• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?

  • Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

    Votes: 40 62.5%

  • Unions will respond and their power will grow.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • It depends on November.

    Votes: 10 15.6%
  • Total voters
    64
A question for conservatives and libertarians who value contracts -

Do we as a people honor the contracts we have negotiated regarding retirement benefits that a worker worked for thirty or forty years to obtain as promised?
 
haymarket said:
A question for conservatives and libertarians who value contracts -

Do we as a people honor the contracts we have negotiated regarding retirement benefits that a worker worked for thirty or forty years to obtain as promised?
Click to expand...

Of course not silly you...nothing is valued by the conservatives...anyway you can screw the working class is just perfect...contracts are only good if they like the contract...then its a good contract :)
 
haymarket said:
A question for conservatives and libertarians who value contracts -

Do we as a people honor the contracts we have negotiated regarding retirement benefits that a worker worked for thirty or forty years to obtain as promised?
Click to expand...

Do we honor contracts negotiated in bad faith by both parties when doing so would destroy our state and local fiscs?

If our governments' first duty is to protect us, and the government of San Jose is forced to choose between generous COLA increases or keeping fire houses running, what is it's primary responsibility?

We have Government by the People for the People. Not Government by the Government for the Government.
 
haymarket said:
A question for conservatives and libertarians who value contracts -

Do we as a people honor the contracts we have negotiated regarding retirement benefits that a worker worked for thirty or forty years to obtain as promised?
Click to expand...

No. Ask the native Americans, prior slave owners, property owners that have had land "re-zoned" (or declared as "wetlands") or, better yet, check out your own SS "information" statements. The minimum SS "full" retirement beneift age has been "adjusted" from the previous universal age of 65 to 66 to 69 (with much talk of going to up to 72 soon), the COLA adjustments for SS benefit increases is (sort of) still in place BUT the gov't "recomputed" the CPI basis for it to make it appear that inflation is not as bad as it feels, the "cost of living as we knew it" no longer exists as OUR gov't is quite "free" to alter what is, and is not, included (and in what proportions).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This nonsense has to be stopped, and demorats, if they want the support of the voters, rather than just the gov't employee unions, must join in the effort to restore sanity to the pay and benefits offered to gov't employees. A private business would be forced to close its doors under the same conditions (like the auto and arilines have done) so too must the gov't (eventually). It boils down to simple math; defined benefit retirement plans must be ended and replaced with defined contribution plans with sensible employer/employee fund matching ratios and limits. Note that private 401K plans may not be used (without penalty) until at least age 59 1/2.

Few seem to question the VERY early retirement ages "offered" to gov't employees, many have an "80" based system, rather than a minimum retirement age like SS/Medicare do. That system uses the gov't employee's age added to their number of years of their gov't service (sometimes even counting ANY gov't service) to determine retirement benefit eligability. Say John Q. Government started their city or state gov't employment "carreer" at age 20, when they reach the ripe old age of 50 (15 years, or more, before reaching SS/Medicare eligability age) they may get "full" gov't retirement benefits (30 years of service + 50 years of age = 80) and may often then get the option of staying on longer for still MORE gov't retirement benefits, or simply "retire" at 1/2 their full working salary and then work a "private" job for 15 years and get FULL SS/Medicare too!

You can easily see the problem that this "80" system causes for the taxpayer, as they may end up paying for not only the full salary/benefits of the current gov't employee but 1.5x or 2x that amount to cover the retirement costs for the past one or two people that held that gov't position before them.
Click to expand...

I have some friends that will be retiring at the ripe old age of 38.

I mean, military service wrecks you in lots of ways, agreeably... but in today's age that's ridiculous.
 
lpast said:
Of course it is...theres been some turncoat scum because they are afraid they have to get re elected....how about this...two democrats both leadership...one in charge of the senate in jersey...hes an x Ironworker union Organizer and the other was the Electrical unions president or vice president. Both have taken huge amounts of union money for years...both voted for christies bone the public workers bills...without them he could not have passed it....after they voted for it and passed it...they were quite dismayed that unions told them the gravy train has ended...they said dont judge us on that one vote...judge us on all our votes...yeah sure LOL...

Heres one of them not the Iron worker Organizer

He changed his site some...it used to PROUDLY dispaly Ironworker union organizer...now hes downplayed it...and it says

General Organizer, International Association of Ironworkers....heres a kicker for ya...he collects a pension with cost of living increases and full medical benefits from the ironworkers...the same things he tried to strip of state workers....now he will collect a state pension...with cost of living and full medical...see christie and the legislature didnt TOUCH their pensions or benefits...
Christie has totally overwhelmed this dumbo...christie has categorically beaten him in every single foray since day one.


Stephen M. Sweeney (D)
Click to expand...

I don't see a turncoat here. I see a man who has realized that private sector unions require a properly functioning private sector in order to thrive, and that public sector unions are threats to that private sectors' function via their demands on the state and local fiscs.

However, I would agree Christie has outplayed him. :) He's not any kind of conservative I would want at the top of the ticket, but Christie as Labor Secretary or on the NLRB has some interesting possibilities.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
1. We are discussing de facto, not de jure.

2. In fact this is what occurs with regards to most major entrenched special interest groups. It just so happens that when "government" is the interest group, there is no balancing faction. Just as government unions face no profitability check on their rent-seeking (as their private counterparts do), they face no check on their control.
Click to expand...

Ah, but they do. That is the precise point if this thread. When we the sheeple (voters and taxpayers) SEE what is happening (or has happened) as "wrong" then we elect people to "correct" it. There is no "stone tablet" (or contract) that says gov't workers have "jobs for life" or may only receive POSITIVE adjustments in pay and/or benefits. Our SS/Medicare "deal" is constantly being "adjusted" often long after we start "contributing" to it (by force of law, no less, as we neither volunteered for it nor may we quit it) and, as of late, not in a POSITIVE direction. ;-)
 
Boo Radley said:
It's your link:


Family Taxpayers Foundation



Arnett, Melissa

$15,423



Bair, Lindy

$27,943



Banwart, Douglas

$32,256


Do you know another district?
Click to expand...

I rather like this:

Governor of the State of Illinois: $150,691
Mayor of the City of Chicago: $210,000
Secretary-General of the United Nations: $225,000
President of the United States: $400,000
District Supt District 233: $402,331
District Supt District 219: $411,511

Illinois Loop: Salaries and Pensions

District 214, Elk Grove Village, IL:

Name: Drye, Qiana
Salary: $95,884
Position: High School Teacher
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: U.S. History (Grades 9-12 Only)
Years Teaching: 12
Degree: Master's
School Name: Prospect High School
District Name: Township HSD 214


Name: Eccles, Zachary
Salary: $58,969
Position: High School Teacher
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: Algebra
Years Teaching: 3
Degree: Baccalaureate
School Name: Elk Grove High School
District Name: Township HSD 214

Name: Drapatsky, Melissa
Salary: $101,723
Position: High School Teacher
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: English (Grades 9-12 Only)
Years Teaching: 12
Degree: Master's
School Name: John Hersey High School
District Name: Township HSD 214

Name: Jones, Daniel
Salary: $111,097
Position: High School Teacher
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: Algebra
Years Teaching: 17
Degree: Master's
School Name: Rolling Meadows High School
District Name: Township HSD 214

Name: Kalkounos, Effie
Salary: $83,994
Position: High School Teacher
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: French
Years Teaching: 7
Degree: Master's
School Name: Elk Grove High School
District Name: Township HSD 214

Name: Larson, Mary
Salary: $125,467
Position: High School Teacher
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: English (Grades 9-12 Only)
Years Teaching: 26
Degree: Master's
School Name: Elk Grove High School
District Name: Township HSD 214

http://www.familytaxpayers.org/salary.php
 
lpast said:
Of course not silly you...nothing is valued by the conservatives...anyway you can screw the working class is just perfect...contracts are only good if they like the contract...then its a good contract :)
Click to expand...

What contract allows any taxpayer (those that provide the funding for) a say in this "fair" salary/benefit negotiation with the union? Please do not say OUR elected officials, that rely heavily on campaign cash "donated" by the gov't employee unions, as you only like their decisions SOME of the time. As long as the gov't "special" folks get "good" deals, then all is right with you, yet when the political winds blow against them, you ONLY THEN squeal "foul" and start all sorts of ranting about worker (not taxpayer) "rights"; of course, you support "rights" only on ONE side of the bargaining table. ;-)
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
I'm pro-union in recognizing that we would have child labor and sweat shops without them. Yet I'm no fan of public sector unions. These are political jobs usually and paybacks of favors even at the lowest levels. Corporations and Unions have both been guilty of egregious behavior. Unions have driven some industries out of business by high wage, retirement, and healthcare demands. Yet, without the Unions, Corporations have always been evil and self serving. The Corporate charters are about making money, not the public good. The beancounters dream is ten cents an hour labor, no retirement and no healthcare because that is the most profitable scenario and that is what a Corporation is designed to do. That, and provide nice stock dividends to the wealthy with no work required. Like inherited wealth and entitlements and Divine Providence is why they are blessed with the wealth.
Click to expand...

While I agree with much of what you say, I think you skipped over some important points. Corporations, as any private employer, do indeed need to keep labor costs in line, yet they also need smart and productive employees to gain and keep competitve advantage. Unless they are a monopoly, they must pay as good or better than their competition.

The gov't, however has no such need, as they have no true competition; they must pay only enough to attract and retain a competent work force, they do get (or need) the best, they need (and get) only adequate workers, yet seem to reward them as if they were the best. As an example of "proof" simply look at the personnel turnover rates of gov't employees compared to those in priavte industry; if things are "tight" beacause of wage/benefit competition (and reasonable personnel management) then turnover tends to be much higher, if your are overpaying them (or simply keeping everybody, regardless of job performance), then naturally nobody wants to (or is forced to) leave you, and your turnover is minimal, with most simply plodding along until retirement.

In private (non-union) industry any poor to modertate performing worker is usually either terminated or has their pay frozen, not so in gov't (or union shops) as "fairness" dictates the ALL get basically the same COLA increases and promotions based mainly on time in service. The military is one glaring exception to this (gov't employee) rule, as merit and personal accomplishment play a much larger role in rank and pay decisions, and carreers (to full retirement) are not nearly as common. The gov't, in general, could learn much from careful examination of the management, and personnel policies, of its military brothers and sisters. ;-)
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
What contract allows any taxpayer (those that provide the funding for) a say in this "fair" salary/benefit negotiation with the union? Please do not say OUR elected officials, that rely heavily on campaign cash "donated" by the gov't employee unions, as you only like their decisions SOME of the time. As long as the gov't "special" folks get "good" deals, then all is right with you, yet when the political winds blow against them, you ONLY THEN squeal "foul" and start all sorts of ranting about worker (not taxpayer) "rights"; of course, you support "rights" only on ONE side of the bargaining table. ;-)
Click to expand...

Could you please answer the question: do you support the honoring of the contracts that have been in place between the legally constituted representatives of the American people and the people contracted to work for them - having fulfilled and met their obligations over thirty or forty years of employment?
 
haymarket said:
A question for conservatives and libertarians who value contracts -
Do we as a people honor the contracts we have negotiated regarding retirement benefits that a worker worked for thirty or forty years to obtain as promised?
Click to expand...

This is a very good question that I frequently struggle with. On the one hand IMO we on the ‘right’ fully support contract obligations. But on the other hand if the sustainability of these obligations is questionable is it astute to ignore the need to modify these obligations? Should we commit to fulfilling the overextension of prior Legislative action regardless of the consequences, perceived or actual? There is a precedent of municipalities filing Chapter 9 in which case these prior contract obligations have been drastically modified. It would seem a preemptive action to avoid severe reductions in benefits a wise compromise.
 
Dickieboy said:
This is a very good question that I frequently struggle with. On the one hand IMO we on the ‘right’ fully support contract obligations. But on the other hand if the sustainability of these obligations is questionable is it astute to ignore the need to modify these obligations? Should we commit to fulfilling the overextension of prior Legislative action regardless of the consequences, perceived or actual? There is a precedent of municipalities filing Chapter 9 in which case these prior contract obligations have been drastically modified. It would seem a preemptive action to avoid severe reductions in benefits a wise compromise.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a thoughtful answer. It is appreciated.
 
haymarket said:
Could you please answer the question: do you support the honoring of the contracts that have been in place between the legally constituted representatives of the American people and the people contracted to work for them - having fulfilled and met their obligations over thirty or forty years of employment?
Click to expand...

Contracts will be honored. Contracts are, generally, two or three years long. You seem to think that when a teacher (or other public employee) is hired, the contract that's in place for that 2- or 3-year period should be in place for thirty years. Think about it, Haymarket. That's not the way it works. I think you know that, though.

Hypothetical: Teacher is hired under a contract promises "X $$" for their pension when they've fulfilled such-and-such. THAT promise is funded yearly. Let's say that same promise is in effect over two or three contracts -- and then changed. The law says that employee is entitled to the funding that was put aside for them during that initial contract. It in NO WAY guarantees that pension amount. Every contract negotiation is a new deal.
 
 
haymarket said:
Thank you for a thoughtful answer. It is appreciated.
Click to expand...

Given your proximity to ‘ground zero’ and your occupation I presume you are involved somewhat in this subject directly. What is the desired/proposed solution to this situation in Detroit? Given the reduction in population where will the funds come from to solidify the ‘contracts that have been in place between the legally constituted representatives…having fulfilled and met their obligations over thirty or forty years of employment’? Should the citizens of Michigan or the US be required to finance these locally promoted obligations?

Ps. Not looking for an argument but rather further insight.
 
MaggieD said:
Contracts will be honored. Contracts are, generally, two or three years long. You seem to think that when a teacher (or other public employee) is hired, the contract that's in place for that 2- or 3-year period should be in place for thirty years. Think about it, Haymarket. That's not the way it works. I think you know that, though.

Hypothetical: Teacher is hired under a contract promises "X $$" for their pension when they've fulfilled such-and-such. THAT promise is funded yearly. Let's say that same promise is in effect over two or three contracts -- and then changed. The law says that employee is entitled to the funding that was put aside for them during that initial contract. It in NO WAY guarantees that pension amount. Every contract negotiation is a new deal.
Click to expand...

I think that you're misunderstanding Haymarket[/i]'s point: he asking if you think that a long time union - company relationship that has the same employees involved should be honored as such. You are right that contracts change according to enviroment, however, what's been happening in this case is a full on assault by the Republicans advocating this "small government" propoganda line. For instance, Scott Walker has no intention of honoring such a relationship and he's made that very clear, no matter what the unions have agreed to in the way of comensation back to the states. As for teachers, in some states like California, they don't pay into social security, so their pension is all they're going to get; that's why the health care after retirement is such a hot issue for a lot of public employees.

I have a long experience with these types of cases and that's why I used the word "assault"; because that's what it is. As I've said a couple of times in this thread: the fuse has been lit; so . . .
 
I think that you all should be wearing those little Chinese outfits, working in sweatshops for 20.00 dollars a day. I think you should work for those rich bastards who want to get filthy rich off the backs of you ignorant peasants. You deserve no benefits, holidays, or weekends. You have no right to expect any longivity at your job. You've been there 25 years, built up a decent hourly wage through the years and have 4 weeks annual vacation. Why should I keep you around if I have to pay you all that vacation time and sick leave when I can just run your ass off and get me some kid fresh out of high school to take your job for 1/2 the price and none of the benefits?

Vote republican!

[/end sarcasm]
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
I think that you all should be wearing those little Chinese outfits, working in sweatshops for 20.00 dollars a day. I think you should work for those rich bastards who want to get filthy rich off the backs of you ignorant peasants. You deserve no benefits, holidays, or weekends. You have no right to expect any longivity at your job. You've been there 25 years, built up a decent hourly wage through the years and have 4 weeks annual vacation. Why should I keep you around if I have to pay you all that vacation time and sick leave when I can just run your ass off and get me some kid fresh out of high school to take your job for 1/2 the price and none of the benefits?

Vote republican!

[/end sarcasm]
Click to expand...

*Yawn* Just so you know when you work for someone they are paying you with their money usually on their property. That kind of makes it their call if they want you around or not. Your its not fair party is ignored.
 
Henrin said:
*Yawn* Just so you know when you work for someone they are paying you with their money usually on their property. That kind of makes it their call if they want you around or not.
Click to expand...


Why should Americans expect a middle class standard of living, right? If its good enough for the poor masses in China, its good enough for Americans!
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Why should Americans expect a middle class standard of living, right? If its good enough for the poor masses in China, its good enough for Americans!
Click to expand...

*Yawn* The fact is that if they are paying you they can fire you if you cost too much and no amount of twenty-five years loyalty changes it either.

Oh and btw check how the world market works again. You appear to missing the point of it.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
I think that you're misunderstanding Haymarket[/i]'s point: he asking if you think that a long time union - company relationship that has the same employees involved should be honored as such.
Click to expand...


I guess I completely misunderstood Haymarket’s question. When he said ‘having fulfilled and met their obligations over thirty or forty years of employment’ I took this to mean that one was not ‘the same employees involved’ as evidenced by the past tense use of fulfill and meet and not the present tense use of involve that you prescribe. I also believed that his question was pertaining to public sector unions as the title of the thread implies and not the ‘union - company relationship’ you suggest. Guess I was wrong on that also. Thanks for clearing that up…
 
Henrin said:
*Yawn* Just so you know when you work for someone they are paying you with their money usually on their property. That kind of makes it their call if they want you around or not. Your its not fair party is ignored.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why we shouldn't have sexual harrassment or labor laws or fair practices and standards. Hey; when you're rght you're right, you're right: you're just right.
 
Dickieboy said:
I guess I completely misunderstood Haymarket’s question. When he said ‘having fulfilled and met their obligations over thirty or forty years of employment’ I took this to mean that one was not ‘the same employees involved’ as evidenced by the past tense use of fulfill and meet and not the present tense use of involve that you prescribe. I also believed that his question was pertaining to public sector unions as the title of the thread implies and not the ‘union - company relationship’ you suggest. Guess I was wrong on that also. Thanks for clearing that up…
Click to expand...

It can or cannot mean the same employees: people quit and people retire etc. The point is in the long term realtionship dynamic being one of collective bargaining. And it does apply to public sector unions as well: the scenario is the same but the point and defintions were misunderstood in my view. So, I would say, apply my definition and then answer Haymarket's post and see what you get.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
*Yawn* The fact is that if they are paying you they can fire you if you cost too much and no amount of twenty-five years loyalty changes it either.
Click to expand...
Which is why we have unions to begin with; thanks for helping to make a case in point.

Oh and btw check how the world market works again. You appear to missing the point of it.
Click to expand...

Well, the rumor is that the "free market" world isn't doing to well these days because the "free market" world had no protections (even for themselves) in place to keep anything bad froma happening: deregulation is God send - ain't it??

Again, thanks for making it easy to point that out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom