• 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!

Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

Re: Great News!

The bass player from Spinal Tap is right. This is a very reasoned post that addresses all of the problems instead of just using the old "blame the unions" rhetoric we seem to always get from the GOP.

Nice post. Now gimme that bass line from Big Bottom.

EDIT: Ooops. It could also be Lemmy from Motorhead.

Nope. Not from Spinal Tap. Don't have the right accent.

Actually, for much of my life, my accent was pure Michigan. Then I moved to Texas, and have been here for so long, that my accent now is half Michigan, and half Texas. Now what is about halfway between Michigan and Texas? That would be Tennessee. Yup, you guessed it right. I am really a hillbilly. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Most government employees are unionized than the private sector.

well that's not too surprising. Unions are corporatist entities that tend to choke and kill the industries to which they are parasitically latched. it makes sense that over time the only union employer left standing would be the one not subject to competition.

frankly, if you are a public employee, you should not be allowed to unionize. your job exists for the good of the citizenry, not you. that's why they call it public service.
 
well that's not too surprising. Unions are corporatist entities that tend to choke and kill the industries to which they are parasitically latched. it makes sense that over time the only union employer left standing would be the one not subject to competition.

frankly, if you are a public employee, you should not be allowed to unionize. your job exists for the good of the citizenry, not you. that's why they call it public service.

I would disagree in that, with all the corporations that have been run into the ground (AIG, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc), it is actually the CEO's who are the parasites. Many of the ones that are still standing are still sucking on the government tit too.
 
Last edited:
Re: Great News!

It has a lot to do with it. What do you think it means for us taxpayers when a public employee gets as pension 70% of his or her highest salary? When the majority of private employees are lucky to even get 30%.
70%??? I am a Govt Employee. If I put in 20 yrs I will get 20%. Since I have military time I will get around 32% for 20 yrs of Govt work now. You get a extra 1% for each yr over 20. So to earn 70% one would be a very old person indeed.
 
Re: Great News!

70%??? I am a Govt Employee. If I put in 20 yrs I will get 20%. Since I have military time I will get around 32% for 20 yrs of Govt work now. You get a extra 1% for each yr over 20. So to earn 70% one would be a very old person indeed.
maybe 70% is just the way it works in illinois, but still way to much.
 
Re: Great News!

maybe 70% is just the way it works in illinois, but still way to much.

or the person might be a retired Military....50% from the military plus whatever from Civil Service. That isn't quite the same though as Military pays 50% of a base pay not 50% of total pay. Gets kinda complicated unless you have served and understand...
 
Re: Great News!

or have 30 in the military.
 
Re: Great News!

He feels the IRS is an essential service where the public safety would be harmed if the unionized members of the IRS went on strike

Right. That's exactly what I was talking about -- the IRS. :roll:
 
Re: Great News!

i missed it. please point out something which shows us the unions enable artificially high levels of compensation instead of providing public service

If they aren't, then what purpose does the union serve? Unions exist to get better pay, better conditions, and more job security for their members. Those things aren't free...someone pays for them. If it's something that the employer would do anyway to attract/retain employees, then the union is useless. If it's something that the employer would not otherwise do, then they're overpaying.

justabubba said:
how do public employees monoploize the labor force?

Everyone in the job MUST belong to the union. Thus the customer (i.e. the government) has no choice who to buy the product (i.e. the employee) from, because there is no competition. This drives prices to artificially high levels.

justabubba said:
how are they wasting the public's resources?

Anytime the government pays more for a service than they could have on an open market, they are overpaying and wasting public resources.
 
Last edited:
Re: Great News!

A Union composed of Federal Employees is a contradiction of terms. Literally the last, and I mean the last, employer I expect to exploit workers is the Federal Government. What purpose would that serve, for anyone? If you pamper public sector employees they are more likely to vote for you. If you pamper them, they're more likely to provide your constiuents with better service. Win-win-win. Besides, as a politician, you aren't even using your own money! Triple win, again!

And a public sector job is, by definition, hardly a sweatshop! But apparently... We need sweatshop levels of unionizing. It just defies common sense.
 
Most government employees are unionized than the private sector. And you wonder why we are being screwed by the government:doh


Most Union Members Now Work for Government - NYTimes.com

Public unions are a total disaster for the US. I can think of few other issues that will destroy the country faster, with these diseased, wretched cancers plaguing the ability of government to function - and requiring ever higher taxes to support their endless greed.

The Real Engine of Blue America by Steven Malanga, City Journal Winter 2005

"But within this coalition, one group stands out as increasingly powerful and not quite in step with the old politics of the Left: those who benefit from an expanding government, including public-sector employees, workers at organizations that survive off government money, and those who receive government benefits. In cities, especially, this group has seized power from the taxpayers, as the vast expansion of the public sector that has taken place since the beginning of the War on Poverty has finally reached a tipping point."

Americans need to wake up and recognize that this metastasizing cancer is destroying the country's underpinnings from within, and the recent Oregon vote to increase taxes on the wealthy - in a state with over 11% unemployment no less, good job idiots - is a perfect example of this.

The public sector workers' unions including teachers, hospital workers, social services' workers, bus and subway workers, etc., are now receiving salaries and benefits far outstripping their private sector versions, and this situation has, as the linked article attests, has reached the breaking point.

Since cities are by definition monopolies, the services they provide are monopolistic, and therefore, their workers cannot be unionized.

It is time to take back the country from the Al Sharptons who prefer to keep the cash flows coming, and the union workers retiring at 45 with COLA-adjusted lifetime pensions and free health benefits...
 
Re: Great News!

Not really the cause but a product of the cause and it hurts. Because union employees get better perks than we do and the fact that many of the public sector has a tendency of saying "we are taxpayers too!" really upsets me. Because if it wasn't for our income they wouldn't have one. And really it wasn't just on a federal level, it's more on a state level that these unions are really felt.

They also usually make less, and your job is first on the block when **** hits the fan. It's a trade off
 
Yesterday's WSJ had a fantastic letter to the editor, about how a 67-year old who still had to work - albeit now at a job at 1/2 the salary he was making 10 years ago after getting laid off, has to now pay higher taxes in Oregon so as to sustain COLA-adjusted pensions and free lifetime health benefits for public employees who retired 30 years ago at age 50.

Yeah, that'll help keep the country's fabric woven tight.

And Obama and the democrats cannot stop feeding the public union pigs at the trough...
 
Re: Great News!

Government employee pensions make up what percent of Federal spending?

Now compare that to all of the other spending our government does.

You just don't like unions. That's fine. But don't pretend government employee unions are the cause of our problems.

WRONG. In NY state, education and medicaid are the 2 largest segments of the state budget, and both are driven by pensions, benefits, and salaries for unionized public workers.

Even better, in Oregon, over 80% of the money spent on education goes toward the teacher's salary and benefits. No wonder the teacher's unions spent over $6 MM to get prop 66/67 passed, they knew they'd get FAR more back in theft from the taxpayers - all in a state with over 11% unemployment, in the top of the country. BRILLIANT.

Research before writing on this topic again.
 
Re: Great News!

Blame the voters. They're the ones who approved this.

What voters? Did I approve their benefits? No voter did, they were approved, frequently in backroom deals to obtain their votes for the criminal politicians...

If there was EVER an issue that needed addressing, this would be it.
 
Re: Great News!

why do you think it should be illegal for federal employees to be unionized?

Ugh, not even sure why I'm responding, if you are the same poster from politicalforum.com.

For the others, a municipality has a monopoly on basic services, like police, fire, transportation, etc.

Also, cities are SERVICE providers, NOT job providers.

Therefore, as a citizen I cannot choose to take my business over to another entity whose services are provided cheaper, better, etc.
 
Re: Great News!

i missed it. please point out something which shows us the unions enable artificially high levels of compensation instead of providing public service

how do public employees monoploize the labor force?

how are they wasting the public's resources?

And its trolling nonsense that got this guy expelled from I cannot count how many other forums... :roll:
 
well that's not too surprising. Unions are corporatist entities that tend to choke and kill the industries to which they are parasitically latched. it makes sense that over time the only union employer left standing would be the one not subject to competition.

frankly, if you are a public employee, you should not be allowed to unionize. your job exists for the good of the citizenry, not you. that's why they call it public service.

Good post. Read my earlier post in this thread form the City Journal, in NYC public workers could not even form a union until the 50s - and even private sector unions did not believe it to be a wise idea.... :(
 
I would disagree in that, with all the corporations that have been run into the ground (AIG, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc), it is actually the CEO's who are the parasites. Many of the ones that are still standing are still sucking on the government tit too.

But you're missing the point, a company can be the WORST pos on earth, you as a consumer can choose to shop elsewhere.

With a public union, it is a MONOPOLIST, so you cannot avoid it. And if the fact that it is your tax dollars that are being used to pay the union members' dues - which are then used to lobby against your interests and inflate their lifetime perks, benefits and pensions, you'd have to be nuts.
 
Re: Great News!

A Union composed of Federal Employees is a contradiction of terms. Literally the last, and I mean the last, employer I expect to exploit workers is the Federal Government. What purpose would that serve, for anyone? If you pamper public sector employees they are more likely to vote for you. If you pamper them, they're more likely to provide your constiuents with better service. Win-win-win. Besides, as a politician, you aren't even using your own money! Triple win, again!

And a public sector job is, by definition, hardly a sweatshop! But apparently... We need sweatshop levels of unionizing. It just defies common sense.

Wonderful post, someone truly gets it. It is BY DEFINITION, a conflict of interest for public sectors to be allowed to unionize.

THAT'S why it is only a recent thing that they can - and as Detroit, Oregon, California, NYC/NY State, and others are now finding, it was a costly, colossal mistake to allow it.
 
Besides, if government is so wonderful and should have so much charge of our lives, why would government employees NEED unions?
 
Re: Great News!

Ugh, not even sure why I'm responding, if you are the same poster from politicalforum.com.
the same. i understand your trepidation

For the others, a municipality has a monopoly on basic services, like police, fire, transportation, etc.
the monopoly enjoyed by the employer has nothing to do with the right to unionize
collective bargaining allows the employee to have a more level playing field relative to his/her conditions of employment on the job site; whether a public or a private concern

Also, cities are SERVICE providers, NOT job providers.
other than temp worker and placement companies, there is no entity which serves as its purpose to hire employees
government agencies have workers. and to level the playing field of those workers there are unions

Therefore, as a citizen I cannot choose to take my business over to another entity whose services are provided cheaper, better, etc.
sure you can. in my community, on a state line, they do it all the time, to avoid paying taxes. they then often commute to the destination they left to enjoy the benefits and services of the destination they left
 
Re: Great News!

And its trolling nonsense that got this guy expelled from I cannot count how many other forums... :roll:

why should this be found as a trolling post:
Originally Posted by justabubba
i missed it. please point out something which shows us the unions enable artificially high levels of compensation instead of providing public service

how do public employees monoploize the labor force?

how are they wasting the public's resources?
that it asks questions, which answers undermine your position, does not constitute trolling


and go on ahead and count the other forums. tell us all the forums from which i have been expelled and for what reasons. or is it that you would you prefer to attack the messenger when you are unable to dislodge the message
 
But you're missing the point, a company can be the WORST pos on earth, you as a consumer can choose to shop elsewhere.


Wth a public union, it is a MONOPOLIST, so you cannot avoid it.
and you as a resident can choose to reside elsewhere ... nothing forces you to reside in a locale which tolerates unionization in its public sector


And if the fact that it is your tax dollars that are being used to pay the union members' dues - which are then used to lobby against your interests and inflate their lifetime perks, benefits and pensions, you'd have to be nuts.
wrong again. the employee pays the union dues. not the employer. usually, the dues are withheld from the employee's paycheck
the union does not lobby against your interests. the union advocates for the employees' interests
 
Re: Great News!

Originally Posted by Areopagitican
A Union composed of Federal Employees is a contradiction of terms. Literally the last, and I mean the last, employer I expect to exploit workers is the Federal Government. What purpose would that serve, for anyone? If you pamper public sector employees they are more likely to vote for you. If you pamper them, they're more likely to provide your constiuents with better service. Win-win-win. Besides, as a politician, you aren't even using your own money! Triple win, again!

And a public sector job is, by definition, hardly a sweatshop! But apparently... We need sweatshop levels of unionizing. It just defies common sense.
Wonderful post, someone truly gets it. It is BY DEFINITION, a conflict of interest for public sectors to be allowed to unionize.
how is there a conflict of interest? show us your definition which proves that alleged conflict


THAT'S why it is only a recent thing that they can - and as Detroit, Oregon, California, NYC/NY State, and others are now finding, it was a costly, colossal mistake to allow it.
those communities fall on financial hard times, and you blame that on the unions. an absurd conclusion. please point to any instance where the union had a right to impose the conditions which led to the present financial morass in any of those communities
 
Back
Top Bottom