me. I would NEVER do that to someone else, and I demand the same level of respect in return.



Anyway, to your question, if you really think allowing govt employees to unionize, or not, is an ethical question, then I will have to disagree. Sure, there might have been a time when the rights of the workers were trampled without unions, but those times are all but gone, and there are agencies (many paid by tax dollars) to prevent such abuses. Taxpayers are sick of the excesses. Either disband OSHA, the EPA, and all these other govt agencies at the local, state, and federal levels that keep employers in check, OR, allow unions unrestricted. We don't need both, anymore, especially not for govt employees. Having both is a "double dip" into the taxpayers pocket.



Again, these are my opinions and what I think are important. You think what you want and value what you feel is important. I won't be so arrogant and condescending as to tell you that what you think and the questions/points you raise are irrelevant. But then again, I tend to stick up for myself, treat others with respect and expect everyone else to do the same. For that reason I DO NOT NEED, and DO NOT WANT to pay someone else to take care of me and to safeguard my best interest for me. Doing so would just inflate the costs of the goods and services that I use, or buy, in the process. I'll take care of myself, and if I am too week to do that, I will look at that as MY FAULT, not someone elses.



TJR

 

[Don Pertz]

I expected those replies. I suggest getting active in the Governmental Process like some of us do. Oh, sorry, All work and forum time, no time for real efforts. All the problems can be solved just by discussing them here.

 

[Kevin Lang]

. I suggest getting active in the Governmental Process like some of us do.

How do you know we are not? You don't. I voted, I'm involved. Same as most all of us here.



What does "getting active in the Governmental Process" mean to you? I assume that you yourself are active in this process, assumption made as you did not explicitly state how you are involved, or if you are at all. Why you do not assert your involvment is a question indeed.

Oh, sorry, All work and forum time, no time for real efforts.

Your apology is accepted. :bwahaha:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

drpertz said:

I expected those replies. I suggest getting active in the Governmental Process like some of us do. Oh, sorry, All work and forum time, no time for real efforts. All the problems can be solved just by discussing them here.

Two things I detest the most in one post: sarcasm and an assumption of clairvoyance.



Drpertz. You shouldn't presume that the people here are NOT active in politics and trying to enact change. Also, you should be aware that many have called sarcasm is the recourse of the weak mind.





TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

you should be aware that many have called sarcasm is the recourse of the weak mind.

Who says that the "many" are right?

 

[Don Pertz]

What your both really trying to say about yourselves is , that you think "Sometimes it is better to shut up and let everybody think your an a**hole, than it is to say anything and remove all doubt". oops, you don't even practice what you preach. Just like a politician.:soap:

:soap:

 

[Kevin Lang]

"Sometimes it is better to shut up and let everybody think your an a**hole, than it is to say anything and remove all doubt".

Wow, you're expressing exactly what is being thought of you. Is this what they refer to as a "Freudian Slip"? :grin:

you don't even practice what you preach. Just like a politician

You started this tangential tirade, and you never stated how you are "involved in the Governmental Process", to any extent. You'll have to be more involved than we are, to back up your claims.



Seems more like you don't even want to preach what you allegedly practice. Oh, and if you are so extensively involved in the "Governmental Process", then you are a politician. So you're mocking yourself? Color me confused.



Actually, I'd bet TJR is thinking "Sometimes it is better to shut up and not feed the trolls", but I couldn't resist. nline:

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

You need Unions people, believe me. You all live under the blanket of freedom in which Unions provide. Overwhelming majority are for the Union on this issue. Look at the polls. I type until my hands are sore and the same 3 or 4 dummies still cant wrap thier closed minds around the fact that that Unions are needed.