Union Busting or Sound Financial Management?

[Beavah 205]

The job of government is to act, within the applicable Constitutions, to enact the political will of the majority of the electorate.

 

Yah, hmmm....

 

That bein' the case, it sure seems from da polling data in Wisconsin that the Republican majority failed to live up to their obligation, because what they chose to do clearly wasn't the will of the majority.

 

I reckon that's the problem with our modern politics, eh? It's become so polarized, so us-vs-them, win-at-all-costs that regular ordinary civic-minded Americans have no one to vote for. They only end up with people to vote against. So they voted out the borrow-and-spend-and-bailout-and-micromanage-a-war Republicans in 2006 and 2008, then they voted out the Obamacare-liberal-president-doesn't-look-like-me-big-government Democrats in 2010. Then, at least in Wisconsin, they'll vote da Republicans out again the next go-round.

 

So as scouts and scouters, what we have to ask ourselves is "Is this what citizenship is really supposed to mean?" Yah, da voters of Wisconsin can strip rights from some public workers that are accorded to other public workers and to privately employed citizens. What's missing is da Scout Oath and Law question. Should they? Is that fair or reasonable?

 

Remember, the current administration in Wisconsin has cut taxes on those who tend to finance the Republican Party in da face of a deficit, gotten concessions from public employees sufficient to balance da budget anyway, and then stripped the bargaining rights only of those public employees unions whose members tend to vote for the other party. Is that da sort of behavior that we want to hold up to others as being American values? So that next time if the Dems win, they can strip the benefits and bargaining rights of Republican-leaning police and firefighters and prison workers and restore 'em to teachers and secretaries and custodians? Is that really da will of the people? Screw da other guy?

 

What's missing is Statesmanship, eh? And ethics. The end doesn't justify the means, and the means here just aren't ethically sound or responsible. Yeh protect da rights of others, yeh respect others and yeh prior agreements because that's what's honorable, and that's what makes for good citizenship. It's the means, how we choose to act toward each other, that makes America strong.

 

It doesn't matter what the electorate wanted 20 years ago in regards to the power of public employee unions, it matters what they want now.

 

Now I don't really think that's what they want now, and I think da polling supports me on that. But if this really were the case, if da average American really felt it's OK to hire someone to work for them and then shaft 'em because they could get away with it and save themselves a few bucks, then I reckon that's a problem. It's always a temptation, eh? It's always goin' to be tempting, after da public and our elected representative mismanaged negotiations and pension funds to pass laws to renege on those promises and contracts. Like it's somehow da workers' fault and not ours for the behavior of our elected public officials, eh?

 

The responsibility of honorable people and citizens is to never let that happen. To treat those whom we employ with dignity and respect; to own up to our own mistakes and those of the people we elected and to make good. To sacrifice as needed so as not to compromise our souls.

 

Used to be da Republicans stood for such values. Some of us still do.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter 365]

Collective bargaining is clearly a privilege bestowed by the states who decide the extent of those rights. The union dues are currently being paid by the taxpayers because the money is taken out of the checks by the state government. Now in Wisconsin, the union workers will have to pay the union dues which will provide better oversight on the amount and expenditure of those funds. The unions in Wisconsin still have collective bargaining rights over compensation. They do not over healthcare, vacation, etc. That matches all of my experiences in the private sector white collar jobs. Only very high level management is able to negotiate their vacation, health care plans, and other benefits. So they are now in line with most other people except they have many more people which still gives them an advantage. Also, allowing the workers to vote on whether the union should continue to represent them is democratic. The idea that a union, once voted in, can never be voted out is obscene. Requiring regular votes on continuing representation is reasonable. Thus, the Republicans have made reasonable changes.

 

I agree with Beavah that favoring some unions over other ones is not right.

 

States certainly have the right to be right to work or not but I see no logic in not being a right to work state. It is more democratic.

[Beavah 205]

States certainly have the right to be right to work or not but I see no logic in not being a right to work state. It is more democratic.

 

Yah, sure, as long as yeh make everybody right-to-work. Private as well as public. That's just not the case in Wisconsin, which has strong protections for private unionization and some public sector unions.

 

Now, I'm generally a proponent of right-to-work type laws, but yeh have to go into that with eyes wide open. Da flipside is that for those to work, employers have to be ethical and responsible. Yeh have to build up a strong culture of business ethics. Da sort of managers that take bigger cuts to their own pay and benefits before they ever ask "their people" for a dime.

 

When yeh don't have employers who are ethical and responsible, either because they're just chasin' the quarterly earnings number for their stock option boost or because they're taxpayers who just want to get service for nothing, well, then yeh need a stronger presence on da other side of the table. Yah, yah, the best and brightest unmarried workers can always dump a bad employer and move elsewhere. But da rest of the folks - the married folks whose wives are in other jobs, whose parents are ill or need local support, whose kid might be sick and need the insurance, who are underwater on their mortgage and can't afford to leave - they need representation if they're sittin' across from an unethical employer. And I think we know that not every private employer is the best, and that the government ain't always a paragon of virtue either.

 

Just look how we've treated some of our men and women in uniform, while givin' 3x the pay to "private contractor" mercenaries for safer, easier jobs. I reckon they need a union.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter 365]

Ethics and responsibility go both ways. The changes in Wisconsin may bring some control on the unions.

[CalicoPenn 729]

"The union dues are currently being paid by the taxpayers because the money is taken out of the checks by the state government."

 

The employees pension contributions are being taken out of their paychecks and paid by the State to the pension fund.

 

The employees health care contributions are being taken out of their paychecks and paid by the State to the insurance company.

 

The employees State Income Taxes are being taken out of their paychecks and paid by the State to the State (gee - the taxpayers are paying themselves!).

 

The employees Federal Income Taxes are being taken out of their paychecks and paid by the State to the US Government.

 

Do you really want to argue that it is Taxpayers paying these amounts, and not the Employees? The employees are paying for these, and their union dues, out of their paychecks. Not the taxpayers. It doesn't matter if the employees are writing the check or the State is writing the check - it's the employees who are paying - and it's no different than in the private sector.

 

When your company takes money out of your paycheck for health insurance premiums, YOU are paying the insurance company, not the company.

 

As I said - it's a silly and nonsensical argument to state that the taxpayers are paying the union dues when it comes from the employees pay.

[sherminator505 10]

Well, SOMEONE got awfully quiet...

 

*cricket chirping*

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello Calico Penn,

 

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, sure, unions have an interest in enforcing the contract, SP. But let's not confuse that with responsibility, eh?

 

Besides, I thought da folks here wanted less union involvement in electing officials and controlling public policy, not more.

 

It's the responsibility of management to live up to its side of the bargain, eh? Especially when the employer made choices for him/herself and family based on those promises. A Scout is Trustworthy and Loyal, eh? Thrifty, too. You know: Timeless Values.

 

We elected people who weren't honest or thrifty, and they made promises on our behalf. It was our job as citizens to monitor that, not the unions. All of us. And since we didn't, it's our job as citizens and taxpayers not to welch on promises that were made in our name.

 

Beavah

[CalicoPenn 729]

"Unions have negotiated pension deals with government where the bill doesn't come due for decades."

 

What deals are unions cutting with government where they agree that the government doesn't have to fund their pension obligations until the pension is actually due the worker? That's not what's been going on. They negotiate deals where an employee pays a percentage of their salary into a pension fund annually and the government pays a percentage of the employee salary into the pension fund annually. The bill is due immediately, not 40 years later. The pension "crisis" is due to government "borrowing" their portion of the pension funding obligation and using it for other things, thus not paying their bills on time.

 

The unions aren't agreeing to the government doing so - the government just gave themselves the power to do so.

 

If that isn't what you mean, then please tell us how you think pension plans work.

 

 

 

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Sorry, I find it a little too glib to say "it's the government's responsibility" to fund pension promises.

 

Usually the reason they have trouble doing so is that unions and Democrats are flogging government spending for all they can. There should be a price for that.

 

If unions can't protect their pemsion plans from being raided by government, tough. They should be expending political power protecting those plans and insuring that they are funded and that the money stays in them.

 

If they can't ---- tough. They may see the promised benefits cut. That's life when you sit down with government at the table and choose to ante up.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[packsaddle 753]

Scoutingagain, I keep mentioning the neighbor not because he flies the Confederate flag - those are common in this area - but rather because he flies the American flag underneath it. He's not the only one in this area but they are fewer than those who merely fly the Confederate flag. There's something about a teaparty supporter who does that...which simply defies reasoning.

[BrentAllen 10]

Here's another shining example of why we should all love unions. City bus driver shows up for work drunk. Fire him, right? Nope, can't do that, thanks to the union. Headline should be "Union Protects Drunk City Bus Drivers."

 

Bus driver who showed for work 'impaired' won't be fired

 

[vol_scouter 365]

As a professional, I have to pay to be in a number of organizations out of my own pocket - not with pretax dollars that the union workers never see. In the case of the public sector unions, the public pays those dues with pre-tax dollars. Whether the dues are paid by the employee at all will ultimately be determined if they get reimbursed for the union dues in Wisconsin - if they do not then the tax payers pay all of the dues. One way or the other, the unions members should pay their union dues with post-tax dollars just as others in the society do. It will be interesting to see how many find the unions worth the dues if they have to write a check each month.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello volscouter,

 

 

Labor history has a period where employers organized labor unions that they controlled. This was a big issue for independent unions which found such tactics hard to overcome.

 

As a result, Federal labor law and most state laws prohibit employers from "employer domination of a labor organization" by paying dues or subsidies to unions.

 

What is common are union security agreements which require employees to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. Like other employer work rules, if you fail to abide by the employer's rule you can be fired.

 

Also, such agreements often require employers to collect dues from union members who have signed an authorization for dues to be deducted from their paychecks.

 

Employees have no ability to pay dues with pre tax money. Dues are paid from after tax money and deducted from the net pay an employee would otherwise receive.

 

An employee who itemizes their income taxes can deduct union dues just as they can deduct purchases of safety glasswes or work boots for example.

 

 

 

 

[Lucky_scouter 10]

When my dad helped start a union, it was plain and simple: A collective voice to represent the working men and women in order to establish fair labor practices, fair wages, safety of the worker, and establish grievance procedures to protect workers from undue firing. These same unions helped establish "whistleblower" protection which all Americans enjoy. My dad is absolutely honest and stood up to help many of his fellow workers as a negotiator. There are some gross perversions of the union out there and there are those which are not. To bust them all is to take 50 years of the establishment of fair labor practices and flush them down the toilet. Perhaps a more surgical approach would be better than a chainsaw?

 

OldGreyEagle, my dad was a founding member of the local IBEW and I'm a teacher in a state where there is no ability for teachers to bargain collectively. LisaBob, public schools in our state pay little enough that teachers qualify for free and reduced lunch depending on how many children they have. We are required to have a Master's degree which costs thousands and the cost to get the M.Ed. is more than the financial reward after receiving it. On top of that, the only protection that we have is tenure. Tenure is not a job for life, it is a guarantee of due process and we may end up losing that protection. When all the soft targets are destroyed what will they target next?