The Almighty Unions

[egbert]

Not that I have any love for FDR, but I'd appreciate a citation to this calumny you present other than your rectal sphincter, if you've got one.

Who could deny a request made in such polite, civil terms? No doubt one of those starving, ill children begging for help on your doorstep would be expected to request charity in similar vocabulary. But, I digress.
I'm not your unpaid research assistant, although in your Capitalist fantasies, no doubt you imagine having dozens of them.
You could, of course, get off your fat, lazy, non-union ass and Google for yourself, but why am I not surprised that you don't? Can you even fit in a double-wide, the US standard red-neck housing?
Here - I'll toss a clue to the clueless - Robert F. Wagner and Edward Costigan.

I'm sure that will result in a foam flecked bevy of frothy Beck inspired rants.

Here - wind yourself up -

[Seth]

Not that I have any love for FDR, but I'd appreciate a citation to this calumny you present other than your rectal sphincter, if you've got one.

Who could deny a request made in such polite, civil terms? No doubt one of those starving, ill children begging for help on your doorstep would be expected to request charity in similar vocabulary. But, I digress.
I'm not your unpaid research assistant, although in your Capitalist fantasies, no doubt you imagine having dozens of them.
You could, of course, get off your fat, lazy, non-union ass and Google for yourself, but why am I not surprised that you don't? Can you even fit in a double-wide, the US standard red-neck housing?
Here - I'll toss a clue to the clueless - Robert F. Wagner and Edward Costigan.

I'm sure that will result in a foam flecked bevy of frothy Beck inspired rants.

Here - wind yourself up -

As I thought, you're just talking out your ass again and making things up out of whole cloth. Thanks for confirming it.

[egbert]

Tell it to the government workers in Wisconsin.

Gov. Walker has already cut a hundred million dollars of corporate taxes and that's one of the reasons why we're in this mess.

[JimC]

Tell it to the government workers in Wisconsin.

Gov. Walker has already cut a hundred million dollars of corporate taxes and that's one of the reasons why we're in this mess.

And I'm sure his corporate buddies have expressed their appreciation in an appropriate, discreet manner...

[Coito ergo sum]

Unions have to negotiate with governments with rely on the irrational public who generally want good public services and lower taxes, negotiating with the private sector bosses is relatively a lot easier when both sides at least want the same thing more money

The problem with unions in the public sector is that they are generally striking against public interest, and their interests are diametrically opposed to the taxpayer's interest. Moreover, there isn't a board of directors that management has to be accountable to, so management in government doesn't have the incentive to drive as hard a bargain as management in the private sector.

But they WORK for the public interest.

That's what I said, and that's the rationale for the fact that they should not be able to strike against the public interest. Plus, they have the civil service laws protecting their wages, hours, working conditions and already can't be terminated without just cause.

They are working in schools and hospitals and in the enviroinment and they bring us clean water . etc etc

Right, that is what I said, and that's why they should not be able to strike against the public interest. If the water department strikes and we get dirty water and they shut down the schools and the water supply, then they are striking against the public interest. They can't be permitted to extort whatever they want from the taxpayers on pain of shutting down the hospitals, schools and water supplies. That's what Roosevelt was referring to when he made the distinction between private sector unions and public sector unions.

Most hospitals are private entities, however.

Without them and without public spending society and the economy would come to a stop.

Perhaps so. Let's assume that to be true. Does that mean that they should be able to shut down and the clean water supply?

So tell me again how they are against the public interest.

Wha?

If someone is performing a public service, like providing electricity or water or teaching in schools, and they strike against that - and stop doing it - saying, "pay me more money or you won't get your water, electricity and/or schools" then what do you call that?

[Coito ergo sum]

You just keep pushing the lie that people are selfish

They aren't.

Some people are. Most people are good, kind, caring, generous and helpful people, IMHO. Some are selfish.

Most act roughly in their self-interest, and that's a good thing. Acting in one's self-interest is not "selfish," necessarily. Like, when I get up and go to work every day, I'm not doing a favor to anyone else, I'm acting in my self-interest. However, working and expecting to get paid for it is not "selfish," either.

This may be where signals get crossed. Capitalism doesn't assume that people are selfish. It assumes the exact opposite. However, it does assume that they will act in their self-interest. And, they generally do.

[Coito ergo sum]

Right wing loonies can bleat all they like that government employees can't unionize...

But workers don't really give a shit what right wing loonies say. They know that to protect their rights as workers, they need to act and bargain collectively, or else they will be screwed by their bosses. Doesn't matter whether a boss is a government man or not, he will still want to get blood from a stone, unless workers band together.

Public sector unions around the world are here to stay, so idealogues from the right are fantasising if they think otherwise...

Tell it to the government workers in Wisconsin.

One state in one country, and probably a temporary thing at that.

99% of the developed world says otherwise...

How's that workin' out for Greece, Italy and Spain?

By the way, Wisconsin is as big or bigger by population and land mass than Denmark, Slovakia, Norway, Finland, Iowa, Georgia, Croatia, New Zealand, Bosnia, Lithuania, Latvia, Macedonia, Estonia, Luxembourg, Iceland, and other "developed" countries. By population, if Wisconsin was a country, it would be bigger than 1/2 the countries in the world. In terms of GDP, Wisconsin is roughly equivalent to the nation of Finland - Finland is 36th out of the 200+ countries in the World - so, if Wisconsin was a country, it would be about 36th or 37th in the world. Just thought I'd put this "Wisconsin is just one state in one country and 99% of the developed world" comment in perspective.

By the way, some folks can and do "bleat." However, being skeptical of the wisdom of public sector unions is not per se "bleating." Being uncritically in favor of anything union-related, on the other hand, that might be properly called "bleating," as it is born of a sheeplike mentality.

You seem to assume that the evil unions

Being critical of or skeptical of public sector unionization and strikes against the public interest is not the same as calling unions "evil."

[

will immediately gouge a ridiculous and inflated wage from a cowering government. Doesn't work like that in the real world. Lots of posturing, argument and hoo-haa, followed by a compromise, less than the workers would like, more than the government would like...

Sometimes, far more than the government can afford, and in the case of Wisconsin, the result is extraordinarily high compensation packages while the rest of the state suffers. The people that pay taxes to pay the salaries of the government workers are earning far less than the government workers they are supporting.

[

At least in Australia, there are legal arbitration measures that involve giving weight to the economic realities of what can be afforded.

So....the unions are limited in their right to strike....they will have to accede to what some government arbiter says is the economic reality of what can be afforded?

[egbert]

Right, that is what I said, and that's why they should not be able to strike against the public interest. If the water department strikes and we get dirty water and they shut down the schools and the water supply, then they are striking against the public interest. They can't be permitted to extort whatever they want from the taxpayers on pain of shutting down the hospitals, schools and water supplies. That's what Roosevelt was referring to when he made the distinction between private sector unions and public sector unions.

Most hospitals are private entities, however.

During the 1960s, low-paid workers at nonprofit hospitals formed unions and demanded recognition. Major American cities experienced a series of hospital strikes, some of which were violent.[citation needed] Hospital workers and labor leaders insisted that the NLRA be amended to cover employees at nonprofits, and by 1974 President Nixon had signed such a law.[citation needed] In 1979 Congress investigated a backlash against new union organizing resulting from that law and learned that public money was often used to pay for union busting activities, some of which were brutal or illegal.[50]

A substantial amount of fees paid to union busters had come from the federal Medicaid program, even though union busting is not an allowed fee. In spite of prohibitions, the hospitals managed to finance union-busting costs by packaging them with training costs. A hospital watchdog agency in Massachusetts ordered six hospitals to reimburse Medicaid $250,000 for anti-union campaigns from 1974 to 1976.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:
So....the unions are limited in their right to strike....they will have to accede to what some government arbiter says is the economic reality of what can be afforded?

Certainly, although they will have a chance to put their version of "economic reality" to an umpire before a ruling. I am a strong advocate for unions in all sectors, public or private, but will be the first to admit their claims can be excessive at times. What is needed is a good, independent arbitration system, backed up with laws. Our stronger unions may chafe under restrictions at times, and you can still have strikes and pickets occurring, but at least there is a path to an arbitrated settlement. (The arbitration system needs some independence from government - it's not a politician making the decisions...)

[egbert]

Right, that is what I said, and that's why they should not be able to strike against the public interest. If the water department strikes and we get dirty water and they shut down the schools and the water supply, then they are striking against the public interest. They can't be permitted to extort whatever they want from the taxpayers on pain of shutting down the hospitals, schools and water supplies. That's what Roosevelt was referring to when he made the distinction between private sector unions and public sector unions.

[

[.Morticia.]

Right, that is what I said, and that's why they should not be able to strike against the public interest. If the water department strikes and we get dirty water and they shut down the schools and the water supply, then they are striking against the public interest. They can't be permitted to extort whatever they want from the taxpayers on pain of shutting down the hospitals, schools and water supplies. That's what Roosevelt was referring to when he made the distinction between private sector unions and public sector unions.

If these workers and the service they do is so vital to our society and economy then why aren't they paid more and given better conditions?









[

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum wrote:
So....the unions are limited in their right to strike....they will have to accede to what some government arbiter says is the economic reality of what can be afforded?

Certainly,

Good, then we're all agreed that public sector unions aren't to be permitted the same collective bargaining rights as private sector unions.

although they will have a chance to put their version of "economic reality" to an umpire before a ruling. I am a strong advocate for unions in all sectors, public or private, but will be the first to admit their claims can be excessive at times. What is needed is a good, independent arbitration system, backed up with laws. Our stronger unions may chafe under restrictions at times, and you can still have strikes and pickets occurring, but at least there is a path to an arbitrated settlement. (The arbitration system needs some independence from government - it's not a politician making the decisions...)

Things like "air traffic control" ought not be subject to strikes, don't you think? They can strike, of course, but given the national harm they would be causing, perhaps we ought to bring in replacement air traffic controllers....

[Coito ergo sum]

Right, that is what I said, and that's why they should not be able to strike against the public interest. If the water department strikes and we get dirty water and they shut down the schools and the water supply, then they are striking against the public interest. They can't be permitted to extort whatever they want from the taxpayers on pain of shutting down the hospitals, schools and water supplies. That's what Roosevelt was referring to when he made the distinction between private sector unions and public sector unions.

If these workers and the service they do is so vital to our society and economy then why aren't they paid more and given better conditions?



[

How much would be enough?

[.Morticia.]

An equitable amount reflecting the value of their work and agreed upon by the workers and the public

[Coito ergo sum]

An equitable amount reflecting the value of their work and agreed upon by the workers and the public

How much would that be? As much as they ask for? Because we all know that any resistance to any union demand is equivalent to wanting children to work in coal mines.