Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

teamosil said:

So you mean "conservative" in the same sense that failing out of high school or going to prison for blowing up your meth cooking trailer are "conservative", not the William F. Buckley sense of "conservative", right?

Click to expand...

Well, if the shoe fits. :coffeepap

MaggieD said:

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:

http://www.familytaxpayers.org/salary.php

Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember making $3.50 an hour (paid for only 10hours of the 24 I worked) as a parametic in 1980. I thought is was stupid that the guy holding the sign at a constructionsite made $10 an hour. I was told that's life.

However, you did list some high salaries, but I don't think anyone suggests their are not high salaries, public and private. I asked for another district, one you thought would be representative.

I couldn't find your district. So I linked another one at random:

haymarket said:

Maggie - could you please clarify something for me?

If a worker puts in the required time to earn a pension, then retires under the terms of their employment contract, do YOU favor looking upon that as a sacred contract which CANNOT be changed or are you saying it can be changed even after one party has fulfilled their terms of it and has retired?

Click to expand...

An "earned" pension amount cannot, under any circumstances, be changed. Ever.

MaggieD said:

Reliable link for that? And, please, not to one that answers the question: "How much do teachers earn?" Here's a link to the actual Illinois database. Scan it. Find me anyone making $37,000 a year. It's listed by name, by the way. And school district. $55K at CPS 4 years ago with a Master's. Now making $64,000. That, of course, is without her summer part-time job with the district. Family Taxpayers Foundation

Click to expand...

Hi, I saw your post and just wanted to add something; does a degree for an educator mean anything to you in hte way of compensation: I mean, a BA may or not be required; depending on the state and county requirements, teaching credintials are often a separate matter: that being a tested certificate for each subject, usually required in addition to a degree. Then there's the graduate degree, and of course there's the doctorate . . . I mean, does all that education account for anything in the way of compensation?

Secondly, I followed you link to the home page and what a different story it tells: Illinois Loop: Salaries and Pensions District Sup
Niles Twp 219: $411,511. So does the management have the same educational requirements? And if so, what make their education more valuable than the same education a teacher has?

Boo Radley said:

Yeah, I remember making $3.50 an hour (paid for only 10hours of the 24 I worked) as a parametic in 1980. I thought is was stupid that the guy holding the sign at a constructionsite made $10 an hour. I was told that's life.

However, you did list some high salaries, but I don't think anyone suggests their are not high salaries, public and private. I asked for another district, one you thought would be representative.

Click to expand...

For the record, the District where those high schools are from includes towns where the median family income is 80-86,000 dollars which is well above the median family income of the country, so the salaries will be higher (even though they are probably inaccurately reported considering the website they're from). I'm from Illinois just like MaggieD and I can certainly say that she's picking her numbers selectively.

MaggieD said:

An "earned" pension amount cannot, under any circumstances, be changed. Ever.

Click to expand...

Uh, no . .. If you buy a mortage that requires a certain monthly contribution, the amount of the mortgae never changes: remember, that with teachers, in some states, they don't py into social secuirty by law, so their pension is it. Teachers don't set a goal, like $10,000,000; but they would like their pension contributions as high as they can get them: it's like dividends in reverse right?

So, teachers are worthless to you 'er what?

Damn teachers flaunting their wealth driving around in their 1994 Toyota Corollas!!!!

Catawba said:

Damn teachers flaunting their wealth driving around in their 1994 Toyota Corollas!!!!

Click to expand...

Yeah, this whole notion that teachers, firefighters and cops have all this money is straight out of the Twilight Zone.

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...

that is a good slogan but what is your solution to the concept of competition? If a chinese worker can do the same work as an American worker but yet demands one fourth the wage how can a company that uses American Labor compete?

Whats interesting is theres alot of parents that cant wait for their kids to get to school so they dont have to be bothered with them...and then theres the teacher that has 30 or more of them to deal with all day long....and as well as guarding them and disciplining them and keeping them in line FOR THE PARENTS...they also have to teach them....yeah its a worthless job and just anyone can do it...<smirk>
There will always be unions because there will always be working people assaulted by the conservatives for something, anything.
Its gotten to the point of being beyond pathetic. I hope they not only continue but kick it up...then more and more will realize how far off the edge theyve gone

ThePlayDrive said:

Yeah, this whole notion that teachers, firefighters and cops have all this money is straight out of the Twilight Zone.

Click to expand...

as is the notion that they are all poor...

I wonder, in the absence of a public union, what would their job environment look like?
the usually argument for a union is that the employer would take advantage of their labor and further profit off of them ... folks like to talk about private labor reverting back to having to work 40 hours a day , with no days offs, in sweatshops and such ( which i understand is merely rhetoric)... but how would the public sector exploit labor?

teamosil said:

Of course they do. That's absurd. They make roads, they create educated future generations, they keep cities safe, they put out fires, they keep people healthy, the help preserve competitive and honest markets, etc... If you want to see what life is like without government workers, go check out Somalia.

And, more generally, the more power unions have, the higher compensation is for all people. Where the right to bargain collectively is strong, even non-unionized companies know that if they mistreat their employees too harshly, they might unionize.

Click to expand...

Exactly, hence overpaying them means less public services for a higher price. People don't want to pay higher taxes to pay overpaid public sector union workers. If you can't reduce wages, and you cannot increase taxes, then quality and the number of services drop.

I have said many times, correlation does not mean causation, but I seem to talk to deaf ears. So, lets say correlation does mean causation, and we will take a look at public union membership and earnings. I mean, we are talking about public unions here, not private.

When public union membership goes up, wages go down. That means, public unions reduce wages.



Wages.

Henrin said:

Sexual harassment laws have so much to do with my point its unbearable. If you want to know what I think of them, then I think they are cry baby bull**** 99.9% of the time.

Click to expand...

I have handled more than 100 sexual harassment claims. two were legitimate including a guy who "dry humped" a woman and when he grieved his suspension (the lady supervisor didn't like the pretty victim) down to a warning, he continued to threaten the woman. The jury rightfully found in her favor However, most our bogus, the last one I tried, it was clear the woman claimed harassment AFTER her boss imposed proper discipline on her for losing stock, failing to do her job etc. The jury agreed and her attorneys ate about 300K in fees and another 45K in costs. The problem is that our client could not recoup its costs from the plaintiff and her attorney. That should change. bring a claim and you win-your attorney gets all his fees paid by the defendant. Bring a claim and lose-you have to make the defendant whole again

Catawba said:

This does help explain why your party consistently gets less than 1% of the vote in presidential elections. Thanks for the reminder!

Click to expand...

less than one percent of the kids graduating high school will attend Yale or Harvard. Like many of those who appeal to mediocrity, quantity trumps quality in your mind

TurtleDude said:

I have handled more than 100 sexual harassment claims. two were legitimate including a guy who "dry humped" a woman and when he grieved his suspension (the lady supervisor didn't like the pretty victim) down to a warning, he continued to threaten the woman. The jury rightfully found in her favor However, most our bogus, the last one I tried, it was clear the woman claimed harassment AFTER her boss imposed proper discipline on her for losing stock, failing to do her job etc. The jury agreed and her attorneys ate about 300K in fees and another 45K in costs. The problem is that our client could not recoup its costs from the plaintiff and her attorney. That should change. bring a claim and you win-your attorney gets all his fees paid by the defendant. Bring a claim and lose-you have to make the defendant whole again

Click to expand...

Thats the problem legitimate victims face every time...they have to climb the mountain of suspicion..its unfair but there so many bogus claims that it makes it hard to determine sometimes truth from fiction.

jet57 said:

Your analysis of collective bargaining and loyalty is so far fetched form reality as to be a sad case of profound ignorance.

The Teamsters that I grew up with had business agents that would give their word on a new contract at a local bar that both the Teamsters and company owners frequented and the deals were done on a hand shake!!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the duh moment.

Signatures were only a formality!! Those companies and our local union had been in business together, in some cases, going back to the turn on the 20th century.

Click to expand...

So? Not sure how its "business" though but whatever.

Loyalty you ask?? A union contract is a benefit that comes under the freedom of association guaranteed by The Constitution of the United States America and the concept of collective bargaining goes back to the medieval stone masons of continental Europe!

Click to expand...

So??

They had a highly skilled and necessary skill that was in demand. You sign a labor contract every time you take your car to a mechanic! Do you think those places pay their mechanics $100 an hour for labor???

Click to expand...

And??

Man, dude - get a grip. Company loyalty is going by the way side because nobody has a long term job anymore. Everybody’s an independent contractor . . . No, you should spend more time actually talking to union people instead of attacking their characters: bums under a contract have nothing to worry about with respect to the company; ooohhh noo!; the worry of the bum is rested in his fellow union members. Because they are the ones that are going to run him out of job: he draws too much attention.

Click to expand...

Lol, ok.

And, you say that the free market is working fine huh? Have you looked outside lately? Were you there in Sept 2007, or did you just wake up?

Click to expand...

Did you notice what made that occur? Here is a hint it wasn't the "free" market.

No, like I said, you gave two great holes to fill with your completely uninformed and actually laughable opinion.

Click to expand...

I like how you never actually faced my opinion in anything you just said. Do you deny that people are forced to talk to union members or not? Do you admit that there is plenty of laws that deal with effectiveness of the talks or not? Do you think that is covered under the right to associate?

MoSurveyor said:

I don't see it in this quote:

Click to expand...

You're right. It's not in that post. But do you know what it means? It appears as if you don't, or you would not be so confused.

Thrilla said:

as is the notion that they are all poor...

Click to expand...

I don't think that that's an actual notion outside of your imagination. Most of them are middle class as I've always argued.

I wonder, in the absence of a public union, what would their job environment look like?
the usually argument for a union is that the employer would take advantage of their labor and further profit off of them ... folks like to talk about private labor reverting back to having to work 40 hours a day , with no days offs, in sweatshops and such ( which i understand is merely rhetoric)... but how would the public sector exploit labor?

Click to expand...

Their environment would be pretty horrible. Teachers would have much larger class sizes, would be held accountable for things outside of their control, would work in less safe environments and so on. Firefighters and police officers would be cut and have to cover more area per person. They would also lose healthcare benefits, be held accountable for things outside of their control and so on.

I always laugh at the notion that only the private sector is willing and able to take advantage of its workers and that public workers don't have to worry about things like that. It's even more funny when it comes from conservatives and libertarians who apparently don't trust the government. If they don't trust the government, then it should be pretty easy to see how the government could exploit its workers. I guess they see what they want to see. It's too bad that what they want to see leads to the exploitation of workers and harm to the public.

MoSurveyor said:

Then you truly are wearing blinders. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I'm still unaware of any rich person who has any sort of power over me, other than those in the government, of course.

lpast said:

Whats interesting is theres alot of parents that cant wait for their kids to get to school so they dont have to be bothered with them...and then theres the teacher that has 30 or more of them to deal with all day long....and as well as guarding them and disciplining them and keeping them in line FOR THE PARENTS...they also have to teach them....yeah its a worthless job and just anyone can do it...<smirk>
There will always be unions because there will always be working people assaulted by the conservatives for something, anything.
Its gotten to the point of being beyond pathetic. I hope they not only continue but kick it up...then more and more will realize how far off the edge theyve gone

Click to expand...

aye, teachers have a difficult job, and often thankless.... and yes , there are parents who do relish the idea of a babysitter taking care of that kid for 6 hours a day.

I'm not sure what a union does that affects that though, and i'm not sure their work environment would change much at all if public sector unions were to disappear.
try as I might, I just can't envision a work environment that would change much from their current one...don't see cops or firefighters being "exploited" either.

from Centinel

Or would you prefer that your children and grandchildren are granted only those rights that society deigns to allow?

Click to expand...

that is called reality. It is the way it always has been and always will be. If the society you live in does not demand from the government that you have a specific right they want to have - they you do NOT have it.

Again, that is basic reality and the way of the world.

Rising Sun said:

Dude, are you seriously telling me that corporate culture has the best interests of employees in mind regardless of profits?

Click to expand...

I'm telling you that it was growing trend in the market before the unions ever thought of it.

lpast said:

Thats the problem legitimate victims face every time...they have to climb the mountain of suspicion..its unfair but there so many bogus claims that it makes it hard to determine sometimes truth from fiction.

Click to expand...

very true, and often the investigators have become cynical and burned out. And something I know you have seen are DV complaints. A girl I used to date called me one day and asked me to come up to the court house for an arraignment. her best friend had the absolute crap beaten out of her by her boyfriend. So I showed up at the arraignment. I told the DA i was here on behalf of the victim. I sat there as she told the detectives what happened. So they bind the mope over to a GJ. I walk her to the GJ but of course I don't go in. The DA comes out pissed-saying she refuses to testify. So I tell her she has to. She doesn't. I tell the cops I am as pissed as they are. but the DA drops the case even though the girl's nose and jaw had been broken. Sure enough a month later the mope beats her bad-she's in the ICU. This time the same detectives don't seem too keen to arrest the guy figuring she would bail again. She whines to me. I said-I TOLD YOU SO. I go to the DA -I knew him well. He has the guy arrested on a felony assault warrant. Fortunately, there was a witness, the GJ indicts on that testimony The mope pleads out and gets 18 Months. The girl is mad that lover boy is going upstate to the pen.

yeah I have had people complain that cops don't take DV cases seriously. BUt I have seen this scenario repeated dozens of times.

Camlon said:

Exactly, hence overpaying them means less public services for a higher price. Because people don't want to pay higher taxes to pay bloated public sector wages, then quality and the number of services drop.

I actually think if we are going to play the correlation means causation game, then lets take a look at public union membership and earnings.

When public union membership goes up, wages go down. I mean correlation means causation right?

Click to expand...

Your graph doesn't say that public union membership is going up, it says that the PERCENTAGE of people in unions that are in the public sector is getting larger. That's not necessarily because there are more people in public sector unions, it could also be (and probably is) because of the dramatic drop in private sector union membership.

The notion that public sector incomes are bloated is absurd. We've just gone through and shown how teachers with master's degrees make just over half as much as people with master's degrees in the public sector. The same pattern (or worse) plays out in most sectors. For example, I'm in law school, so I'm very attuned to salaries lawyers make in the public and private sector. A job as a lawyer working for the DOJ is generally harder to get than jobs at any firm, but firms start you at $160k + a fat bonus, where the DOJ starts you at $110k with no bonus. Worse still, at the firm your compensation rapidly shoots up. If you put in 8 years and become a partner, you're most likely making over a million, but after 10 years in the DOJ you're still probably down around $140k.

But just think about it. Of course having strong unions means higher wages for everybody. That's what they do. Even for companies that aren't unionized, the employer knows that they need to compete with employers with unions on salaries. All employers in states where they have strong unions know that if they try to screw the employees over too badly, they might unionize. It's a check on the worst abuses across the board for everybody. Just look at the differences in median income between "right to work" states and states where you can have an effective union. It's about a $10k/year difference. That's the only reason the right hates unions- because they lead to higher wages, which they see as a hindrance to profits for the rich.