Union Busting or Sound Financial Management?

[83Eagle 11]

One more thing as it relates to the WI situation in specific. The state union contract has been expired since mid-2009 if my understanding is correct. Over 16 months, and with a 100% Democrat-controlled legislature and executive branch, a contract could not be agreed upon which would make this whole issue pretty much moot at this point.

 

As has been said, the unions played chicken with the budget and lost. This time around there is no massive infusion of federal "stimulus" funds to make up the state budget shortfall.

[sherminator505 10]

@ 83Eagle,

 

To my mind, none of what you have said justifies a sitting Governor taking upon himself the unitary powers of a monarch. Do you disagree?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[CalicoPenn 729]

I'd still like someone to explain to me how the new biennial budget would have a 3.6 billion dollar shortfall when the current biennial budget was projected to have a 162 million dollar surplus (until Walker gave out tax cuts as soon as he took office). Did expenses really increase 3.6 billion dollars in the course of 2 years? Did revenue really decrease by 3.6 billion dollars in the course of 2 years?

 

Somebody's got some 'splainin to do.

[83Eagle 11]

>>To my mind, none of what you have said justifies a sitting Governor taking upon himself the unitary powers of a monarch. Do you disagree?

 

I agree.

[83Eagle 11]

Calico, you'll have to call the previous governor to get it explained:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/109275069.html

 

Again, this deficit is NO SURPRISE to anyone paying attention.

 

Regarding the "surplus" in the remaining budget as was widely and erroneously reported by the likes of Rachel Maddow, it NEVER existed. It was contrived by looking at money in the bank, but without looking at upcoming liabilities.

 

In other words, if you have $100 in the bank and you write a $200 check with no income coming in, do you have a surplus at that point in time? Apparently in the minds of some.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Ok, so lets stipulate that the 162 million dollar surplus didn't take into account some anticipated expenses and would leave a budget shortfall of about $140 million or so. When this budget was first put together, it had a reported 3.2 Billion dollar shortfall, yet the previous governor knocked that shortfall down a very considerable amount (by a few thousand millions).

 

Can someone explain why a new budget has a projected shortfall of 3.2 to 3.6 billion dollars? Using the current budget as a guideline, can someone explain what spending increased/revenue declined to lead to yet another projected 3.2 to 3.6 billion dollar shortfall? Or is the government so incompetent that they don't look at past performance to create a new budget (actually - that explains a lot of governmental budgeting - why look at the previous years when you can start all over).

 

In order for there to be a new 3.2 billion dollar shortfall for a new budget, there had to have been a lot of extra and new spending added to the budget and a lot of revenue shortfall.

 

My statement still stands - someone has a lot of 'splainin to do.

[Beavah 205]

the UAW workers just about killed GM. Their labor costs were far higher than the competitors. Their benefits were over the top.

 

Now, this is where we have to be careful if we're goin' to be honest, eh? A significant part of da reason that labor costs for GM were high was because management never reinvested in da factories, eh? Yeh could always goose the quarterly or annual report bottom line by not modernizing your plants, or delaying capital purchases another year. And if management decides to build nothing but trucks goin' into fuel price inflation and recession, then I reckon that's what will kill a company.

 

Autos are a cyclical industry, and yeh really do see union-pushed contracts during boom years that don't take that into account. If yeh set a contract that assumes a never-ending boom, then yeh are sure to bust. That's mansgement's fault mostly, IMO, but yeh can blame da union leadership for being ignorant and not plannin' for it too.

 

No different for da public sector. The unfunded pension benefits are da fault of management (the state), though the unions shouldn't have been so ignorant as to let 'em get away with it. Similarly, not planning for the economic cycle is da fault of management too, eh? The state again. And if public sector unions really can manage to get people elected despite being less than 10% of da population, then I don't think that's the union's fault. It just shows that they're being more active citizens than the rest of us in da 90%. Yeh don't get to complain about your school board signing an unsustainable teacher's union contract if yeh didn't get off your duff and vote responsibly in da school board election.

 

So let's be careful not to blame da unions for somethin' that is really management's fault, or ours. We can wish that da unions would be smarter or more responsible. It's always nice when we can get other people do our job for us, so that we don't have to be responsible ourselves. But it ain't their job.

 

I personally want my elected representatives to act the way that I would as an employer, eh? And I would treat my workers with compassion and dignity, as partners, and work with their elective representatives responsibly. To my mind, governor Walker has more than crossed da line which is drawn by the Scout Oath and Law.

 

For da rest, I don't reckon we need the state to tell the locals what we can and can't do in terms of taxing ourselves, or negotiating contracts with our workers. Since when is it considered conservative to increase da scope of government by centralizing that to the state?

 

Beavah

[packsaddle 753]

1980. You didn't get that memo?

[83Eagle 11]

It is a revenue shortfall. Pretty much same as the last time Why not covered this time around? Two main reasons:

 

Reason #1: No massive federal stimulus infusion this time around (not sure of the exact amount, just going from memory, at least a billion I think)

 

Reason #2: Public hue and cry about raiding segregated funds to pay for the general funds. Folks got a little miffed when the previous guv used the transportation budget plus who knows what else to balance the ledger. Some of that was taken to court and found to be unconstitutional and the state is in the midst of paying fines/restitutions/something on that as well.

 

Why not "Tax the rich?" Well, Walker said he wouldn't, so he is doing what he campaigned on, and you can't fault him for that. Well, you can still fault him but people elected him based on that campaign pledge, so you get what you get. Or as I've heard somewhere along the line, "Elections have consequences."

 

Like I said, this shortfall is not a surprise to anyone in the state and was projected by both the outgoing and incoming administrations, with the difference only in the degree of severity.

 

The above stuff is VERY anecdotal on my part but you can look up the details with a little reseach, if you're so inclined.(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

[allenj 10]

My wife and I are both retirees from the Mich. Dept. of Corrections. She was a secretary and UAW member. In the 21 years she worked there she never saw a UAW Rep. Great service for 21 years of dues.

 

I was a Corrections Officer.,MCO/SEIU. I didn't have to belong to the union but belong or not, I had to pay their dues. In my opinion the Government Employee unions are rip off artists. An

example: Our uniforms were supplied by the State. They were polyester and made by prisoners.(You might have one sleeve longer that the other, or no buttons, but generally they were adequate). Wash and wear. As part of out contract the State paid us $500.00 a year for the upkeep of our uniforms. That came to about two million dollars annually.

 

Another thing the unions were good at was getting peoples jobs back who did not deserve them. I saw people do things that endangered themselves and coworkers and the union let them stay on the job.

 

I could go on but whats the use.A State Governor has the guts to do whats right then gets vilified for it.

 

The unions and donkey politicians scratch each others back.

[Lisabob 13]

Just wanted to note that I live in MI too, and:

 

a. Your wife should have complained - loudly and often - to her union. That's lousy service and she had a right to better treatment. (On the other hand, did she get engaged in her union at all? Or was she waiting for them to check up on her? As a union rep, I know that many times, the silence we hear from members is deafening and it can be hard to know what that means.)

 

b. In MI, as is the case in all other "agency fee" environments, everyone who works in a union shop has the choice to join, or not join (just as you did - and your wife could have). If you choose not to join then yes, you still pay a service fee because the union does things that presumably positively impact you, and the union is still obligated to provide service to you even though you aren't a member. For example, the union would be obligated to defend your contract rights, just as they would for any member. And that defense often requires time & money to do (well).

 

Agency fee payers in MI (and elsewhere) DO have a right to receive a refund of any dues/fee money the union uses for political purposes, and the IRS is very strict about making unions prove that they do this properly. The fines for a union that fails to do this or that don't keep adequate records of how they do this, are quite stiff.

 

c. About keeping bad employees - It isn't the union that "let them stay." It is the management that "let them stay." Unions do not hire or fire employees. Management does. If management can't figure out how to do its end of the job right, then Houston, we have a problem, but the problem isn't the union.

 

 

(This message has been edited by lisabob)(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[sherminator505 10]

King Scott has gone far beyond "doing what's right" and pole-vaulted straight into notoriety, and any villification he receives for it is richly deserved.

[AlamanceScouter 10]

I don't really understand how unionized public workers......who direct money to elect their bosses or to re-elect their bosses.....are fair to taxpayers but you folks have already argued the pro-union vs. anti-union points well.

 

My main issue with the Wisconsin situation is the state senators who have left for Illinois. IMO, their actions are beyond horrible and could put the foundation of our democracy at danger of failing. The people of Wisconsin voted in the current government and these folks are sabotaging the process by their actions. I really hope they have not opened Pandora's box.

[83Eagle 11]

Last time I checked, Wisconsin had a legislature, albeit one where Democrat members are AWOL, and a judicial branch. If there was truly a king Scott, proclamations would be all that is necessary to effect any legislation being proposed.

[BrentAllen 10]

Beavah,

Those factory improvements would be capital expenditures, not labor costs.

 

These numbers are from 2005, but I doubt they changed much from then til 2008 - 2009.

 

Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker

Source: GM & Toyota

GM: $73.73

Toyota: $48

 

And for those cadillac health plans the unions have:

Health Care Costs per Vehicle in 2004

Source: 2005 Harbour Report & A.T. Kearny Inc.

GM: $1,525

Toyota: $201

 

Why does GM build all those trucks?

Best-Selling Vehicle in U.S.

Source: GM & Toyota

GM: Chevrolet Silverado - 680,768 sold in 2004

 

Toyota: Toyota Camry - 426,990 sold in 2004

 

Bottom line:

Profitability per Vehicle

Source: 2005 Harbour Report

GM: Loses $2,331 per vehicle

 

Toyota:Makes $1,488 per vehicle

 

Other news from GM:

GM sells just 281 Chevy Volts in February, Nissan only moves 67 Leafs

 

Wow, color me surprised.