Home › Forums › Open Discussion › What Besides Unions?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 28, 2011 at 6:04 am #718741
snaParticipantRedblack: That 23.7% is only because that graph excludes 105,000 k-12 employees.
February 28, 2011 at 6:08 am #718742
redblackParticipant…k-12 employees who work for municipalities, which are funded at – you know – the local level.
i was merely debunking your claim about the state budget.
February 28, 2011 at 6:09 am #718743
snaParticipant71% of the funding comes from the state.
February 28, 2011 at 6:13 am #718744
snaParticipantthere will be no new taxes for the near term, so we’re left with the choice
A). Public workers reduced pay or benefits
Or
B). Reduced benefits to the poor and needy.
Greatly simplified, i would agree. But thats basically the choice in many states including WA.
February 28, 2011 at 6:18 am #718745
redblackParticipantyou know, tax increases on business don’t have to be approved by voters, nor do getting rid of subsidies and tax breaks.
would you like it if someone came after your wages and benefits, and started picking your employer’s spending apart?
February 28, 2011 at 6:26 am #718746
snaParticipantPeople at my work had their retirement funding cut 40% last year. The company said they couldn’t afford the current plan anymore. They were right — they couldn’t.
Did i like it? No. But i’m free to find a different job somewhere else. I dont live at the mercy of my current employer.
February 28, 2011 at 6:52 am #718747
redblackParticipantthere’s another thing: the teachers in wisconsin already conceded wages, and agreed to contribute more out-of-pocket to their benefits and pensions.
it was a contract negotiation, see? and it helped the governor balance his budget.
and yes, your situation sucks, as well. is it a small business?
February 28, 2011 at 7:25 am #718748
ishpeopleMembersna: For me, I would add to your options a choice C: End tax giveaways to corporations and the super rich, such as those that Scott Walker just gave in Wisconsin.
Reducing the budget deficit can be achieved both by decreasing spending (which union concessions on pay and contributions to health care and pensions contribute to) and by raising revenues. Why are we not more outraged that reducing the budget deficit has to come largely at the expense of workers?
I can only imagine that corporations and the super rich that they have spawned are laughing all the way to the banks while they watch the spectacle of us workers fighting with each other about giving up more more more, down to our most basic human rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining, while they remain almost entirely unscathed by our anger.
And of course, it’s no surprise that politicians are not rushing to ask corporations to contribute more to our societies and communities—how could they possibly bite the hand that feeds them? So it’s all up to us workers to demand policies that are more fair, but we’re too busy fighting amongst ourselves.
And to answer the question, no there is no institutional substitute for unions. And unions are as important in the public sector as in the private sector; they are the only means for workers to collectively participate in setting the rules of the workplace (which is an international human right, by the way). Without them, costs will always be the primary concern; to the detriment not just of the workers, but also of any recipient of public services. Unions, for example, help nurses bargain on their patient loads to keep their workload and ability to provide care at a manageable level—say 6 patients at a time versus 8 or ten. As a patient, I want nurses to have a say over their working conditions because they know their jobs better than anyone and because they want to do them well. As a parent, I want teachers to set limits against the public school system’s drive to continuously cut costs (by making classroom sizes larger, etc). There are a million rules like this that employers and unions(i.e. workers) sit together and work out—and there is no substitute for this process other than collective bargaining.
I hope we don’t have to return to the days of sweatshop factories to remember the importance of a voice for workers….
February 28, 2011 at 8:01 am #718749
dobroParticipantA unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the tea partier and says,”look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie.”
February 28, 2011 at 8:18 am #718750
acemotelParticipantThis discussion reminds me of a great opinion piece in the NYT yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26herbert.html Quoting from the article: (and BTW, 26% of public employees are unionized)
>>The predators at the top, billionaires and millionaires, are pitting ordinary workers against one another. So we’re left with the bizarre situation of unionized workers with a pension being resented by nonunion workers without one. The swells are in the background, having a good laugh.
February 28, 2011 at 3:57 pm #718751
JoBParticipantsna..
it turns out that the public employees in Wisconsin contribute more than you do to their pension plans. They even contribute more than Gov Walker was demanding. You can’t do more than 100%
http://tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument
maybe it’s time for more investigation
and fewer emotion driven misrepresentations…
and yet another lesson to the rest of us…
when the right frames the discussion
it’s time to do more than a little fact checking on the basis of their premise.
March 1, 2011 at 2:36 am #718752
snaParticipantThats a very misleading statement.
March 1, 2011 at 2:52 am #718753
Genesee HillParticipantsna:
I beg you. Please explain your comment. Misleading statement by whom? Misleading statement about what?
Please, you can do better than that. Your blurb was the 37th. What, in Godzilla’s name are you referring to?
March 1, 2011 at 2:54 am #718754
snaParticipantComment 36 and the article linked are very misleading. It states that Wisc workers pay 100% of their benefits by completely redefining the word “pay”.
March 1, 2011 at 3:10 am #718755
dobroParticipantthe misleading statement is yours sna. I read the article too and it outlines how the contract for state workers pay is structured and goes into detail to show how the pension plans are part of an overall structure that defines the total compensation. It does not redefine the word “pay” as you misleadingly assert.
March 1, 2011 at 3:43 am #718756
SmittyParticipantsna, keep up the good work, you are smoking these guys.
But, don’t worry about getting the last word, it’s impossible!
March 1, 2011 at 3:50 am #718757
DPMemberFrom sna:
With private unions you have two strong forces (union vs management). Public unions have no strong force countering their power.
OK. That might be a good argument for state governments taking a tougher line with public employees’ unions. But it’s not a good argument for taking away public employees’ collective bargaining rights all together. If you do that, you’re tipping the scale too far in the other direction, weakening the workers too much in relation to the “boss.”
Governor Walker is just going too far.
March 1, 2011 at 4:14 am #718758
snaParticipantDP, whats wrong with the market setting the government workers salaries like is the case in most private sector jobs? Is the government more likely to abuse its workers than private emploers? Doubtful.
Public unions exist to negotiate above market compensation at the expense of the tax payer or the poor/needy. This is how we end up with metro bus drivers making $100k despite no requirement for even a HS degree.
March 1, 2011 at 4:14 am #718759
F16CrewChiefMemberI’m really struggling with the point being made against this thread. It has been said over and over again that union representation only accounts for 10% of the workforce. Now I’m no economics major, but how does taking collective bargaining away from those represented in the public sector, balance a budget that is so far in the red? I was always taught not to focus on the 20%, but to focus on the other 80. We’re talking about 10% here. What is Gov. Walker doing about the rest of the budget?
March 1, 2011 at 4:24 am #718760
F16CrewChiefMemberHas Gov. Walker actually presented charts that show collective bargaining caused a state deficit and how eliminating it will bring Wisconsin in the green? Or is all this just hearsay? And didn’t the public sector already try and agree to the concessions other than collective bargaining?
March 1, 2011 at 4:46 am #718761
JoBParticipantF16CrewChief…
never let it be said that SNA.. or Smitty.. let a trivial thing like facts get in the way of an argument.
March 1, 2011 at 5:01 am #718762
jamminjMemberBank of America – $0 in taxes paid, yet executives receive up to $30M in pay.
Boeing – billions of $$$$ in subsidies but didn’t pay a dime in taxes
Citigroup – $0 in taxes yet executive receives $9.5M
GE – another $0 paying corporation yet single executive receives almost $10M benefit
the list goes on….
yet, the argument made by some, those who seem to be anti-middle class – is that the working class needs to sacrifice more.
Sorry, but I side with the middle class of this country.
March 1, 2011 at 5:07 am #718763
jamminjMemberStill, we are worried about those who actually have a fight to make more for their family… and those who get away with paying NOTHING into the pot… yet we are asking why those in the lower-middle class why don’t YOU contribute more.
think the wrong question is being asked.
Should the police officer who risks his life every day have to take a pay cut or the CEO of a failing corporation who makes millions pay an actual tax…. which side are you on to balance the budget??
March 1, 2011 at 5:18 am #718764
snaParticipantThe top 5% of earners pay over half of all federal income taxes. Whether you think thats not enough or not, its completely wrong to say the rich dont pay taxes. They do. They pay a lot. Half of all households pay almost nothing or get rebates.
And i am very worried about those who are fighting. I am worried that as government labor costs continue to outpace inflation a larger and larger portion of the local and state budgets will go to funding employee compensation and not helping those most in need.
Government spending at the state level keeps going up, yet services for the poor are being slashed. Where is this extra spending going?
March 1, 2011 at 5:41 am #718765
jamminjMember“They pay a lot”
Bank of America – $0 in taxes paid
why do you stick up for the filthy rich so much, but no so much for those who you actually deal with on a daily basis??
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.