Conservative US top court justices skeptical over union fees

Captain Adverse · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Gaius46 said:
You might be right. In fact for people who don't have unique or expensive to obtain skills you probably are. And if that's the case it should become evident to people who choose to go it on their own pretty quickly.

That's the problem.

People have been convinced that Union's are robbing them of their wages by requiring fair share laws. It's like the farmyard animals in the story of "The Little Red Hen;" none of them want to do any work, but they ALL want to share in the completed cake.

The reason why they have standard wages they can count on, health benefits, pension plans, etc., is because either a Union struggled for them OR a competitor had to offer the same deals to keep employees and prevent unionism. They don't want to pay a fair share for collective bargaining, or union representation and grievance privileges. They still want to use them when the time comes though.

When I was a kid I thought exactly the same way, why should I pay Unions anything. Then I leaned how little power I had when it came to job negotiations...either take the job offered as is or see my own way to the door. :shrug:

TurtleDude · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Captain Adverse said:
That's the problem.

People have been convinced that Union's are robbing them of their wages by requiring fair share laws. It's like the farmyard animals in the story of "The Little Red Hen;" none of them want to do any work, but they ALL want to share in the completed cake.

The reason why they have standard wages they can count on, health benefits, pension plans, etc., is because either a Union struggled for them OR a competitor had to offer the same deals to keep employees and prevent unionism. They don't want to pay a fair share for collective bargaining, or union representation and grievance privileges. They still want to use them when the time comes though.

When I was a kid I thought exactly the same way, why should I pay Unions anything. Then I leaned how little power I had when it came to job negotiations...either take the job offered as is or see my own way to the door. :shrug:

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think public sector unions should exist. The government as an employer is going to treat its workers far differently than a private, for profit, concern where the management almost has a duty to get maximum work for as little as possible. I dealt with public sector unions all the time-mainly NALC, APWU etc. But I also saw the union's point. The union often went to bat for workers who were disciplined even when the workers were not members. In fact some of the best representation I saw in an EEO case that ended up in federal court was of a non-member letter carrier. and I can see why the union believes members of the bargaining unit all ought to contribute to that benefit and the fact that the union has often obtained members of the BU better benefits or wages or conditions.

Captain Adverse · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

TurtleDude said:
I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think public sector unions should exist. The government as an employer is going to treat its workers far differently than a private, for profit, concern where the management almost has a duty to get maximum work for as little as possible. I dealt with public sector unions all the time-mainly NALC, APWU etc.

I can understand a citizens concerns with unionism when dealing with government employees. There are problems, as I said, with cronyism and the fact Unions try to enforce strict "equality" even when dealing with sub-par employees who really shouldn't be there, much less promoted simply due to seniority.

On the other hand, as history shows (see Tammany Hall, U.S. Grant Administration, etc.) cronyism also thrives when government positions are free of union shops and politics rules who gets to work in government jobs. You know as well as I do that favoritism is rife in any government agency when it comes to promotions and appointments if there is nothing to counter it.

TurtleDude said:
But I also saw the union's point. The union often went to bat for workers who were disciplined even when the workers were not members. In fact some of the best representation I saw in an EEO case that ended up in federal court was of a non-member letter carrier. and I can see why the union believes members of the bargaining unit all ought to contribute to that benefit and the fact that the union has often obtained members of the BU better benefits or wages or conditions.

Yep, this is an example of the other side of the coin. People shouldn't be so short-sighted. Eliminate Unions, and you are at the mercy of the employer, even a government employer.

clownboy · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

haymarket said:
But that is a mistake and things will swing back. The same need and the same purpose is always there.

Disagree with both the beginning and ending. As to the ending, the job is done and we're not going back. Much like the REA (Rural Electrification Administration was created by the government to electrify the rural mid-West, unions have long since done their historical job, and like the REA, are still hanging around long after that period of history has passed.

It's like campaigning for the vote for women. No longer necessary and is now a money sink.

As to the first part. Those changes were already happening BEFORE unionization. Michigan had it own collective bargaining law before unions. Worker's health and safety laws were already being contemplated at the federal level. The fight for unionization was part and parcel of a time in our history when we were reforming how we work, how we are paid. Would have happened without the unions (though it may have taken longer), but now that we are decades and decades beyond that moment in history, those measures firmly established, unions are superfluous.

clownboy · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Captain Adverse said:
On the other hand, as history shows (see Tammany Hall, U.S. Grant Administration, etc.) cronyism also thrives when government positions are free of union shops and politics rules who gets to work in government jobs. You know as well as I do that favoritism is rife in any government agency when it comes to promotions and appointments if there is nothing to counter it.

Tammany Hall was a model for unions.

haymarket · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

clownboy said:
Disagree with both the beginning and ending. As to the ending, the job is done and we're not going back. Much like the REA (Rural Electrification Administration was created by the government to electrify the rural mid-West, unions have long since done their historical job, and like the REA, are still hanging around long after that period of history has passed.

It's like campaigning for the vote for women. No longer necessary and is now a money sink.

As to the first part. Those changes were already happening BEFORE unionization. Michigan had it own collective bargaining law before unions. Worker's health and safety laws were already being contemplated at the federal level. The fight for unionization was part and parcel of a time in our history when we were reforming how we work, how we are paid. Would have happened without the unions (though it may have taken longer), but now that we are decades and decades beyond that moment in history, those measures firmly established, unions are superfluous.

The only that that gives the average worker power is to unite with other workers. By themselves, they are at a serious and extreme disadvantage in putting themselves against a large company.

A union is their only hope.

And if you think things cannot return to the bad old days I would remind you of the observation of Santayana who said they who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Already we see that as unions decline, average workers are simply not enjoying the benefits of the recovery.

Neomalthusian · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

TurtleDude said:
I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think public sector unions should exist. The government as an employer is going to treat its workers far differently than a private, for profit, concern where the management almost has a duty to get maximum work for as little as possible. I dealt with public sector unions all the time-mainly NALC, APWU etc. But I also saw the union's point. The union often went to bat for workers who were disciplined even when the workers were not members. In fact some of the best representation I saw in an EEO case that ended up in federal court was of a non-member letter carrier. and I can see why the union believes members of the bargaining unit all ought to contribute to that benefit and the fact that the union has often obtained members of the BU better benefits or wages or conditions.

If I help you out in a pinch and you say "wow, are you sure? Do you I owe you anything in exchange for this help?" And you say "naw man, I believe in doing the right thing, no worries, just pay it forward," and you say "wow, ok I will, thank you!" and we go our separate ways but that night you get a knock on the door and it's me and I'm here to guilt you into giving me your money, do I have a good point?

No. That is slimy. If you refused and I took you to court over it, it would thrown out immediately, and for good reason -- because we didn't have a contract. That's why civilized societies have contracts. Contracts that explicitly lay out who the parties are, what the terms are, what one party gets from the other in exchange, and what happens if one side doesn't fulfill his obligations as part of the contract. If you join a union, expecting to get something from the union, the union should expect to get something from you, that is cause for establishing a contract (between the union and the member or other recipient of the union's services). If either side doesn't uphold their end of the bargain, the other should not provide anything further to the other party. That's how all contracts work.

There is one situation in which money should be rightly collected mandatorily for the general interests and wellbeing of all, and that situation is government's taxing powers. So if we need to uphold good working conditions and wage and benefit rules for public sector employees, that's fantastic, let's do that, but do so via laws, regulations and Departments of Labor (which already exist) funded by general taxation, not labor cartels and their guilt-based excuses for mandatory dues.

No entity, and I mean no entity anywhere, other than government should be able to mandate people surrender their money to them by arguing it's for the good of all. That is a taxing power. And no entity (least of all a cartel of labor sellers organizing against the public) should have a taxing power, other than a government. And no tax money (or de facto tax money in that is collected by mandate from people who don't want to participate) should be able to be spent on elections and politics.

clownboy · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

haymarket said:
The only that that gives the average worker power is to unite with other workers. By themselves, they are at a serious and extreme disadvantage in putting themselves against a large company.

A union is their only hope.

And if you think things cannot return to the bad old days I would remind you of the observation of Santayana who said they who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Already we see that as unions decline, average workers are simply not enjoying the benefits of the recovery.

Neither are the small and new business owners, and they employ the lion share of the US labor market. And to Santayana I say, the lesson of history is that government or government supported organizations stick around sucking at the teat long after their purposes are achieved. We do not seem able to learn that lesson and so are repeating it endlessly.

TurtleDude · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Neomalthusian said:
If I help you out in a pinch and you say "wow, are you sure? Do you I owe you anything in exchange for this help?" And you say "naw man, I believe in doing the right thing, no worries, just pay it forward," and you say "wow, ok I will, thank you!" and we go our separate ways but that night you get a knock on the door and it's me and I'm here to guilt you into giving me your money, do I have a good point?

No. That is slimy. That's why civilized societies have contracts. Contracts that explicitly lay out who the parties are, what the terms are, what one party gets from the other in exchange, and what happens if one side doesn't fulfill his obligations as part of the contract. If you join a union, expecting to get something from the union, the union should expect to get something from you. If one side doesn't uphold their end of the bargain, the other should not have to provide anything further to the other party. That's how all contracts work.

There is one situation in which money should be rightly collected mandatorily for the betterment of all, and that situation is government's taxing powers. If we need to uphold working conditions and wage and benefit rules for the public sector, then do so via laws, regulations and Departments of Labor (which already exist) funded by general taxation, not labor cartels.

No entity, and I mean no entity anywhere, other than government should be able to mandate people surrender their money to them by arguing it's for the good of all.

I cannot speak for other unions in the public sector save those I dealt with in litigation-sometimes against and sometimes in a "301 mixed case where the union member was suing both the government employing agency and his union for failure of "fair representation" and I am almost 100% certain that the Unions who were part of the collective bargaining agreements that controlled rank and file employees in the USPS, had a DUTY to fairly represent any worker under their Jurisdiction (for example the NALC had a duty to represent regular (AKA City) Letter carriers, the APWU for clerks, the NRLCA for rural Carriers, and the NPMHU for Mail handlers) even if that worker is not a dues paying member.

I will also note that for the most part, the leaders of the locals I dealt with were stand up guys and I could almost always bank on anything they told me. They were almost always right when they said a worker was filing a justified suit vs one who was not. In one case the President of the local called me up and said-"Counselor, the guy suing the Post office is an asshole and so is the Supervisor who wrote him up. if you call me as a witness I will say that to the court". I didn't have to, the case went out on summary judgment but the supervisor got a pretty serious reprimand for bogus discipline but it wasn't based on a Title VII issue which is why I won the case

Fletch · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

haymarket said:
The union movement and the wages, benefits and working conditions that came from its victories were hard won with blood, sweat and tears and not a few deaths over a long and glorious history fighting against greed and a fundamental imbalance of power with the company against the individual worker. Sadly, too many workers do not know that history or chose to ignore it and unions are sinking in power and influence. As a result we see stagnant wages and the working class not benefiting in the economic recovery the way the upper class has benefitted.

Unions will have to keep losing and keep sinking and then they will get hungry again and workers will get angry and be ready to again engage in the struggle.

These things are cyclical and the cycle will continue. And I have little doubt that labor unions will do the same. Santayana famously stated that he who forgets the lessons of history is doomed to repeat its mistakes and that applies here as some union members grew fat and lazy and felt they outgrew the need for a union... and to a sense ... so did much of the rest of the nation not even in a union. We already see the economic results of this with wages fairly flat and little to no sharing of the big boom that top execs and stockholders have enjoyed over the last decade.

I once had a professor in college who said that dogs were smarter than most people. His evidence was that in the middle ages - barons and the wealthy held lavish banquets for dozens of their peers which went on for hours and even days featuring all manner of food and drink that most peasants never saw and were just scraping by. The partygoers often brought their dogs to the event and they hung out underneath the table where they would alertly watch for bones and scraps that either fell or were thrown to them. Now some dogs are faster and cleverer and learn quicker than others so they learned who to sit by and they ate very very well while other dogs did not eat too well at all.

And even though some of those dogs made out better than others, at the end of the feast, not one of them deluded himself by believing that he too was a rich baron and then climbed upon the table to associate with his fellows barons. A dog still knew he was a dog no matter how quick or skilled or well fed he was.

Sadly, the success of unions has given many members a lifestyle and an income that causes many to associate with the upper middle class and they no longer identify politically with the working class. This success goes beyond unions to those who unions have also helped raise up - like Big Three auto office workers.

So some no longer see the union as necessary.

But that is a mistake and things will swing back. The same need and the same purpose is always there.

No, unions are finished despite your dreamy-eyed fantasies to the contrary. Why? Because the conditions that spawned unions have disappeared. Fighting for better working conditions, shorter hours, benefits and wages have happened. Government agencies have taken over much of the role that unions played. What do you need a union for when you have OSHA, BWC, NLRB, ODJFS and others to look out for you without dues? Unions are in decline because government has filled its shoes. In fact, the only place that sees union growth is in government--where unions really serve no purpose other than to line the pockets of democrat officials. Americans are smart. Smart enough to know that unions are unnecessary in modern America.

TurtleDude · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Fletch said:
No, unions are finished despite your dreamy-eyed fantasies to the contrary. Why? Because the conditions that spawned unions have disappeared. Fighting for better working conditions, shorter hours, benefits and wages have happened. Government agencies have taken over much of the role that unions played. What do you need a union for when you have OSHA, BWC, NLRB, ODJFS and others to look out for you without dues? Unions are in decline because government has filled its shoes. In fact, the only place that sees union growth is in government--where unions really serve no purpose other than to line the pockets of democrat officials. Americans are smart. Smart enough to know that unions are unnecessary in modern America.

I agree with most if not all of this and in global labor markets, its economic reality that is going to doom unions. The reason why public sector unions are still strong is because you cannot outsource the labor done by the AFSCME types (the secretaries at the Sheriff's department or the intake clerks at the municipal court)

anyplace where labor does not have to be on site, Unions are going to die.

Neomalthusian · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

TurtleDude said:
I cannot speak for other unions in the public sector save those I dealt with in litigation-sometimes against and sometimes in a "301 mixed case where the union member was suing both the government employing agency and his union for failure of "fair representation" and I am almost 100% certain that the Unions who were part of the collective bargaining agreements that controlled rank and file employees in the USPS, had a DUTY to fairly represent any worker under their Jurisdiction (for example the NALC had a duty to represent regular (AKA City) Letter carriers, the APWU for clerks, the NRLCA for rural Carriers, and the NPMHU for Mail handlers) even if that worker is not a dues paying member.

Whatever regulation or interpretation it might be that pins a "duty" on an organization to do something for someone who doesn't pay for the service is obviously extremely flawed. The only workable situations in which a duty can be pinned on an organization to provide services to non-paying customers is when that organization receives its funding from government or is a part of government itself.

So whatever it is that public sector unions tell themselves they're doing on behalf of workers, that duty needs to be governmentalized. Regulations and Depts. of Labor can handle this mission. For the most part they already do. You're absolutely right that public sector unions shouldn't exist.

Captain Adverse · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Fletch said:
Americans are smart. Smart enough to know that unions are unnecessary in modern America.

I disagree. Americans (in general) are sheep. We are slaves to consumerism; overeating, buy things we don't need simply because advertising blasts us with overt, covert and subliminal messages, and we've bought into the lie even mediocrities are of the "chosen people," special simply because "Merica!"

For how much longer I wonder? When do the Hyksos, Visigoths, Mongols, or whatever new set of barbarians knock us off our crumbling pedestal?

Unions are still necessary. They are needed to balance the rapaciousness of the Kochs and their ilk. If they didn't think Unions were both a threat and a balance to their goals, they would not have spent so much of their money trying to undermine them.

Fletch · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Captain Adverse said:
I disagree. Americans (in general) are sheep. We are slaves to consumerism; overeating, buy things we don't need simply because advertising blasts us with overt, covert and subliminal messages, and we've bought into the lie even mediocrities are of the "chosen people," special simply because "Merica!"

For how much longer I wonder? When do the Hyksos, Visigoths, Mongols, or whatever new set of barbarians knock us off our crumbling pedestal?

Unions are still necessary. They are needed to balance the rapaciousness of the Kochs and their ilk. If they didn't think Unions were both a threat and a balance to their goals, they would not have spent so much of their money trying to undermine them.

Unions are not necessary. If they were, there would be more of them. And the Kochs are irrelevant.

haymarket · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

clownboy said:
Neither are the small and new business owners, and they employ the lion share of the US labor market. And to Santayana I say, the lesson of history is that government or government supported organizations stick around sucking at the teat long after their purposes are achieved. We do not seem able to learn that lesson and so are repeating it endlessly.

The only that that gives the average worker power is to unite with other workers. By themselves, they are at a serious and extreme disadvantage in putting themselves against a large company.

A union is their only hope.

haymarket · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Fletch said:
No, unions are finished despite your dreamy-eyed fantasies to the contrary. Why? Because the conditions that spawned unions have disappeared. Fighting for better working conditions, shorter hours, benefits and wages have happened. Government agencies have taken over much of the role that unions played. What do you need a union for when you have OSHA, BWC, NLRB, ODJFS and others to look out for you without dues? Unions are in decline because government has filled its shoes. In fact, the only place that sees union growth is in government--where unions really serve no purpose other than to line the pockets of democrat officials. Americans are smart. Smart enough to know that unions are unnecessary in modern America.

The only that that gives the average worker power is to unite with other workers. By themselves, they are at a serious and extreme disadvantage in putting themselves against a large company.

A union is their only hope.

FieldTheorist · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Captain Adverse said:
I disagree. Americans (in general) are sheep. We are slaves to consumerism; overeating, buy things we don't need simply because advertising blasts us with overt, covert and subliminal messages, and we've bought into the lie even mediocrities are of the "chosen people," special simply because "Merica!"

For how much longer I wonder? When do the Hyksos, Visigoths, Mongols, or whatever new set of barbarians knock us off our crumbling pedestal?

Unions are still necessary. They are needed to balance the rapaciousness of the Kochs and their ilk. If they didn't think Unions were both a threat and a balance to their goals, they would not have spent so much of their money trying to undermine them.

I couldn't agree more. Eventually, America's absurd, unfettered love of neoliberalism (fiscal conservativism and "trickdown" voodoo economics) will catch up with it. After we let a bunch of business-school educated managers and bean-counters slowly rot out all of American infrastructure and institutions until all of their raw wealth has been extracted and converted into money for rich people, the US crumbles into nothingness. Once the last university is converted into the worst form of education system possible, after the last successful business produces only produces the most cheapest, crappiest, former shadow-of-itself product will their goals be completed.

It's amazing how most American recognize the problem, but refuse to do anything about it and instead listen to morons like Donald Trump or Fox News.

Captain Adverse · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Fletch said:
Unions are not necessary. If they were, there would be more of them. And the Kochs are irrelevant.

Really? :roll:

Koch money has supported numerous efforts to break unions, targeting them through financial advocacy of "right-to-work" bills in every state they have a financial interest in; including Michigan (win), Wisconsin (win), and California (lose).

They, and others, have supported media efforts to convince Americans that it was Unionism that cost jobs by driving employers to cheaper (read "sweat shop") labor, and non-regulated (read "unsafe") factory development overseas. Of course, it couldn't be free-market profiteering engendered by corporate friendly trade agreements enacted over the years by bought and paid-for politicians.

Oh no...the Unions caused it with all their wage, benefit, and safety efforts. :shock:

Neomalthusian · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Captain Adverse said:
Unions are still necessary. They are needed to balance the rapaciousness of the Kochs and their ilk.

FieldTheorist said:
I couldn't agree more.

Is that what you think unions really do? Fight the good fight against those evil Kochs?

Of all sectors of the economy, the most unionized are local government, then public education, then protective services (e.g. police and fire), then state government, then federal government, then utilities.

They're needed to balance the rapaciousness of the Kochs? Are you ****ing kidding me? Well that isn't what they're doing. They're organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers, because taxpayers and ratepayers don't have much choice but to pay their taxes and utility bills, do they?

Wake the **** up, I beg you.

Table 3. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by occupation and industry

Captain Adverse · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Neomalthusian said:
Is that what you think unions really do? Fight the good fight against those evil Kochs?

Of all sectors of the economy, the most unionized are local government, then public education, then protective services (e.g. police and fire), then state government, then federal government, then utilities.

They're needed to balance the rapaciousness of the Kochs? Are you ****ing kidding me? Well that isn't what they're doing. They're organizing against taxpayers and ratepayers, because taxpayers and ratepayers don't have much choice but to pay their taxes and utility bills, do they?

Wake the **** up, I beg you.

When did American Industry begin it's decline? Steel, 1970's; Auto, 1970's.

When did the "Wal-Mart" business model start? 1969, (Target 1969 expansion, Costco and Price Club 1976)

It is true that Manufacturing jobs in general have been fairly stable until 2002, but NAFTA in 1994 led to more trade agreements, most notable the one we had with China in 2004. Hard to compete with billions of cheap manufacturing laborers. :shrug:

Then there's this interesting article:

Simply put, American workers now see the unions as part of the problem, not part of the solution. There are a number of reasons that account for this negative perception.

1. Unions often seem irrelevant.

2. Unions have a poor public image as being bloated, inefficient and often downright corrupt.

3. Workers are often “out of sync” with union politics.

4. Most Americans now turn to government, not unions, for basic protections.

Four Reasons For The Decline In Union Membership

I wonder where they got those ideas from?

I am not going to argue that Government Unions aren't large, but why would that be? Answer: because people demand more and more government services, they just don't want to pay for them. Don't blame government "bloat" on unions. If you want all those services, don't expect someone to serve angry, irascible, irate, whiny, demanding, pleading, deceiving citizens day in and day out for minimum wage.

Don't get me wrong. Unions have problems and can create problems. I don't like the fact the leaders act like the Soviet Comintern, or that seniority takes priority over quality, and they fight as hard to keep a crappy employee as a good one. I'm still willing to live with them to prevent Wal-Mart from becoming the new world order.

Lord of Planar · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

UtahBill said:
Enforced mediocrity is the mantra for a lot of unions.....
don't you dare do more than you are required to do, never speak ill of fellow members no matter how incompetent they are....
pay your dues and don't question the wanna-be mob bosses.

So true.

And they wonder why people like me want no part of them.

Lord of Planar · Jan 11, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Gaius46 said:
People should have the right to negotiate their own compensation package or choose collective bargaining if the see value in it. The union should earn it's membership does by proving it can do better for the worker than the worker can on his own.

There lies one major the problem. Unions take away my above average status for wage ability, because I get paid the same as the below average worker.

What ever happened to Union pride?

Neomalthusian · Jan 12, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Captain Adverse said:
When did American Industry begin it's decline? Steel, 1970's; Auto, 1970's.

When did the "Wal-Mart" business model start? 1969, (Target 1969 expansion, Costco and Price Club 1976)

What are you even saying here?

Then there's this interesting article:

Four Reasons For The Decline In Union Membership

That article is.... not interesting at all. There are more compelling and informative arguments in this single random debatepolitics.com thread about unions than in that article. Where did you even find it?

I am not going to argue that Government Unions aren't large, but why would that be? Answer: because people demand more and more government services, they just don't want to pay for them.

That doesn't explain why public sector unions are so large. Local government is the most unionized of all levels of government. Are people really demanding "more and more and more" local government services? Mmm, not really, no. Next most unionized is public education. Are we demanding more and more and more public education? Mmm, not really, no. So what was it you were saying?

Don't blame government "bloat" on unions.

What? I blame government for being bought off by scum unions and passing pro-union laws that don't serve anyone but unions. But more specifically, I blame liberal government leaders for being so pro-union. It's truly disgusting.

If you want all those services, don't expect someone to serve angry, irascible, irate, whiny, demanding, pleading, deceiving citizens day in and day out for minimum wage.

What in the hell are you even talking about?

You know who got something for nothing? Taxpayers 30 years ago. They paid crap wages and promised defined BENEFIT pensions for public sector workers, which are now finally coming due (ever heard of public pension unfunded liabilities?). Public sector pensions are a disaster. How do you think public sector unions feel about pensions? They love them.

Don't get me wrong. Unions have problems and can create problems. I don't like the fact the leaders act like the Soviet Comintern, or that seniority takes priority over quality, and they fight as hard to keep a crappy employee as a good one. I'm still willing to live with them to prevent Wal-Mart from becoming the new world order.

What the **** does Walmart have to do with public sector unions?

Captain Adverse · Jan 12, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Neomalthusian said:
You know who got something for nothing? Taxpayers 30 years ago. They paid crap wages and promised defined BENEFIT pensions for public sector workers, which are now finally coming due (ever heard of public pension unfunded liabilities?). Public sector pensions are a disaster. How do you think public sector unions feel about pensions? They love them.

This is the only point I am going to address because I don't want to take time to play "explain that s*** to me" game.

If you want to know what the problem with State public pensions is; the State governments have been borrowing heavily from them to pay for pork barrel items tax revenues failed to provide sufficient funds for. Just like the Federal government and Social Security, it creates a debt against future tax revenues in a never-ending cycle. So, why blame the "greedy" union for negotiating the benefits huh? Blame the clods people elect for misusing the funds.

Look, I don't like big government. I would prefer to cut services of all kinds to a minimum. Still, whatever is left must be done well, and the people deserve to be paid well. :shrug:

Gaius46 · Jan 12, 2016

Re: Unions about to take another hit

Captain Adverse said:
This is the only point I am going to address because I don't want to take time to play "explain that s*** to me" game.

If you want to know what the problem with State public pensions is; the State governments have been borrowing heavily from them to pay for pork barrel items tax revenues failed to provide sufficient funds for. Just like the Federal government and Social Security, it creates a debt against future tax revenues in a never-ending cycle. So, why blame the "greedy" union for negotiating the benefits huh? Blame the clods people elect for misusing the funds.

Look, I don't like big government. I would prefer to cut services of all kinds to a minimum. Still, whatever is left must be done well, and the people deserve to be paid well. :shrug:

Sure they do. But.....

Historically government employees weren't paid as well as private sector employees but typically had job security and retirement benefits that many in the private sector didn't have as compensation for a smaller paycheck. That's no longer the case. Public employees are typically paid as well as those in the private sector while retaining their pension benefits and job security. If anything in the private sector pensions and security have gotten worse. In short government employees are typically very well compensated relative to the private sector these days.

I understand what you're saying about pension funds but you cannot deny that full retirement after 20 years with pensions based on the last 5 years of service salary with overtime - typical for NYC uniformed union employees (cops, fire and sanitation) - are overly generous and far outstrip what the private sector gets. My brother the retired cop started working 2 years after me and has been retired now 10 years, collecting a generous NYC pension and working a second career. He makes more now than he did as a cop.

Me? I'm still working and probably won't be able to retire for at least another decade.

You can't tell me that generous pensions like that don't exacerbate the municipal pension fund problems.

Conservative US top court justices skeptical over union fees

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

clownboy

clownboy

haymarket

Neomalthusian

clownboy

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Fletch

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Neomalthusian

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Fletch

haymarket

haymarket

FieldTheorist

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Neomalthusian

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Neomalthusian

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Gaius46