Re: Wisconsin - What are the arguments for public sector unions?

They’ve often become so corrupt and greedy they probably don’t make a lot of sense do a lot of good. Scott Walker and the Republikan Party don’t really care about that though. They just want to harm people they see as political opponents, and that’s not right either.

My argument to this is that the public unions make sense because they contribute 100% to their own pensions The same way private sector unions do.

@SpatzieLover That is an awesome article and exactly what I was looking for – thank you!

@democraticrepublican Glad to be of service. =) I live in Wisconsin. This battle has been going on for many years now, but it’s definitely come to a head. It’s not going to die down anytime soon.

All workers should have the right to organise to bargain for better payment and conditions. That includes public employees, they are just as vulnerable to exploitation by their employers as private sector workers.
Unions are the backbone of fair pay and fair working condtions in the western world, and if you take them down, you set yourself up for sliding back into conditions present at the dawn of industrialisation.
And it seems, that is exactly what the government in wisconsin intends to do.

Not all Public employees have the right. Carter made it illegal for Federal workers to have collective bargaining.

@SpatzieLover

I think the thing that’s missing from the article (for which I thank you also) is that the nature of the “defined benefit” pension means that for whatever reason, whether it is mismanagement, economic games by the state finance people or willful misrepresentation of the cost of the plans, they are woefully underfunded. If I had access to a plan that cost me only 5% of gross earnings and could possibly return anywhere close to the promised benefits at retirement, I’d jump on it.

The fact is that I contribute 10% to a 401(k) – “defined contribution” – to which my employer adds another 3%, and it won’t pay anywhere near what most state workers will receive in retirement benefits. Not even by half.

I don’t have an opinion as to whether public employees should or should not have unions; I think that’s a red herring. But it is true that the “defined benefit” pension plans are tremendously underfunded across the country, and it’ll be taxpayers making up the difference.

Public sector unions have had collective bargaining rights because their employer, the State, effectively has a monopoly on their jobs. A trained police officer can’t go and work for another State Police in his city or another city.. because it’s the same employer. Same goes for teachers. (sure there are a very small amount of private schools, but the majority of teachers are still in public schools)

So, it’s because their employer has a monopoly on the jobs that makes the Unions and their collective bargaining rights important.

It’s NOT about pension contributions. THAT is the red herring.

@cazzie yes that’s the most effective argument i’ve heard so far, i notice no-one has responded against this pont….very good.

@Jaxk i hope this is good

@SpatzieLover

Teachers in Wisconsin are already being paid on average about $56K. Another 50% in benefits. If you want to argue that they pay for thier benefits then you have to add that to their salary or about $73K in salary. Your article seems to miss that point. Here’s a glimpse of the teachers that are protesting this law.

@cazzie

That’s a pretty obscure point. There is no public monopoly on jobs. Even in the isolated case you mention of a state trooper, there are plenty of law enforcement slots in county and city positions as well as private sector security. And that’s assuming the issue even involved police which it doesn’t. They are excluded. Don’t ask me why, I would have definitely included them. The truth is most public sector jobs are the same as any other industry. Just paid more. The teachers union has certainly helped our education system over the past thirty years.

@Jaxk it’s not an obscure point, How can a firefighter go and work in the private sector, unless we revert to the days when firefighters were in deed privately paid employees?

@Jaxk That certainly is a tiny glimpse. The teachers I know make much less. This is closer to the salaries I personally know of.

Why is it that when comparing public sector jobs republicans show the benefits as if it that money is going into the employees pocket, then it’s compared to the average salary without the amount of benefits for the average employee?

It seems to me that the right to assemble and the right to petition your government regarding greviences are guaranteed in the US Constitution. If any worker anywhere should have collective bargaining rights, public sector workers should.

Unions gave us our strong middle class. They put an end to child labor, gave us a 40 hour work week and overtime pay concepts. They won us safety in the workplace. Unions fought for a national minimum wage. Workers today owe a great deal to the union movement whether thay are members of a union or not.

That said, it’s also possible to take union demands too far. I think tenure for high school teachers is ridiculous. The concept was meant to protect senior university professors from retaliation against their research if it leads them into areas the school management or larger community doesn’t like. There is no reason public school teachers should automatically acquire tenure through seniority, and every reason they shouldn’t Also, some public workers provide essential services where strikes might jeopardize public safety. They shouldn’t have the right to strike. Fix the problems, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

@mammal

First, that’s not a bad idea, privately employed firefighters, that is. Second, are you in support of firefighters striking? Third, if there are no other comparable jobs, how do you determine salaries?

@SpatzieLover

These are more in line with what I’ve seen elsewhere.

@ETpro

Your examples (even if I agreed with them) are all of private sector unions. Child labor was never an issue in the public sector nor were any of the other great benefits of unions. It’s simply a horse of a different color.

@Jaxk i am in support of firefighters and paramedics striking when your house burns down, or you’re trapped in a mangled car wreckage. Far be it for sensible people to point out your senseless blathering you need for reality to teach you the error of your reasoning.

@mammal

It is little wonder that you would be obsessed with senseless blathering since that seems to be your stock and trade. I hope you have a union. And since firefighters and police are excluded from this law, why would you resort to those examples. You must be desperate to find a point to argue.

@Jaxk Seriously, we could go back & forth with links but that’s not really my point. People keep arguing semantics on this. I have had several friends go to college to get their teaching degree, only to realize what an ordeal teaching is, and how much it isn’t worth the $30K (or less) per year. ALL of the people I know that became teachers from my generation, left it for bigger salaries and bigger benefits in the private sector.

The experienced teachers I know are all well-deserving of at least $100K per annum (and are making no where near $60K). These are dedicated professionals that are focused on educating their students and on volunteering their time to their communities.

@Jaxk your attitude is anti democratic, quite simply put, you are in effect harbouring an attitude that is tantamount to a declaration of war on your own people. is that what you want? to be at war? Because you have a snotty disregard for Unions, that really have no impact on your life, do you not fathom how reckless you are. You and Tedd and all the other numb skulls that come on here, day after day, driving the stake into the heart of democracy, without a second thought, is there any depth to your being? Do you contemplate what Democracy means? are you a shallow thing that is parroting what your parents taught you? Do you want to blunder through life as a lonely bigot? who knows, but i’m certain you will find yourself in a dark place if you aren’t in one already.

@ETpro This is not just an assult on public unions. The billionaires behind the Republican party, the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch and others, will not be happy till all unions are crushed. In the phone call where Governor Walker thought he was talking to David Koch, he made it quite clear what this is about. It is union busting, and it is aimed at eliminating the one pool of big money in the hands of people who support Democratic interests. In the last election, 3 of the top 10 outside groups contributing to the election process were Unions. Eliminate them, and the corporations and their front groups will be the only big money groups shaping American politics. This is about shaping the political future of America so we have one party rule, and that party rules exclusively for the billionaires who fund it. In a word, it is the merger of state and corporate power into single party rule—AKA fascism. I am well aware of Godwin’s Law but sometimes you really have to call a spade a spade..

@ETpro You can listen to that Walker phone call with the person posing as Koch

Here is the transcript

@SpatzieLover Thanks. I added a link to it in editing. But good to have two.

I’m old enough to remember when they didn’t exist. Government workers were always paid well, treated well, and had great benefits. People fail to recognize that when you work for the government, you are working for the citizens in a public service capacity. At the time I felt like they were cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

@Jaxk It’s not an obscure point. And I’ll TELL you the reason the Police were except. Because they paid a great deal of money into the campaign of Governer Walker. That’s why. This isn’t about the ‘right to strike’ so your inflammatory comment about Firefighters striking is mute.

@mammal

Wow that’s pretty good. Let’s see I’m anti democratic, creating a declaration of war on your own people, have a snotty disregard for Unions, I’m driving the stake into the heart of democracy, and of course I’m shallow and a bigot (a few other choice words we won’t list). All that just because I won’t lie still and be raped by the unions.

Actually it makes me proud that I’m able to trigger such an irrational onslaught of school yard antics. And the best part is, it was so easy. Of course it’s always easy when the best argument in your arsenal is ‘oh yeah, well a hundred years ago the unions did some good stuff’. “You keep thinking Butch, that’s what your good at”.

@Jaxk Were you glad to be raped by the Golden Parachutes?

So what, precisely, would you do to make the US economic situation better? How would the union jobs be different in your world?

@SpatzieLover

“Were you glad to be raped by the Golden Parachutes?”

That’s a whole new conversation. I don’t object to having it but probably not on this thread.

“So what, precisely, would you do to make the US economic situation better? How would the union jobs be different in your world?”

The jobs would be no different. As far as public unions are concerned, I tend to agree with the Patron Saint of Unions, FDR:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations… The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for… officials… to bind the employer… The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives…

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people… This obligation is paramount… A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent… to prevent or obstruct… Government… Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government… is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Private sector unions are another matter altogether.

Thank you for the answer @Jaxk. Since I do not think this issue is leaving any of us anytime soon, I am wondering, if you were a republican senator and a bill like this was before you, how would you work to get it passed? (imagine democrat senators were listening to you).

Personally, I think most of the democrats were willing to work on this. IMO, the governor had a clear agenda and created the quorum busting through his actions early on. If he had allowed the Senate to work this out, I do think this would have had more of a fair lose/lose outcome.

The more I think about it…the less that I can come out in favor of unionization for public employees.

I feel that the main argument is simply that most of the positions they hold, the employer is a monopoly. However, it’s a very public monopoly. Further, the skill set that the employee gets translate into plenty of private sector skill.

Because of the public nature of the monopoly, it is easy for all to know the pay rate of the employees – and therefore, if there is abuse in pay, it will be clear. Further, if for some reason the pay is due to a deficit, and the pay is so low and cutbacks so great that services start to falter, all citizens will likely begin to demand that something be done. The taxpayer, therefore, functions in many ways as a self-organizing unit. The same result for workplace abuses.

@SpatzieLover

I really doubt the outcome would have been much different. The main problem here is that the two side were diametrically opposed. All the side issues could be resolved but the main issue of the union power was a deal breaker for both sides. Not much different than the Health Care bill last year in Washington. And the route was pretty much the same. Democrats did not allow any negotiation, the forced quick and unreasonable votes. Hell if you recall, they even locked the door to bar the republicans from even know what was being proposed. And they forced it through. I find the Democratic outrage to be a little disingenuous.

And I’m confused at how you would think that a lose-lose outcome would be good.

What is happening in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and many other states with new Republican governors is the best Democratic “Get Out The Vote” in memory. I loved the sign one of the protesters in Madison was carrying:

Hey Scott Walker, Can you hear us now? BTW, SCREW US AND WE MULTIPLY!

Call me crazy, but I’m very optimistic these days,

@Jaxk All fair legislature is lose/lose. It’s called compromise. It’s all we do at the very local levels of government.

@Espiritus_Corvus Exactly

@Jaxk you are a disgrace really, well not just you, but you as a representative of the kind of fanatic right wing oppinion that seems to permeate America since Obama took office, it makes good people sick to their stomachs, it’s difficult to debate this issue carefully with people who haven’t grown out of the school yard.

@iamthemob not you as well, now you are intelligent, but you’ve thought yourself into the naive position of trusting the system to self regulate itself, that wont happen, it never happens, that’s pie in the sky idealism. The public sector provide the services that form the backbone of civil society, to deny them the fundamental rights as democratic citizens, which incidentally they have been used to for some time, is demoralising. It’s a toxic assault on civilised society. In Britain everyone except the Police have a right to collective bargaining, yes there are strikes, yes it is inconvenient, no they are not endlessly on strike to squeeze every last penny out of the Tax payer. To carve up the public sector and flog it off to unscrupulous Privateers is completely insane, how could the emergency services function efficiently and serve people equally? It is divisive. Why throw away everything that’s Good about America? Besides, ultimately the people wont stand for it.

@mammal

Do they need unions to strike? Collectively bargain?

What are the arguments for public sector unions?

“The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining#International_protection

What’s happening in Wisconsin is a serious human rights violation restricting freedom and undermining democracy (common in countries like North Korea, China, or Zimbabwe). Public sector employees do have human rights as well.

@mattbrowne I don’t like what’s going on there either. But, I do differentiate between public sector unions and private sector trade unions.

@perspicacious – Do the public sector employees enjoy lifelong employment or can they lose their jobs?

An Article in Business Week.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-27/u-s-recovery-might-need-public-sector-unions-tom-juravich.html

Further to what Walker did in Milwaukee with busting the security union and then hiring a private firm who is, very much, in disrepute world wide.

A copy of the article from the Milwaukee Journal. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/113212479.html

You can look up yourself who G4S Wackenhut are.

@cazzie – That first businessweek article actually addresses something that I’ve been asking a few people myself. Namely, the debate has been framed as “the teachers make all this money and I don’t their greedy” instead of “the teachers make all this money and that sounds about right so why am I getting screwed in the private sector?”

@iamthemob Well, that’s not exactly the point and why does everyone insist on making this argument about themselves? Here’s an article in the Economist and it talks about some of the comparisons made between public and private sector jobs. It mostly has to do with level of education, ironically enough.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/wisconsin_public_unions

The article asks a question that, personally, I think we’ve already gotten past in the thread – who will do the bargaining/what about the power difference.

The difference in the public sector is that the workings are, at least nominally, open to the public. Further, the public has an interest that is direct in many public sector debates that is not as clear when there are labor issues in the private sector.

So, where people want to negotiate higher wages, why is it necessary that they do so through unions when the negotiation can be made public, unlike in the private sector? Why can’t ad hoc representatives be sent to discuss?

Further, the government is accountable to public workers as citizens in a way that an employer is generally not in the private market. So the power discrepancy is not as clear, when public employees have leveraging tools at their disposal.

@mattbrowne It depends. If you are a Federal Public Sector worker, the Democrats of our country made Collective Bargaining illegal. This was under Carter. Like it or not, there is a huge difference between letting a company fail because of labor and letting a government fail for the same reasons. (BTW…I am a member of a Union…Just not a public sector one.)

@iamthemob I think the power discrepancy has been very well demonstrated in Wisconsin this week.

And I don’t think you understand the importance of Unions if you think an ‘ad hoc’ approach should and could be substituted. Read about the labour struggles around the world an in your own back yard in an historical context so you can understand why they work the way they work and why it is seen as a basic human right in most civilised societies.

@cazzie – You’re assuming an outcome in an ongoing situation. Also, the legislation that was pushed through was anti-union legislation – part of which was the negation of the necessity to deduct union dues from state paychecks.

Therefore, we can’t assume that this represents anything as it’s not over, and it’s not about the employees it’s about the unions.

Note – I am shocked and appalled at the weird backlash against teachers here that was pushed in the mainstream media sources (well, FOX and those of its ilk). But, we’re at a strange cultural and political moment and we shouldn’t assume that’s representative of anything but that currently unions are the target of political angst.

Unions are the target of the political right. Outcomes are reached when Unions negotiate on behalf of the workers and you can’t say it’s not about the employees, it’s about the Unions because the Unions ARE the employees.

And that was my point, that what they pushed (snuck) through was anti Union legislation and it had nothing at all to do with the budget. They didn’t need a quorum to enact legislation that had no monetary but budget impact, proving our point that the union busting wasn’t about the budget.

@missingbite – In Germany all public sector employees who enjoy lifelong employment can’t go on strike (police, judges, district attorneys, high-level staff in governmental offices and departments, and most teachers). They are not represented by unions, but special organizations who support their interests. All other public sector employees without lifelong employment guarantees can become members of a union and can go on strike. So which is the case in Wisconsin?

@cazzie – But they’re not an innocent target – there’s plenty of bad about unions, and the union lobby is incredibly powerful in government… the influence rivals corporate lobbying.

And you can’t say that it had nothing to do with the budget. The CB limitations are also fiscal in nature in that they provide for long term fiscal flexibility. Union contracts will often last for a term of years (5, 10 e.g.). There’s also a national element to them, so their interests are not focused on the economic situation of the state alone. Both of these prevent the government from acting with sufficient speed to some economic scenarios.

By releasing the pay structure from that contract based constriction it makes it possible to work with more flexibility. Further, it ensures that gains that are made in terms of fiscal responsibility here aren’t simply erased by the next union contract.

Of course, there are complimentary issues with all of the above…but you can’t say that these provisions aren’t about the budget when the debate more than likely contained an element of “Well why are we going to do anything about this now when next year/term they’re just going to come around and possibly undo it?”

@mattbrowne The Governor has divided up State Sector Employees by those who contributed to his campaign and those who supported the other side. Those who supported the other side (by way of their Unions) have now been striped of their collective bargaining rights and they have been asked to take wage cuts. They agreed to the wage cuts but were protesting against the Union busting. They lost this week. Teachers are mainly effected.

@iamthemob You are making generalised statements now about unions. Learn about teachers unions. Do some reading about what they do and how they use their funds. Teachers aren’t paid a fortune. You don’t become a teacher because of the pay. You don’t become a cop or a firefighter because of the pay either. These are important public services and these people deserve to be treated with our respect, not derision. The 16 year old kids at my high school had better cars than 80% of the teachers. Teachers are NOT some power brokering block of power. Really.

@iamthemob If you can’t say it wasn’t about the budget, then it was an illegal move to vote when there wasn’t a quorum present.

@cazzie – You do realize that I’m not making any generalizations about unions – there are no claims about what they will or will not do. I’ve made statements about the CBAs, and the union structure – but that was clearly stated as a generalization (e.g., I admitted that this wasn’t an absolute statement) and also, well, is a fact.

I worked in employee benefits doing analysis of benefit contracts and provisions under the CBAs during the TARP auto buyout. So…I would say that I’m already well-read about unions. And you’re characterizing my statements as an attack on unions. I merely recognize some of the problems, and I also mentioned my horror at the way people were directing union frustration at teachers.

You are the only one here making generalizations. I am trying to approach this reasonably and you attempt to insult my intelligence and respond with sarcasm and rudeness. If you would like to apologize and re-read my arguments, feel free. Otherwise, please do not include me in your further responses.

@Dr_Dredd – Well, there’s definitely a question there – I don’t know the rules or the law well enough to say. But the problem is that we can say that ANYTHING that is passed by the government deals with the budget – it all has to be paid for. This was certainly a concern about fiscal results…but whether that makes it a budget line item in the sense that the rules of the Wisconsin legislature would consider it…I have no idea. I bet a lot of the legislators right now don’t even. ;-)

@iamthemob As someone above said, I think most of the legislators are in “WTF” mode right now…

@Dr_Dredd – NATIONALLY. ;-)

@cazzie Please correct me if I am wrong but not all of the collective bargaining rights were stripped. Your post makes it sound as if they no longer have any collective bargaining at all. They can still bargain on pay issues. In fact, isn’t it true that before the Democrats left the state Gov. Walker said he would negotiate on allowing collective bargaining for hazardous duty pay and sick time among other items? Only to be told by the Unions and the Democrats to pound sand?

On a side note, as a taxpayer, where does the pension money for the government employees come from?

I work for a company and I am a Union member. If my company fails because of poor business model or any other reason, my Union can’t help me. In the Public Sector, we just raise taxes. The answer to our education system failing is always to throw more money at it. Charter schools seem to have proven that to be a fallacy.

Please feel free to explain where I am wrong.

The pension money comes from the salaries of the employees.

@cazzie Are you saying that Public Sector employees pay 100% of their pension from their salaries? If you are, you are very mistaken.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

Reposting this just for you. @missingbite

And another tax specialists opinion: http://tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument

@cazzie No need to post it twice as I read that earlier. The difference is that I see it as spin. Every time Mr. Ungar states “the employees are paying 100%” I want to cringe. Where does this money come from? It doesn’t matter if it is in the form of a pension or in the form of a check. It is coming from the taxpayer. In a state that is broke. Employees don’t pay themselves. The taxpayer does.

What Mr. Walker knows is that it will be harder for the Unions to justify a larger salary with lower pension thus allowing for a pay cut. If it were not for my retirement package, my monthly income could go way up. We all know that.

@missingbite Your paycheck comes from your employer, then you contribute to your 401K or Keogh or whatever.

If it’s a lower salary you’re aiming at for the public sector, understand that, that will in turn lower your salary increases…it will also lower the standards for all of the middle class.

@SpatzieLover I understand where my paycheck comes from. When articles come out that make the statement, “the employees are paying 100%”, I have to wonder if the author knows where the money comes from.

Walker has stated one of the reasons for ending collective bargaining is so he can hire and fire based on merit. As a member of a Union based on seniority, I too sometimes wish we could get rid of a FEW that don’t deserve to be there and promote on merit.

The state taxpayer is the employer in the case of WI. When you talk about public sector Unions and workers, a seniority system that makes it almost impossible to fire a worker leads to mediocracy. It is not a business that can and will fail for lack of talent. That is one reason I believe charter schools typically do better. As always I could be wrong and I am sure there is some article somewhere that states I am.

So, you’re saying that teachers have no right to a pension?

@cazzie I am not saying that at all. In fact neither is Walker. What I am saying is that if Federal Workers don’t have the right of collective bargaining, why do state workers?

hang on…. the room is spinning now.

This will really make your room spin.

I was quoting unbiased news sources and you link to a right wing swing tank?` good one.

http://www.wpri.org/

This is the Chairman of the organisation that claims to be non-partisan. (cough cough)
The WPRI Board:

James R. Klauser, Chairman

James R. Klauser was senior vice president at Wisconsin Energy Corp., retiring in April 2007. Prior to joining Wisconsin Energy corp., he was senior partner with the law firm of Dewitt Ross and Stevens. Jim served as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Administration from 1986–1996 under Governor Tommy Thompson. He was special counsel to the Governor from 1994 to 1996.

Jim served on numerous boards, commissions and committees. He was a consultant from 1992 to 1996 for the republican national Committee and republican Governors Association. He served as general chairman of the Thompson for Governor Committee. He also served as co-chairman of the Bush for president-Wisconsin committee in 2000 and as Chairman in 2004.Jim is a member of the board of regents of the Milwaukee school of Engineering and a member of the board of trustees at Carthage College. Jim received a B.S. in 1961, a J.D. in 1964 and a M.A. in public law in 1968, all from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

@cazzie I knew that would get to you. Why do you think I stated it would really make your room spin? Difference is that even though he is “right wing” he states numbers and gives credit as to where he gets the information. A little harder to argue with even if you don’t like the messenger or message. Math works that way.

I’m an accountant… and studied stats.. I know the game. This isn’t about the budget. It’s about busting the unions. If you want to look at real numbers, look at the tax cuts Walker gave to pay off the money that put him in office.

But the fact is, teachers aren’t paid enough for what they do, and doing this to them just buggers belief. To say that teachers are money grubbing, union bullies, getting rich off the tax payers bucks?? Really?

My question is that the pension contributions are indeed deducted and deferred from the paychecks…but do we know whether there was an increase equivalent to the deferral?

I believe that the employees pay 100%, however – if there is an equivalent raise, then it’s simply a sort of round about.

@iamthemob what pay rise? They’ve offered to take a pay cut.

If anyone has a job and they’re paid a salary and then they elect to put a percentage away for their retirement.. how is that not their money?

Why is their retirement money even an issue? How many retired teachers does anyone here know drive around in a brand new car and take vacations abroad every year? How about cutting military pensions? This isn’t about money. He came after the teachers union after allowing a huge tax cut to big businesses. Did you know that his budget plan includes a State sales tax exemption for modular homes producers? That’s right. Warsau Homes are Tea Party buddies of Scott Walker and contributors to his campaign. That is just how this Governor rolls.

Again.. I’m going to reference a well known publication that has been around for decades. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:.

http://dev.www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/117500053.html

@iamthemob & @cazzie Even pay packages where the employer pays part or all of benefits such as healthcare and/or retirement are still just the overall compensation package. It is totally immaterial whether the employee gives or employee makes the payment.

In wisconsin’s case, the Unions had already agreed to give Governor ALL of the wage and benefit concessions he asked for, but that was not enough for him. THe real purpose from day one was to defund the public employee unions so they would not be able to participate in future election funding. The Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald told Fox news that defunding the public sector unions will heal defeat Obama in the state in 2012. Walker had already made the real objective clear in the call where he was punked into thinking he was talking to his financier, David Koch.

Thank you, @ETpro.

@ETpro – It’s not immaterial at all, though. Once we started to get pay cap limits through the tax system for executives, and bonus limits, etc., bonuses that were dolled out started to include “gross ups” to compensate – a $10,000 bonus would change to a $10,000 bonus with a $3000 gross up to compensate for the taxes so that the executive could net $10,000.

Now, none of this has to do with whether teachers deserve their packages, which I think they do…but it does have to do with us talking clearly about what everyone is getting. A 5% contribution of employee pay to pension is different if, say, the paycheck is $100 and the government claims payrate of around $105 pretax and contributes $5 to pension and pays out $100, and the government paying $100 but contributing $5 to pension and releasing $95. The first is the employee only nominally paying for it and being compensated so that the net pay doesn’t decrease, so that the government is actually paying for it, and the second is an actual payment.

So, if the employee is nominally paying for it, to say that their pay package shouldn’t include it is dishonest.

However, part of the problem we find with the comparisons between the public and private sectors from various newsgroups is that I’m pretty sure many aren’t including average benefits offered to private employees – just the pay.

In the end, I really think that the only thing we should be counting in this is take-home pay, which is what really matters.

@cazzie – Please do not address comments to me until addressing my last one to you.

@cazzie

I was a little surprised by your article. I understand that we all want to play partisan politics, I’m not above that. But why is this guy complaining about trying to breathe life back into the housing industry. Housing has been the hardest hit industry in this whole recession. They were hit first, dropped the farthest and have seen little in the way of recovery. I know that democrats in general don’t like anything that would benefit industry. OK, but a little incentive to the housing industry doesn’t seem like something even the democrats would object to.

I could understand if this was a tax incentive to the oil companies or some thing like that but housing? I think your outrage is a little misplaced.

@iamthemob… tell me what I didn’t address in your last response and I’ll address it.

@Jaxk you are off my radar you are so far to the right. ‘housing industry’? Prefab homes are the bane of that industry. They create tornado and flood fodder. They profit from their ‘finance packages’ more than actually build a proper structure to live in. The structures they build would NOT be approved of in any civilised country. They create the US version of shanty towns.

@cazzie – this

@Jaxk – What would you say are the benefits of unionization for the private industry that don’t exist in the public?

@iamthemob You were comparing teachers unions with the unions you were dealing with in the past. I was trying to show you that perhaps you were comparing the two without really looking at what the Wisconsin Teachers Union was. I wasn’t trying to talk down to you. Not at all, and if it did come across like that, I really do apologise. You sound like you’re truly trying to understand the situation. I’m trying to point out that the Wis Teachers Union isn’t the same at the Unions that were involved in the car building industry.

I know about the bad union stuff, but can you directly relate that to the Union involved in the Wisconsin Teachers Union?

I don’t think anyone in any position should be able to hold hostage a majority of a group when they hold a clear minority. There is a difference of ‘bargaining in good faith’ and holding an industry or a State of or a Country to ransom. I don’t think the Wisconsin Teachers Union could ever be accused to the latter.

@cazzie – I’m fascinated by the development of the focus on teachers or the teachers unions with “Big Union Bosses.” It seems sadly inevitable…I think that the CB provisions as applicable to all the public employees motivated one side or the other to find the most sympathetic sector and focus on it. Whoever did it first, the end result was likely the demonization of teachers in order to ensure that mobilization in support of revision of the provisions of the CB segments of the bill would not have a hero.

@iamthemob what do you mean ‘CB’?

@cazzie – collective bargaining.

I’m fascinated by the focus on teachers too. I mean,... if they want to gut a rich fish…. really? Teachers? This is about busting Unions that help fund the opposition. End of story.

@iamthemob

Trying to nail me to the wall, huh. Valid question, though.

Typically in private enterprise you have management that is driven by the profit motive. Companies can take a short term view and bleed workers or they can take a longer term view and embrace the workers. But either way it is a trade-off. And either way it is a management decision. Workers do not have a seat on the board. Over the years we’ve made many laws regarding treatment of workers, overtime, safety, minimum wage, etc. Many of these were the result of unionization and many more benefits have been bestowed on employees for fear of unionization. But none of these were the result of public unionization.

In the public sector, the workers really do have a seat on the board. Most of the electorate are workers. they elect the officials that do the negotiations. That’s quite different than private industry. Yes, it’s true that their not all public sector workers but workers nonetheless. The elected officials are in fact the same people that negotiate these contracts. To make it worse the government has no profit motive nor do they have any competition. If the union drives wages and benefits too high in the private sector the company can go bankrupt, not so in the public sector. The elected officials in government have a short term job making long term concessions easy, while private industry must look both long and short term.

There is a basic conflict of interest negotiating with the very people that elected you. It is also dangerous to have the people that help to craft legislation, retain a personal interest in that legislation. And finally there is an excessive amount of pressure inherent in government work. Public services that affect everyone whether it be checks going out on time or essential services that we all depend on. Government work cuts across all industries and affects the way the economy grows or doesn’t. Simple issuance of permits can impact industries and services used by all. There’s simply too much power in a public union with little or no counter balance.

I hope that’s not as rambling as it sounds to me.

Lets look at people who go into public service for altruistic reasons. There is a covenant between public employees who are employed thru political terms and those who are employees from one term to the next. There are jobs that must be done, regardless of political affiliation, from one term to the next that are at the whim of the ruling class. Do we want our teachers employed and enumerated at the whim of the ruling class? or do we want our teachers employed under a covenant of reasonable understanding?

@iamthemob Sorry to be so late getting back to this. I meant that the wage/benefit packages are the same from an overall compensation point of view, but you are right, there are minor differences in total tax liability depending on how a benefit is funded. Since this has gotten such interest, the numbers for Wisconsin have been run including wage/benefit packages for public sector employees versus private. When you control for educational level and years on the job, private sector employees actually earn 4.8% more on average than an equally educated and skilled public sector worker, and that was before Walker’s pay cuts. The fat cat garbage collectors and snow-plow drivers is just one more Walker lie.

When you control for educational level and years on the job, private sector employees actually earn 4.8% more on average than an equally educated and skilled public sector worker, and that was before Walker’s pay cuts.

I was expecting that the arguments regarding the salary difference were skewed – that much is upsetting. Every time they spoke of the “average teacher hourly salary” versus the “average American worker” I cringed.