Wisconsin governor to end ALL collective bargaining rights for state workers.

[ymu]

Private sector unions in the UK have been pretty active since the private sector started getting hammered. BA and Heinz spring to mind.

If private sector workers are suffering due to lack of unionisation, there's a simple solution for them.

 

[ymu]

The unions in the UK have been pretty active on behalf of private sector workers since the private sector started getting hammered. If private sector workers are suffering due to lack of unionisation, there's a simple solution for them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is part of a widespread myth that has been advanced by the Right to divert attention from the fact that millionaire and billionaire donors also donate loads of money to political parties. But my question to you would be this - which is more democratically accountable? Trade unions or oligarchs?

Oh and didn't Nixon appeal to union members back in the 70's? He did and many union members voted for the Repubs...until they got shafted by Reagan.

I've got a mate who works for the AFL-CIO, he has done since before I met him in Indiana 25-odd years ago while doing my "cruise across the north-eastern states on a motorbike" thing. I e-mailed him a precis of Tom's whining last week, and his verdict (c & p'ed from his lengthy reply)?
"If only that were the case! Oregon may well have some of the better-remunerated public servants, but that's because the unions have consistently bested the state government, and have usually had public opinion behind them. In the majority of states it's a very different story. As for the advertising thing, ask him about how often the logging and mineral interests spend ad money and line the pockets of the state legislature. Far more often than the 'public sector unions' do, that's for sure."

Gave me a good laugh, that did.

 

[ViolentPanda]

.it's not just in a recession that public sector workers face job cuts, it's all the time, depending on very local elections and budget decisions. I know my mom is not "an exception" because look at the facts, even in the school system alone...how many art, music, drama teachers, coaches (anyone who's not considered essential) have lost their positions in the last decade?

If the federal stimulus gave money to the public sector it was because it was desperately needed.

I remember a series of vignettes on one of our news programmes over here in '09-'10 that showed the effects of public sector job losses to both the former employees and their clientele. It was like re-watching some of the Reagan-era fiascos: Workers rudderless in an economic climate with high unemployment and low-rate short term work being all that was available, killed off social programmes leaving people sick, poorly-fed and/or homeless, and rendering childcare unaffordable.

I also recall that there have been plenty of complaints that state governments are sitting on the funds for as long as possible in order to earn some interest off of it. Know if that's true?

 

[TomUS]

Yet you reserve your ire for the public sector workers? Are you an idiot, or just a clever troll?

I don't reserve my ire for them. This thread started out to be about the Wsconson state workers situation, so I commented on the public unions in my state. Id love to see a bunch of the wall street boys in jail for causing all this misery.

 

[TomUS]

This is part of a widespread myth that has been advanced by the Right to divert attention from the fact that millionaire and billionaire donors also donate loads of money to political parties. But my question to you would be this - which is more democratically accountable? Trade unions or oligarchs?

The oligarchs haven't been held responsible for anything they've done.

I don't see all unions as the same bunch. It's gov unions I have a problem with.

 

[TomUS]

I've got a mate who works for the AFL-CIO, he has done since before I met him in Indiana 25-odd years ago while doing my "cruise across the north-eastern states on a motorbike" thing. I e-mailed him a precis of Tom's whining last week, and his verdict (c & p'ed from his lengthy reply)?
"If only that were the case! Oregon may well have some of the better-remunerated public servants, but that's because the unions have consistently bested the state government, and have usually had public opinion behind them. In the majority of states it's a very different story. As for the advertising thing, ask him about how often the logging and mineral interests spend ad money and line the pockets of the state legislature. Far more often than the 'public sector unions' do, that's for sure."

Gave me a good laugh, that did.

He's right about the logging industry. Recently though, the public sector unions have outspent the business groups. And they have bested the state gov. The last governor, a Democrat tried more than once to get them to take some cuts & they told him to go to hell. But in doing so, they were telling the public to go to hell too.

 

[Blagsta]

Divide and rule, people still fall for it.

 

[nino_savatte]

The oligarchs haven't been held responsible for anything they've done.

No and you should ask yourself why that is.

I don't see all unions as the same bunch. It's gov unions I have a problem with.

Why?

You didn't answer my question, btw

which is more democratically accountable? Trade unions or oligarchs?

 

[nino_savatte]

I've got a mate who works for the AFL-CIO, he has done since before I met him in Indiana 25-odd years ago while doing my "cruise across the north-eastern states on a motorbike" thing. I e-mailed him a precis of Tom's whining last week, and his verdict (c & p'ed from his lengthy reply)?
"If only that were the case! Oregon may well have some of the better-remunerated public servants, but that's because the unions have consistently bested the state government, and have usually had public opinion behind them. In the majority of states it's a very different story. As for the advertising thing, ask him about how often the logging and mineral interests spend ad money and line the pockets of the state legislature. Far more often than the 'public sector unions' do, that's for sure."

Gave me a good laugh, that did.

Stunning!

 

[TomUS]

No and you should ask yourself why that is.

I know why. Their money gives them too much political power.

Why?

Public employees are supposed to serve the public. When they bargain they bargain against the public. When they strike they strike against the public.

You didn't answer my question, btw

The wording is confusing. Please rephrase.

 

[Santino]

Public employees are supposed to serve the public. When they bargain they bargain against the public. When they strike they strike against the public.

Do you think that when private companies get a big government contract that they accept a lower level of profit because they're serving the public? Do you think they should? And if not, why should ordinary citizens with a contract of employment act differently? Why shouldn't they use their power to get the best deal they can, like a private company would? Both are entities trying to get as much money as they can for doing a job.

 

[TomUS]

Divide and rule, people still fall for it.

I know that's the common charge. But in my state, the gov unions have divided themselves from the other workers by their arrogance & selfishness. They are willing to inflict hardship on private sector workers to benefit themselves.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I've never come across TomUS on here before - is he usually this unpleasant?

By the way, there's nothing confusing about the wording of Nino's question - in fact I cannot see how it could have been put more clearly and concisely. Maybe by adding in a little detail that ought to be obvious to anyone with half a brain I can clarify it for you. Which is more democratically accountable? A democratically controlled trade union or an unaccountable oligarch? And what impact do you think lower wages and working conditions in the public sector would have on pay and conditions in the private sector? Think market forces.

 

[Blagsta]

I know that's the common charge. But in my state, the gov unions have divided themselves from the other workers by their arrogance & selfishness. They are willing to inflict hardship on private sector workers to benefit themselves.

You'll have to explain this.

 

[TomUS]

I've never come across TomUS on here before - is he usually this unpleasant?

By the way, there's nothing confusing about the wording of Nino's question - in fact I cannot see how it could have been put more clearly and concisely. Maybe by adding in a little detail that ought to be obvious to anyone with half a brain I can clarify it for you. Which is more democratically accountable? A democratically controlled trade union or an unaccountable oligarch? And what impact do you think lower wages and working conditions in the public sector would have on pay and conditions in the private sector? Think market forces.

Unpleasant?????? You say that & then throw an insult. I guess your definition of unpleasant is when someone disagrees.

I'm still confused by the question. It's apples & oranges. A union is democratically accountable to it's members but not very much to the public. An olligarchy is not very accountable to the public either. And I disagree with lumping gov & private sector unions into the same category of trade unions.

In the US, cutting gov unions wages or benefits or working conditions would have very little impact on those things in the private sector since I think less than 5% of workers are in gov unions. It would probably benefit private sector workers in other ways since it would allow for lower taxes that would help the economy & lower unemployment, especially now during a severe recession.

Do you think raising taxes on businesses during a recession to protect gov unions from taking any cuts helps or hurts private sector workers & consumers?

 

[Santino]

Do you think that when private companies get a big government contract that they accept a lower level of profit because they're serving the public? Do you think they should? And if not, why should ordinary citizens with a contract of employment act differently? Why shouldn't they use their power to get the best deal they can, like a private company would? Both are entities trying to get as much money as they can for doing a job.

.

 

[Miss Caphat]

and also, you can cite all the one-in-a-million examples you want of millionaire trash collectors and whatnot, but it just takes common sense to figure out that people do not go into public sector jobs for the money. They may be attracted by the security, especially a few decades ago, but for the most part the jobs pay an average, middle class or lower wage. Cops and teachers and bus drivers and road repair workers, etc. Many of them have hard, sucky, or downright dangerous jobs. If some of them make more money, it's most likely because they work a lot of overtime. Private sector gets overtime too.


Ever ask your grandparents or parents how things were when they were growing up? You might be surprised to hear that most people who worked were able to support a family and own a house on one income, even as a grocer, bank teller, or a baker. The problem is that private sector needs to fight for their rights as workers instead of thinking it has to be that hard for everyone in order to be fair. In the wealthiest country in the world, what's fair is everyone being able to earn a living wage with benefits.

 

[TomUS]

Do you think that when private companies get a big government contract that they accept a lower level of profit because they're serving the public? Do you think they should? And if not, why should ordinary citizens with a contract of employment act differently? Why shouldn't they use their power to get the best deal they can, like a private company would? Both are entities trying to get as much money as they can for doing a job.

They are supposed to bid competetively for those contracts so in many cases they may accept lower profit contracts. In other cases, such as military equipment contracts, they often make higher profits. What should they do? Do whatever it takes to get the contract at an acceptable level of profit.

I don't think gov employees should be able to collectively bargain so they shouldn't have contracts. But, especially during periods of budget deficits, neither companies or gov unions should try to squeze as much out of the taxpayer as they can.

 

[Santino]

But... but a large company is just a lot of shareholders collectively bargaining to get the most profit. Why do you hate capitalism, Tom?

 

[TomUS]

.it's not just in a recession that public sector workers face job cuts, it's all the time, depending on very local elections and budget decisions. I know my mom is not "an exception" because look at the facts, even in the school system alone...how many art, music, drama teachers, coaches (anyone who's not considered essential) have lost their positions in the last decade?

If the federal stimulus gave money to the public sector it was because it was desperately needed.

Actually, it's private sector workers that face job cuts all the time. Most gov union workers rarely give a thought to their job security. But there are exceptions as you pointed out.

The federal stimulus should have focused more on private sector job creation since that's where the main problem was.

 

[cantsin]

Yes, it is what opened my eyes. Gov unions paid for an ad campaign to raise taxes. That tax revenue goes into the pockets of......gov union members. Just follow the money. It was a scam. There were other ways to prevent cuts in public services like making temporary cuts in gov union benefits or a temporary pay freeze for gov workers along with temporary tax increases. The point is the gov unions wouldn't budge an inch. Instead they pushed for tax increases that will be passed on to consumers & private sector workers.

The individual tax increase was on individuals that make $125,000 not $250,000. What the article doesn't say is that a new tax on businesses was added that was based on gross revenue instead of profit. This means that businesses that make no profit or even lose money had their taxes increased. Oregon was already considered a business unfriendly state. Now it's even more so. Oregon has the 6th highest corp taxes & the 5th highest individual income taxes in the country. This is driving businesses out of the state.

Jesus fucking christ, why can't gov union members make some small sacrifice to help the state in a recession in which private sector workers have been slaughtered?

plse show us a link to support the claim that there was a business tax introduced on gross revenue , not profit - sounds impossible .

 

[TomUS]

and also, you can cite all the one-in-a-million examples you want of millionaire trash collectors and whatnot, but it just takes common sense to figure out that people do not go into public sector jobs for the money. They may be attracted by the security, especially a few decades ago, but for the most part the jobs pay an average, middle class or lower wage. Cops and teachers and bus drivers and road repair workers, etc. Many of them have hard, sucky, or downright dangerous jobs. If some of them make more money, it's most likely because they work a lot of overtime. Private sector gets overtime too.


Ever ask your grandparents or parents how things were when they were growing up? You might be surprised to hear that most people who worked were able to support a family and own a house on one income, even as a grocer, bank teller, or a baker. The problem is that private sector needs to fight for their rights as workers instead of thinking it has to be that hard for everyone in order to be fair. In the wealthiest country in the world, what's fair is everyone being able to earn a living wage with benefits.

I never said a word about millionaire trash collectors. And gov workers are attracted by the security. Security is huge. Most private sector workers have very little. And most private sector workers get no overtime pay.

 

[nino_savatte]

I know why. Their money gives them too much political power.


Public employees are supposed to serve the public. When they bargain they bargain against the public. When they strike they strike against the public.



The wording is confusing. Please rephrase.

Your logic is confusing.

My question is simple enough to understand. You're being obtuse.

 

[ymu]

We don't have any purely public or private sector unions here, I don't think. Unison still represents workers who have been outsourced to the private sector, and the RMT represents oil workers as well as tube drivers. I can't think of any that are one or the other - anyone?

TomUS, it seems to me that you are railing against some (limited) successes of public sector unions when you should be asking why on earth private sector workers aren't uniting to demand the same. Earnings at the top in the private sector tend to be higher, but at the bottom public sector workers are better off, and it's because they're more likely to be unionised.

It is harder to organise in the private sector, no doubt about it. The opposition has very deep pockets and a strong incentive to keep its workers isolated and afraid. Workplaces tend to be smaller and more fragmented, with little cooperation between firms - although some workers are good at making connections across different private enterprises, eg Equity and the NUJ.

Sniping at other groups of workers who have made gains is just silly. Even if you never organise or have to strike yourself, their wages and conditions impact on your own if only by offering alternative employment should the private sector take the piss too much. The approach you're taking suggests that you get your ideas and information from propaganda in the media rather than actually analysing what is happening and why.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I never said a word about millionaire trash collectors. And gov workers are attracted by the security. Security is huge. Most private sector workers have very little. And most private sector workers get no overtime pay.

ok, well, do you believe overtime pay is unfair? I just don't think you're getting the point at all.

please explain why it has to be one or the other group that gets decent pay, working conditions, job security and benefits?

 

[TomUS]

plse show us a link to support the claim that there was a business tax introduced on gross revenue , not profit - sounds impossible .

Crazy but true. This will cost the state private sector jobs but the public employee unions didn't seem to care. They want their benefits protected no matter who it hurts.

The second way corporations are affected is by the creation of a new corporate minimum tax which is based on gross income. The minimum tax ranges from $150 on C corporations with gross income of less than $500,000 to a minimum tax of $100,000 on companies with gross sales of $100 million or more.

The passage of this measure creates the unusual situation where a profitable Oregon company could end up paying less taxes than a larger company that’s losing money. It is no wonder that the Cascade Policy Institute forecasts the loss of 70,000 Oregon jobs as a result of this tax increase (Fruits & Pozdena, 2009).

Billups Company CPA's Inc.
Measure 67 Corporate Tax Changes
Feb 8, 2010

(Sorry, can't copy the link. Am using a temp computer)

 

[nino_savatte]

Are millionaires and corporations more democratically accountable than unions, Tom?

 

[Random]

I never said a word about millionaire trash collectors. And gov workers are attracted by the security. Security is huge. Most private sector workers have very little. And most private sector workers get no overtime pay.

This is an argument for private sector workers also getting these benefits, isn't it?

 

[ymu]

Crazy but true. This will cost the state private sector jobs but the public employee unions didn't seem to care. They want their benefits protected no matter who it hurts.


Billups Company CPA's Inc.
Measure 67 Corporate Tax Changes
Feb 8, 2010

(Sorry, can't copy the link. Am using a temp computer)

Here's a link:

The debate over the tax measures has been strident at times. "No" campaigners raise the specter of failing small businesses—from the corner bakery to family-owned dairies—if taxes are raised. "Yes" advocates point to the $10 minimum corporate income tax—unchanged since 1931—which they argue lets hundreds of large corporations pay practically nothing each year, including many companies whose headquarters lie out of state.

Big numbers are being wielded on both sides. For example, one "yes" organization released data that said two-thirds of corporations doing business in Oregon pay just $10 a year in income taxes, adding that "last year the average family of four paid $3,100 in taxes. That's more than 300 corporations combined!"

Meanwhile, the group calling itself Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes accuses Measure 67 of lashing "suffering, profitless businesses" with new taxes of "up to $100,000" a year, a formula its economists predict will cause the additional loss of 70,000 jobs in Oregon, where unemployment tops 11%.

Measure 67 proposes to tax gross revenue of corporations that don't report a profit. However, few, if any, businesses would see an increase of $100,000 under the measure, Oregon's Legislative Revenue Office reports. The same state agency calculated that more than 97% of Oregon businesses would face an increase of $150 a year, or see no change at all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019653815437546.html