Unions threaten Business

BWG said:

Perhaps the non-union employee should look into how the union employee elevated themselves to having decent wages, adequate retirement, nice housing, enough food for their families, health insurance, etc. and strive to achieve that level, rather than trying to bring that group down to the non-union level of bare subsistence.

Click to expand...

You mean, the level everyone else in the state is working to, and the level which the unions are making it more difficult if not impossible for all the other workers in the state to achieve because the unions are bankrupting the states?

randel said:

all of which he could have sat down and negotiated over, and possibly, had gotten more in the way of concessions than he planned on....i had no problem with him asking them to pay more for their retirement/medical, but pray tell, why did he see fit to have to make them 'certify' every year? certification is an internal union matter, with provisions set up for decertification votes if enough of the membership wanted to be rid of the union....and not why not have the government collect the dues? that is standard procedure in most union contracts that the employer collect the dues and mail a check to the union every month...?? union busting, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

"Certification" is an "internal union" matter?

NO. Certification is an assurance ot the employer that the employee has sufficient proficiency to perform his assigned task.

There's no better reason for an employer to reject a union than for the union to demand it take control of the certification requirements.

Mayor Snorkum said:

You mean, the level everyone else in the state is working to, and the level which the unions are making it more difficult if not impossible for all the other workers in the state to achieve because the unions are bankrupting the states?

Click to expand...

That post seems a little socialist in nature

It certainly has class envy in it

randel said:

for the representation, a fair price to have a voice.

Click to expand...

The state employees HAVE a voice.

Every election day at the ballot, and every day, with their feet.

Under no circumstance should public employees ever be paid more than their private industry counterparts. If they believe they're so much better, then they can haul their butts out of the protected stagnant swamp of government land and compete for jobs with everyone else in the market where talent and ability is rewarded. But enough of this crap about how indispensible to poor government worker is. 95% of them are clerks, nothing more.

Lord Tammerlain said:

That post seems a little socialist in nature

It certainly has class envy in it

Click to expand...

Socialism...the religious belief disguised as ideology that property does not exist and that all workers should possess in common their places of employment and their women.

No, nothing socialist in what I post.

Certainly nothing envious shown about people who resort to mob violence when told they're harming their state and the state needs to remove their illegal power to corrupt politicians becuase they're bankrupting the state by their excesses.

buck said:

I've heard that WI teachers pay over 1000 annually in union dues. divided by 12 = $83.00. I think it would annoy the hell out of me to have to write an $83.00 check every month.

Click to expand...

Well, then again, it is the year 2010. You're free to authorize your bank to allow your union to grab as much money as you want it to have every month, directly from your bank accout.

And other people should be the equal freedom to tell the greedy left-wing unions to go to hell.

AT THE LEAST, the employee payroll deduction must be voluntary, not automatic.

It was unions that built the middle class


"As Labor Day approaches, it's time for an honest assessment of where working people are. Wages, even for college graduates, are falling behind inflation. The number of families in poverty is growing. The middle-class debt load is off the charts and the personal savings rate is below zero. The costs of a college education, of health insurance, of energy for heating and driving, and of pharmaceuticals grow out of reach for more Americans with each passing day.

What economists call the "income distribution" is, from a middle class perspective, as bad as it has been since the Great Depression. During the Roaring '20s, the split between rich and poor grew exceptionally large, leaving relatively few in the middle class. In the decades following the Depression, things began to change for the better as income and wealth became more evenly distributed. But now we are back to where we were as the nation stood on the brink of its greatest economic catastrophe ever. The very rich are richer than ever, but the rest of us are falling behind at an increasingly rapid pace.

The history of labor unions in America helps tell the story of why we are losing the middle class. Private-sector unionization was legislated during the Depression. Union membership grew into the mid-20th century, then began a slow decline that continues today. Remember the income distribution numbers: a weak middle class in the Depression, a strong middle class in the decades following, and a weakening middle class now. The way these numbers generally track those for union activity is no coincidence.

Unions equalize power in the market place between those who work and those who own something. Those who work are the stuff of which the middle class is made. Those who own fill the ranks of the very wealthy. When the balance of power is with labor unions, the gains from production stay with the middle class. When the balance shifts as it has today, the very wealthy take an ever-larger share from economic activity.

As the very wealthy become even more so, they do not spend money in the way middle-class people do. After all, how many houses and cars, no matter how fine, can one have? Once people have more money than they can possibly spend on goods and services, they no longer use it in ways that stimulate the economy. Instead, they use the power their money brings to get more tax breaks, less regulation, more support for globalization, and policies that favor capital over labor. The middle class continues to weaken.

In spite of all this, we are told not to worry, because the United States is becoming what some politicians call an "ownership society." Instead of supporting unions that bring decent wages to working people, we are advised to buy shares in the corporations that profit when wages are falling. Meanwhile, we ignore the most important aspect of our economy -- that we are a great market for goods and services.

The trouble with all strategies that trade good jobs for cheap toasters is that they eventually erode that very market for the goods and services. A handful of hyper-wealthy individuals, along with millions of people living on the economic edge, are not the sound, stable market needed for growth. Only the middle class, with buying power widely distributed, can provide that. And that is what we are losing today.

This Labor Day, let's remember that rebalancing power in the economy is essential if the middle class is to thrive. Doing this, however, will require more than our government alone reasonably can be expected to deliver. We must act together in the marketplace as well. The way to do that is the way we have always done it -- to join and support the unions that built the middle class in the first place.

Richard A. Levins is a senior fellow at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy -- Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy | Where global and local meet sustainability. He is a professor emeritus of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. His most recent book, "Middle Class * Union Made" is available from Itasca Books at www.itascabooks.com."


It was unions that built the middle class | CJOnline.com

Mayor Snorkum said:

Socialism...the religious belief disguised as ideology that property does not exist and that all workers should possess in common their places of employment and their women.

No, nothing socialist in what I post.

Certainly nothing envious shown about people who resort to mob violence when told they're harming their state and the state needs to remove their illegal power to corrupt politicians becuase they're bankrupting the state by their excesses.

Click to expand...

You are complaining about how much a certain group of people are making over what typical people earn. When people did this against the bankers and other highly paid executives it was called socialism. You want them to make what everyone else is making (spread the wealth baby) which sounds darn socialist

What about corporations ability to corrupt politicians, they typically have far more money to buy off politicians then unions

Badmutha said:

The following letter is being sent out from Wisconsin Unions/THE MOB to Wisconsin Business Owners.......



Taking "Put the money in the bag.....or were gonna shut you down" to a whole new level.

This ****ing disgusts me.....these power hungry union slobs are a disgrace to this country......and piss poor excuses for Americans. A Union of little thug dictators.......its no wonder they prostitute for The Democrat Party and The Kenyan Tyrant. Birds of a feather....
.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

We need to be careful to not have an unbalanced approach to unions. Their existence is needed, but their existence needs proper reforms.

There is no point in striving to be the world's #1 economy if our people are living in squallor and can't make ends meet. Unions ensure that work environments are safe and that wages are competitive. Where they fall short is in blocking desperately needed reforms to businesses and the public sector.

A new balance is needed between employers, unions, and government. The status quo isn't working anymore. Unions have used their power to maximize personal gain, often for no rational reason other than making more money.

Temporal said:

We need to be careful to not have an unbalanced approach to unions. Their existence is needed, but their existence needs proper reforms.

There is no point in striving to be the world's #1 economy if our people are living in squallor and can't make ends meet. Unions ensure that work environments are safe and that wages are competitive. Where they fall short is in blocking desperately needed reforms to businesses and the public sector.

A new balance is needed between employers, unions, and government. The status quo isn't working anymore. Unions have used their power to maximize personal gain, often for no rational reason other than making more money.

Click to expand...

Those dirty capitalists trying to make as much money as they can. Dont they know they should share the wealth to the non union members

Catawba said:

It was unions that built the middle class

Click to expand...

i think you are thinking of the 1920's. that's when we saw the birth of the middle class. union membership growing and peaking has actually been typically associated with lower growth and higher unemployment, which harm the middle class. the corporatist National Industrial Recovery Act, for example, held wages and prices at 25% above their market levels, resulting in high unemployment and collapsed standards of living.



glad to help

Lord Tammerlain said:

Those dirty capitalists trying to make as much money as they can. Dont they know they should share the wealth to the non union members

Click to expand...

no, no, it makes sense for them to do so. the problem is that unions create a monopsony (the reverse of a monopoly); with the resultant economic damage for everyone else.

look at our traditionally highly unionized cities and states today. Detroit is the best example, but it's only the beginning.

Lord Tammerlain said:

Those dirty capitalists trying to make as much money as they can. Dont they know they should share the wealth to the non union members

Click to expand...

This is specious reasoning, as it's not about wealth, but quality control. Jobs are a privilege, not a right. If people aren't performing they should be fired or at least held back. Unions are making it so that people can coast through the seniority ladder with no merit to justify it, and at the same time get increasingly higher salaries.

The union battles right now are about state budgets vs. union employees, so it's about money in this case, but the battle has been brewing for a while. They want to have their cake and eat it too and that's just not the way the economy works sometimes.

Catawba said:

The former right to bargain collectively suffers further decline.

Click to expand...

you are mistaking a right for a priviledge.

Click to expand...

yup. given that unions tend to be economically parasitic in nature, leading to the inefficient allocation of resources, they have a resultant tendency to slowly choke the industries they are attached to, leading to long-term declining employment in that sector. there's a reason that Toyota didn't need a bailout but GM did.

Lord Tammerlain said:

One of the goals seems to be limiting the amount of money union donate to political campaigns, something that has been removed from Corporation

So companies get to buy the politicians, but not unions

Click to expand...

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

may i invite you to peruse and see what the comparative corporate to union donations for the past couple of decades have been. unions - especially public sector unions - are THE big dog in the political donation game.

randel said:

union shops bring up the wages of non-union shops that do similar work in their area, that is a benefit to those in non-union shops, and as a whole, thanks to unions, benefits are better for everyone.

Click to expand...

it is certainly true that employees in similar industries can use the threat of unionization to get higher wages. however, since each worker now costs more, the employer will now hire fewer of them; which immediately reduces employment. and since he is now pouring more resources into employee compensation, he has fewer resources to spend on other investments, which means that the other industries with which he trades will suffer as demand is reduced, and their wages and employment will suffer accordingly.

good for those who are already in. bad for everyone else. :shrug: that's just the facts for when you artificially hike up the price for a good or service.

i know many here , the hardcore 'conservatives' are happy with the way wisconsin turned out, but rest assured, that battle isnt over by a longshot...why are those hardcore 'conservatives' happy with what happened? because they see it as a crippling blow to the democrats, that will hurt them financially come the next election.

Click to expand...

given our pro-government-cuts position, yes, we view the reduction of the ability of the Government Party to launder itself taxpayer money via the public unions to be a benefit, yes.

if these 'conservatives' were honest in public, they would admit that what walker did was union busting, and had very precious little to do with 'balancing the budget' as walker claimed

Click to expand...

actually the two are one and the same. you might as well claim that republicans support entitlement reform not to avoid bankruptcy, but because they hate old people.

seriously, you are smarter than alan greyson; don't resort to his reasoning.

cpwill said:

i think you are thinking of the 1920's. that's when we saw the birth of the middle class. union membership growing and peaking has actually been typically associated with lower growth and higher unemployment, which harm the middle class. the corporatist National Industrial Recovery Act, for example, held wages and prices at 25% above their market levels, resulting in high unemployment and collapsed standards of living.



glad to help

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion! :sun




According to statistics the period of least income inequality (strongest middle class) was from 1944 to 1980.

randel said:

the governor overstepped by a country mile...simple union busting is all this was.

Click to expand...

i'm still waiting to hear how a measure that brings Wisconsin closer to America's center on this issue is "extreme right wing".

Catawba said:

According to statistics the period of least income inequality (strongest middle class) was from 1944 to 1980.

Click to expand...

what in the world makes you think that low income inequality = a stronger middle class?

Temporal said:

This is specious reasoning, as it's not about wealth, but quality control. Jobs are a privilege, not a right. If people aren't performing they should be fired or at least held back. Unions are making it so that people can coast through the seniority ladder with no merit to justify it, and at the same time get increasingly higher salaries.

The union battles right now are about state budgets vs. union employees, so it's about money in this case, but the battle has been brewing for a while. They want to have their cake and eat it too and that's just not the way the economy works sometimes.

Click to expand...

Jobs are not a right of course

The ability to sell your goods or services is. If you choose to combine the selling of your labour along with other people within the same employer you should be able to. If you and your associated decide to hold out on providing your service to the company it is their right. If you and your associates make a contract with the employer that they will only use the services provided by you or your associates that is a right

Having the government mandate that Dell has to use Intell chips along with AMD computer chips is a violation of Intel and of Dells rights to form contracts. If at the end of said contract the buyer of said goods or services does not want to purchase those goods or services (in this case labour) by all means dont buy those services.

Overall in a capitalist system everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. Greed is good, is it not. What I object to is the method of trying to limit the union. If the gov of wisconsin tried just to actually drive a hard bargin and lower compensation I would be fine with that. He took a cowards way out because he does not have the stomach to lock out the union as a means to drive down compensation costs

Lord Tammerlain said:

Jobs are not a right of course

The ability to sell your goods or services is. If you choose to combine the selling of your labour along with other people within the same employer you should be able to. If you and your associated decide to hold out on providing your service to the company it is their right. If you and your associates make a contract with the employer that they will only use the services provided by you or your associates that is a right

Having the government mandate that Dell has to use Intell chips along with AMD computer chips is a violation of Intel and of Dells rights to form contracts. If at the end of said contract the buyer of said goods or services does not want to purchase those goods or services (in this case labour) by all means dont buy those services.

Overall in a capitalist system everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. Greed is good, is it not. What I object to is the method of trying to limit the union. If the gov of wisconsin tried just to actually drive a hard bargin and lower compensation I would be fine with that. He took a cowards way out because he does not have the stomach to lock out the union as a means to drive down compensation costs

Click to expand...

There is nothing that Capitalists like more than a free market rigged in their favour.

Lord Tammerlain said:

You are complaining about how much a certain group of people are making over what typical people earn. When people did this against the bankers and other highly paid executives it was called socialism. You want them to make what everyone else is making (spread the wealth baby) which sounds darn socialist

What about corporations ability to corrupt politicians, they typically have far more money to buy off politicians then unions

Click to expand...

Socialism is an act of theft. If people are abusing the power of government to unconstitutionally limit the salaries and compensations earned by others, then they're accomplices in that theft.

The problem with your argument is that bankers aren't employed by the government.

Public workers are employed by people who, by some strange magic, earn the median wage. The government employees aren't doing anything special, in most cases they're mediocre performers. No reason why, just because they managed to extort closed shops and kick back millions of dollars to the politicians who are supposed to be representing the people's interests, not the unions, they should be thought of as "deserving" those extorted higher wages.

There's no reason whatsoever a government employee should be getting paid statistically more than the serfs laboring away to pay the taxes to fund the union member's paycheck, pension, and perks.


The defining phrase can be found from the mouth of an old, old Republican.

The government is "by the people, of the people, and for the people".

Not "for the unions".

Temporal said:

We need to be careful to not have an unbalanced approach to unions. Their existence is needed, but their existence needs proper reforms.

There is no point in striving to be the world's #1 economy if our people are living in squallor and can't make ends meet. Unions ensure that work environments are safe and that wages are competitive. Where they fall short is in blocking desperately needed reforms to businesses and the public sector.

A new balance is needed between employers, unions, and government. The status quo isn't working anymore. Unions have used their power to maximize personal gain, often for no rational reason other than making more money.

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.

The median wage of any state in the union is sufficient to keep a man out of "squalor". He'll have his car, he'll have his house. He'll have his hot and cold running water in both his bathrooms. He'll have his pension building, he'll have his health care, he'll even have vacation days and sufficient money left over to go to Hawaii once in a while.

He can live like EVERY OTHER AVERAGE AMERICAN. That's what the word "median" means.

Catawba said:

Thanks for your opinion! :sun

According to statistics the period of least income inequality (strongest middle class) was from 1944 to 1980.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

It wasn't a gap that gave us the Depressoin, it was the Federal Reserve. That's a pretty big graphic you posted to say something that isn't true.

Mayor Snorkum said:

Socialism is an act of theft. If people are abusing the power of government to unconstitutionally limit the salaries and compensations earned by others, then they're accomplices in that theft.

The problem with your argument is that bankers aren't employed by the government.

Click to expand...

Doesnt matter who is the employer

Public workers are employed by people who, by some strange magic, earn the median wage. The government employees aren't doing anything special, in most cases they're mediocre performers. No reason why, just because they managed to extort closed shops and kick back millions of dollars to the politicians who are supposed to be representing the people's interests, not the unions, they should be thought of as "deserving" those extorted higher wages.

Click to expand...

And this is where the socialism comes in. People in free markets are not paid what they are worth, they are paid what they can get for their services (excluding min wage laws of course). Next thing you will want sports athletes to have their salaries limited and those of upper management

There's no reason whatsoever a government employee should be getting paid statistically more than the serfs laboring away to pay the taxes to fund the union member's paycheck, pension, and perks.

Click to expand...

They should get what ever they can negotiate for from the employer. Paying what they are worth is darn similar to paying what they need (communism)

The defining phrase can be found from the mouth of an old, old Republican.

The government is "by the people, of the people, and for the people".

Not "for the unions".

Click to expand...

From each according to their ability to each according to their need

You are against the free market of selling ones labour, and using means to ensure that one gets the highest compensation one can get. That is not capitalism but communism. Wage controls come next right, for those nurses who you feel are over paid, then the engineers