• 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?


  • Total voters
    64

You describing this as "ending a tax break for outsourcing" explains a lot, too.

from your article:

...The latest jobs bill from Senate Democrats - a plan to punish firms that ship jobs overseas - failed to clear a key procedural hurdle Tuesday after even some Democrats complained that the measure would hamper the ability of U.S. companies to compete in foreign markets... Four Democrats and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) voted with a united Republican caucus to block the bill...

Has there ever been a political party more dedicated to the notion that the secret to getting all those gold eggs is killing the goose?
 
Take a look at businesses moving from Union to RTW states and ask yourself "why".

Okay. Lets do just that.

‘Right to work’: The wrong answer for Michigan’s economy | Economic Policy Institute

A Brookings Institution study of large corporations’ location decisions, based in part on interviews with prominent corporate location consultants, found that right-to-work laws did not figure anywhere in the typical decision process of big businesses (Cohen 2000). Even small manufacturers—those thought most likely to base location decisions on low wages and the absence of unions—don’t identify right to work as an important criterion in deciding where to locate plants. Area Development magazine conducts an annual survey, asking primarily small manufacturers to rank the factors that most influence their decisions about where to locate facilities. In 2009, right to work was ranked 14th in importance, below such factors as highway accessibility, available land, and construction costs. Indeed, in the years for which Area Development reports data, right-to-work has never made it into the top 10 most important factors shaping location decisions (Gambale 2009, 2008).

In fact, Site Selection magazine reports that the best locations for the type of high-tech industries that are now a priority of most states’ recruitment efforts are predominantly found in free-bargaining states (Burns 2011). The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation’s 2010 State New Economy Index—measuring each state’s economic dynamism, technological innovation, digital transformation, knowledge jobs, and integration into global trade—ranked free-bargaining Massachuse s, Washington, Maryland, New Jersey, and Connecticut as the most desirable and best positioned locations for the globally competitive industries of the 21st century. Indeed, nine of the top 10 ranked states are free-bargaining states—states with strong education systems, world-class universities, robust digital infrastructure, and a skilled and stable workforce. Michigan ranked 17th, ahead of all but two of the 22 right-to-work states (Atkinson and Andes 2010).

So now that issue has been settled with a whole lot more than just pompous pontifications and ideologically fueled speculation,
 
It decreases.
Funny that decreased demand is an argument to kill unions but it's nowhere to be seen when discussing increasing taxes on the middle class and lower income workers. :roll:
 
no, but there is a point at which it is no longer worth the cost to have a teacher for every 15 students vice a teacher for every 25. That point comes long after you realize that it is no longer worth the cost to have nearly as many administrators as teachers.

Do you mean to say that if the upper class nabobs were to lower the prices they charge middle class teachers for everything from housing, to utilities, to healthcare, to food, that it would make high quality education more affordable since the teachers would not need to be paid as well in order to maintain a middle class standard of living?

And sometimes they won't get it, either. That, after all, is the purpose of the N.I.C.E. and the Independent Panel Advisory Board; to decide when you are no longer "cost effective". Raise the cost of plastic surgery by 100,000,00% and see

But what do you do when the cost of housing, utilities, healthcare, and food is maximized by monolithic multinational corporations, who own the means of production for all of these essentials (in spite of anti-trust laws) for no other reason than to maximize profits?

But you are trying to make this about very specific services, when the subject was broad unionization. Take a look at businesses moving from Union to RTW states and ask yourself "why". It's not because they're evil. It's because they want to succeed, and a unionized workforce makes that harder.

What is evil is nonsense anti-union propaganda orchestrated to scare union workers into thinking RTW policy bears any weight whatsoever in where a business sets up shop.

RTW laws are bunk.

Why?

Because any worker with any degree of intelligence or sense of self-preservation will voluntarily join the union because it serves his interests to do so. Having a union is always better than not having one, at least for the worker that is.

It decreases.

Here's an idea:

In order to contain salary costs, instead of attacking the teacher's union and other middle class union workers, try attacking the upper class real estate developers who set the cost of housing for middle class union workers according to their salary increases, artificially raising the cost of living for the middle class worker after every wage increase his union negotiates, and for no other reason than unabashed corporate greed.
 
Last edited:
no, but there is a point at which it is no longer worth the cost to have a teacher for every 15 students vice a teacher for every 25. That point comes long after you realize that it is no longer worth the cost to have nearly as many administrators as teachers.

Class size has only a minor connection to demand. Class size is related to how many students can you manage and still be effective. This is largely variable. Depending on subject matter and class make up, the number can be different.



And sometimes they won't get it, either. That, after all, is the purpose of the N.I.C.E. and the Independent Panel Advisory Board; to decide when you are no longer "cost effective". Raise the cost of plastic surgery by 100,000,00% and see


But you are trying to make this about very specific services, when the subject was broad unionization. Take a look at businesses moving from Union to RTW states and ask yourself "why".

It's not because they're evil. It's because they want to succeed, and a unionized workforce makes that harder.

No, that is actually not what N.I.C.E. is for. What is NEEDED is different than what is WANTED. But the board is to review what practices work, using actual scientific data as the critieria. The ill person, not the I prefer a small noase people, have a need no matter what the suplly is.

As for unions, it really has nothing to do with supply and demand. Need will be there either way. And where there is a need, someone will supply it, if only for those who can afford it.


It decreases.

Not a single bit. Kids will still need to be educated and the ill will still need to be treated. The demand remains the same.
 
Funny that decreased demand is an argument to kill unions but it's nowhere to be seen when discussing increasing taxes on the middle class and lower income workers. :roll:

Who said we should kill unions? I merely agree with FDR that the public sector is not a place for collective bargaining, and with Madison that faction must balance faction in the private sector.

However, you are conflating (as I understand it) two entirely different things.
 
Do you mean to say that if the upper class nabobs were to lower the prices they charge middle class teachers for everything from housing, to utilities, to healthcare, to food, that it would make high quality education more affordable since the teachers would not need to be paid as well in order to maintain a middle class standard of living?

:shrug: Well hell. If we were to confiscate all of their property and put it in states education funds, it would ease state budgets as well. We could do even better if we were to have an overnight movement to steal (say) everything owned by Asians for the Needs Of The State.

What you are speaking of is built upon a false assumption that the owners of stock can control prices. Supply and Demand (generally) set prices - the government can shift them higher (as can increases in the cost of production), but to put on an artificial price ceiling (as you suggest) is to create an artificial shortage.

But what do you do when the cost of housing, utilities, healthcare, and food is maximized by monolithic multinational corporations, who own the means of production for all of these essentials (in spite of anti-trust laws) for no other reason than to maximize profits?

I purchase from their competitors who sell at lower prices. :)

which will produce this effect:
food.jpg


The funny thing being - that chart is actually still reflecting an artificially high price, given that government keeps the price of food artificially high.

What is evil is nonsense anti-union propaganda orchestrated to scare union workers into thinking RTW policy bears any weight whatsoever in where a business sets up shop.

That is incorrect, and is demonstrated little better by the fact that Right to Work states have enjoyed nearly double the job growth of the union states since 1977. Lots of major businesses won't even consider setting up in Union states because they don't want the higher costs and higher hassles of dealing with a hostile workforce. Haymarket cited "small manufacturers" for a reason - because those have the least ability to cross state lines.

Because any worker with any degree of intelligence or sense of self-preservation will voluntarily join the union because it serves his interests to do so. Having a union is always better than not having one, at least for the worker that is.

:yawn: apparently union members disagree. You will notice that the private sector union membership has been on decline for over half a century now, and public sector union membership drops dramatically as soon as its' members are given the option.

In order to contain salary costs, instead of attacking the teacher's union and other middle class union workers, try attacking the upper class real estate developers who set the cost of housing for middle class union workers according to their salary increases, artificially raising the cost of living for the middle class worker after every wage increase his union negotiates, and for no other reason than unabashed corporate greed.

No one "sets" the price of housing. Housing skyrocketed because demand did, because alot of factors (government and private side) made it easier to borrow money for that purpose, which A) effectively lowering it's cost-on-impact, and B) encouraging people to see house-flipping as a means of trustworthy income.

Besides which, your proposal works at cross purposes to itself. Sticky wages in a deflationary environment increase in value.
 
Class size has only a minor connection to demand. Class size is related to how many students can you manage and still be effective.

It should be - unfortunately not so much. If teachers existed in a sector where individual bargaining and set-ups like that were possible, then it would be more likely to do so. Unfortunately, teachers are overwhelmingly unionized, and so those kinds of things (merit pay for the ability to manage larger classrooms, for example) are impossible.

But you are incorrect that it has no connection to demand. The supply of teachers demanded by a school district will be directly connected to their ability to afford them, which in turn will stem directly from their per-unit cost.


No, that is actually not what N.I.C.E. is for.

:) actually it is.

...Cost Effectiveness

...As with any system financing health care, the NHS has a limited budget and a vast number of potential spending options. Choices must be made as to how this limited budget is spent. By comparing the cost effectiveness in terms of health quality gained for the money spent.[14] By choosing to spend the finite NHS budget upon those treatment options that provide the most efficient results, society can ensure it does not lose out on possible health gains through spending on inefficient treatments and neglecting those that are more efficient.

NICE attempts to assess the cost-effectiveness of potential expenditures within the NHS to assess whether or not they represent 'better value' for money than treatments that would be neglected if the expenditure took place. It assesses the cost effectiveness of new treatments by analysing the cost and benefit of the proposed treatment relative to the next best treatment that is currently in use.[15]

Quality Adjusted Life Years

NICE utililises the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to measure the health benefits delivered by a given treatment regime. By comparing the present value (see discounting) of expected QALY flows with and without treatment, or relative to another treatment, the net/relative health benefit derived from such a treatment can be derived. When combined with the relative cost of treatment this information can be used to form an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) to allow comparison of suggested expenditure against current resource use at the margin (the cost effectiveness threshold).[14]

As a guideline rule, NICE accepts as cost effective those interventions with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £20,000 per QALY and that there should be increasingly strong reasons for accepting as cost effective interventions with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of over a threshold of £30,000 per QALY.[16]..

You know how you and others talk about the reduced costs of single-payer? Government rationing, baby ;)

As for unions, it really has nothing to do with supply and demand. Need will be there either way. And where there is a need, someone will supply it, if only for those who can afford it.

At higher prices, demand is decreased. Unions (so Haymarket brags) raise the price of labor, thus decreasing demand for it.

Try to get yourself hired as a tutor insisting upon $100,000 per hour, and see how much "need" there is for you.
 
It should be - unfortunately not so much. If teachers existed in a sector where individual bargaining and set-ups like that were possible, then it would be more likely to do so. Unfortunately, teachers are overwhelmingly unionized, and so those kinds of things (merit pay for the ability to manage larger classrooms, for example) are impossible.

But you are incorrect that it has no connection to demand. The supply of teachers demanded by a school district will be directly connected to their ability to afford them, which in turn will stem directly from their per-unit cost.

As most here do not belong to a union (though teachers in schools with a union do better), I would love to see natioanl numbers. I may look for that later. But, you arw also wrong. The factors for class size is often the subject matter and how the size we can best handle. Schools are always raising the number, but this is rarely in the best interest of the student.



:) actually it is.



You know how you and others talk about the reduced costs of single-payer? Government rationing, baby ;)

I do wish you would read for comprehension. Really, you post a lot of things you don't read in its entirity. What you qoute emans is exactly what I said, what works gets preference over what doesn't. That's not rationing, and no intelligent person would think it was.

And you should read the rest of your link as well.

At higher prices, demand is decreased. Unions (so Haymarket brags) raise the price of labor, thus decreasing demand for it.

Try to get yourself hired as a tutor insisting upon $100,000 per hour, and see how much "need" there is for you.

No, not in education and medicine. What decreases is who and how many will have their need met. That student will still need the tutor, they just won't get one. But the need will still be there. Too often your solutions are to make sure the need is not met, and then say there wasn't a need. That's more than flawed logic, it's a bit of slight of hand. The need is really still there.
 
It should be - unfortunately not so much. If teachers existed in a sector where individual bargaining and set-ups like that were possible, then it would be more likely to do so. Unfortunately, teachers are overwhelmingly unionized, and so those kinds of things (merit pay for the ability to manage larger classrooms, for example) are impossible.

Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th

Meanwhile ground zero of the union battle, Wisconsin, is ranked 2nd in the country.

Read more: The Five States Where Teachers Unions Are Illegal Have The Lowest Test Scores In America* - Business Insider

I'm still trying to find national numbers CP, but here are states that don't even have a union. Are they overwhelmingly unionized?
 
But a fairly large proportion of public school teachers are not covered under legally binding contracts. In fact, there are some 10 states in which there are virtually no legally binding K-12 teacher contracts at all (there are none in AL, AZ, GA, MS, NC, SC, TX, and VA; there is only one district with a contract in LA, and two in AR). Districts in a few of these states have entered into what are called “meet and confer” agreements about salary, benefits, and other working conditions, but administrators have the right to break these agreements at will. For all intents and purposes, these states are largely free of many of the alleged “negative union effects.”

Here’s a simple proposition: If teacher union contracts are the main problem, then we should expect to see at least somewhat higher achievement outcomes in the 10 states where there are basically no binding contracts.

So, let’s take a quick look at how states with no contracts compare with the states that have them.

In states where there are binding contracts, there is some variation in coverage (the percentage of teachers covered under contracts). In most of them (34, plus Washington D.C.), districts are required to bargain with unionized teachers, and coverage in these states is very high. There are a few other states in which contracts are binding once they’re finished, but districts are not required to bargain (Louisiana also technically falls into this category, but since Katrina, there is only one contract in force). The results for these states are virtually identical to those for the bargaining states.

In the table below, using data from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), I present average scale scores for states that currently have binding teacher contracts and those that don’t. The averages are weighted by grade-level enrollment, and they include only public non-charter schools (since most charters in all states have no contracts).


Average 2009 NAEP Score By State Teacher Contract Laws

States with binding teacher contracts
4th grade: Math 240.0 Reading 220.7
8th grade: Math 282.1 Reading 263.7

States without binding teacher contracts
4th grade: Math 237.7 Reading 217.5
8th grade: Math 281.2 Reading 259.5

As the table shows, the states in which there are no teachers covered under binding agreements score lower than the states that have them. Moreover, even though they appear small, all but one of these (8th grade math) are rather large differences.

The Answer Sheet - The real effect of teachers union contracts

Still looking.
 
CP, interesting classroom size information:

Decreases have continued since then, and the public school pupil/teacher ratio was 15.3 in 2008. By comparison, the pupil/teacher ratio for private schools was estimated at 13.1 in 2008. The average class size in 2007–08 was 20.0 pupils for public elementary schools and 23.4 pupils for public secondary schools.

Fast Facts

So private school teachers, without unions and plus working conditions have fewer students. Hummm.
 
from cpwill

You will notice that the private sector union membership has been on decline for over half a century now, and public sector union membership drops dramatically as soon as its' members are given the option.

You ended your sentence too soon. Allow to me to help.

Public sector union membership drops dramatically as soon as its' members are given the option to get its full benefits but save on paying dues.
 
Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th

Meanwhile ground zero of the union battle, Wisconsin, is ranked 2nd in the country.

Read more: The Five States Where Teachers Unions Are Illegal Have The Lowest Test Scores In America* - Business Insider

I'm still trying to find national numbers CP, but here are states that don't even have a union. Are they overwhelmingly unionized?

That data is from 1999. Most of those states has seen considerably improvement since 1999. I will just take their ACT ranking and add it with their SAT ranking and divide it

South Carolina – 45

North Carolina – 30.5

Georgia – 42.5

Texas – 40

Virginia – 23.5

If banning collective barganing for teahcers is so bad, why have all of the states seen massive improvements in their SAT/ACT rankings?
 
Last edited:
You describing this as "ending a tax break for outsourcing" explains a lot, too.

from your article:

What's your point, are you blaming the 4 conservative Democrats or the entire GOP party for blocking the bill to stop providing tax breaks for outsourcing?


Has there ever been a political party more dedicated to the notion that the secret to getting all those gold eggs is killing the goose?

Where are these golden goose eggs you see that you think the GOP should continue to provide tax breaks for outsourcing?
 
Last edited:
What's your point, are you blaming the 4 conservative Democrats or the entire GOP party for blocking the bill to stop providing tax breaks for outsourcing?

Where are these golden goose eggs you see that you think the GOP should continue to provide tax breaks for outsourcing?

What is the point of punishing outsourcing if it hurts the economy more than it helps?
 
What is the point of punishing outsourcing if it hurts the economy more than it helps?

How is outsourcing more US jobs better for the economy and the working class in this country?
 
How is outsourcing more US jobs better for the economy and the working class in this country?

Nothing exist in vacum. Sometimes the "cure" hurts more than doing nothing.
 
Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th

Meanwhile ground zero of the union battle, Wisconsin, is ranked 2nd in the country.

Read more: The Five States Where Teachers Unions Are Illegal Have The Lowest Test Scores In America* - Business Insider

Yeah, I've seen this stuff before, I remember when the unionista's brought it out during the Wisconsin thing.

Here's something interesting though: it turns out that when you have a large number of hispanic immigrants, it drags down your state-wide scores. Who knew?

...During the recent struggle over collective-bargaining rights in Wisconsin, a number of left-of-center observers, including New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, pointed out that students in unionized Wisconsin do better on average than students in non-unionized Texas. The obvious conclusion, or so we were led to believe, is that teachers’ unions lead to better education.

There is, however, a problem with this argument. Drawing on data from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, the political commentator David Burge pointed out that white students in Texas outperform white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas outperform black students in Wisconsin, and Hispanic students in Texas outperform Hispanic students in Wisconsin. This may look like a statistical paradox; Wisconsin does better on average, even though all groups do worse in Wisconsin. But there is an explanation: Wisconsin has a considerably larger share of white students than Texas, and white students tend to fare better than black and Hispanic students. This example highlights the increasing importance of demographics to the American education debate...

Gosh, that's interesting. :)
 
Last edited:
How is outsourcing more US jobs better for the economy and the working class in this country?

It allows us to maximize our competitive advantage while lowering our cost of living.

You may have noticed how the passage of NAFTA failed to produce the predicted "sucking sound of jobs fleeing", and the 1990's failed to occur?
 
Last edited:
Nothing exist in vacum. Sometimes the "cure" hurts more than doing nothing.

Well then tell us the benefits you see to outsourcing US jobs? We are waiting.
 
It allows us to maximize our competitive advantage while lowering our cost of living.

I see how that has helped the 1%, how has it helped the working class in this country, whose standard of living has decreased while those at the top get richer?


Of what good is lower costs to the jobless? Does lower cost mean unemployment payments can be stretched further?
 
Last edited:
Well then tell us the benefits you see to outsourcing US jobs? We are waiting.

Not wanting to get fully into this but where was the device you are posting DP with manufactured? That would certainly be a benefit to you, yes? And consider if it was manufactured in the US, would you be able to afford it? Oh, and assuming since you DID purchase it are you not promoting this 'outsourcing' problem that you are against (hypocrisy anyone)? Just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
Not wanting to get fully into this but where was the device you are posting DP with manufactured? That would certainly be a benefit to you, yes? And consider if it was manufactured in the US, would you be able to afford it? Oh, and assuming since you DID purchase it are you not promoting this 'outsourcing' problem that you are against (hypocrisy anyone)? Just sayin'.

People in other countries without the income inequality of the US have computers. What's your point? How do the millions without jobs, who used to have jobs that were outsourced, in the US buy computers or food for that matter?

How does making a person jobless help him?
 
I see how that has helped the 1%, how has it helped the working class in this country, whose standard of living has decreased while those at the top get richer?

It maximized their competitive advantage while lowering their cost of living?

Of what good is lower costs to the jobless?

Quite a bit. The jobless, in fact, are most dependent upon lower cost of living, as they have the least to live with.

Does lower cost mean unemployment payments can be stretched further?

not only that, but that there will be fewer unemployed.


For all his many sins, at least FDR was smart enough to realize that Trade Wars are wars that governments wage on their own people - which is why he reduced disastrous tariffs that had helped to produce the massive unemployment of the Great Depression.
 
Back
Top Bottom