Are public sector unions the problem with state budgets??

[piasabird]

When I lived in Alaska, I received a Check every year from the permanent fund. The State was paying me to live there. They put their excess in a big fund and they pay the people with state residency out of this fund every year, off of just the interest.

 

[Lithium381]

bookmarked for later, this is going to be good

 

[sportage]

If and when unions are out of the picture, what incentive would private business have to pay a decent wage to anyone ever again, or benefits, or 40 hour work weeks, or a clean safe working environment? If you have a kid and take away the moral incentive, what happens to that kid? If private business no longer fears unions, their fear and incentive to do the right thing to respect employees, you will end up with employers with no respect for employees. Your average worker will be reduced to.... company slave.
No benefits.
No healthcare.
No holidays off.
80 hour work week paid as 40.
No vacations.
No retirement.
No weekends off.
What? Never would happen?
Google "life before unions".
Then google "what to do when you're royally screwed as an employee".
But... guess thats one of those lessons people will learn the hard way.

 

[dmcowen674]

If and when unions are out of the picture, what incentive would private business have to pay a decent wage to anyone ever again, or benefits, or 40 hour work weeks, or a clean safe working environment? If you have a kid and take away the moral incentive, what happens to that kid? If private business no longer fears unions, their fear and incentive to do the right thing to respect employees, you will end up with employers with no respect for employees. Your average worker will be reduced to.... company slave.
No benefits.
No healthcare.
No holidays off.
80 hour work week paid as 40.
No vacations.
No retirement.
No weekends off.
What? Never would happen?
Google "life before unions".
Then google "what to do when you're royally screwed as an employee".
But... guess thats one of those lessons people will learn the hard way.

Workers are the problem

Everyone knows this

 

[IBMer]

Which make it just as useful or useless as the graph and article contained in the original post. And your analogy to drunkenness is still inaccurate.

That analogy is often given for a statistical correlation logical fallacy.

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[charrison]

If and when unions are out of the picture, what incentive would private business have to pay a decent wage to anyone ever again, or benefits, or 40 hour work weeks, or a clean safe working environment? If you have a kid and take away the moral incentive, what happens to that kid? If private business no longer fears unions, their fear and incentive to do the right thing to respect employees, you will end up with employers with no respect for employees. Your average worker will be reduced to.... company slave.
No benefits.
No healthcare.
No holidays off.
80 hour work week paid as 40.
No vacations.
No retirement.
No weekends off.
What? Never would happen?
Google "life before unions".
Then google "what to do when you're royally screwed as an employee".
But... guess thats one of those lessons people will learn the hard way.

Today the large majority of the pupulation in the country is not a member of a union and that is not happening.

 

[Red Dawn]

Today the large majority of the pupulation in the country is not a member of a union and that is not happening.

Because the spector of Unionization looms in the background.

 

[Vette73]

Today the large majority of the pupulation in the country is not a member of a union and that is not happening.

You know why costco pays its people so well? It has a store that is union and makes sure ALL stores pay as well to keep the union out.

If there was no chance of a union then the MGT would have all the power. Look what the country was before. Corps will do what will make them the most money, period.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The Republicans want to bust the Unions because they know it will weaken their political opponents, Democrats and that's all this is about.

And Democrats want to maintain the status quo with unions to ensure that they have a steady supply of votes. See how that works?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

And Democrats want to maintain the status quo with unions to ensure that they have a steady supply of votes. See how that works?

Imagine that...

 

[PokerGuy]

Because the spector of Unionization looms in the background.

No, if you're a salaried professional in most industries there is absolutely no chance of unionization. None. Yet companies pay workers. Why? Because they are in competition for talent with other companies. Google doesn't provide great benefits to avoid a union, they provide them to attract good workers.

 

[Red Dawn]

And Democrats want to maintain the status quo with unions to ensure that they have a steady supply of votes. See how that works?

Yeah no shit, that's basicly what I said. Take away the Unions and the Republicans hurt the Democrats.

 

[Red Dawn]

No, if you're a salaried professional in most industries there is absolutely no chance of unionization. None. Yet companies pay workers. Why? Because they are in competition for talent with other companies. Google doesn't provide great benefits to avoid a union, they provide them to attract good workers.

Not manufacturing and the building trades.

 

[Exterous]

No, if you're a salaried professional in most industries there is absolutely no chance of unionization. None. Yet companies pay workers. Why? Because they are in competition for talent with other companies.

Heh - yeah and salaries are down across the board as are benefits. At least in my area. I've applied to some jobs and been so low balled I was appalled. Doesn't seem like companies are needing to complete for a lot of jobs at all right now.

That said - the benefits of a lot of unions need to be looked at. And it's not so much the benefits for the current workers it's the promised benefits on retirement or for those already retired.

I think unions have done a lot of good for the country but their retirement benefits are absurd

 

[Red Dawn]

Heh - yeah and salaries are down across the board as are benefits. At least in my area. I've applied to some jobs and been so low balled I was appalled. Doesn't seem like companies are needing to complete for a lot of jobs at all right now.

That said - the benefits of a lot of unions need to be looked at. And it's not so much the benefits for the current workers it's the promised benefits on retirement or for those already retired.

I think unions have done a lot of good for the country but their retirement benefits are absurd

Well there's not much they do about those who already retired but I do agree, the Union Membership has to bear the economic pain the rest have too.

 

[PokerGuy]

Heh - yeah and salaries are down across the board as are benefits. At least in my area.

Yes, and that's the way it should be. Supply and demand in a competitive marketplace will fluctuate and equilibrium levels change.

I've applied to some jobs and been so low balled I was appalled. Doesn't seem like companies are needing to complete for a lot of jobs at all right now.

Lowballed? Wait a second, you're assuming that you're somehow entitled to more than what the market will bear. Why is that? If they can fill the position with a qualified candidate for less than what you're asking, why should they not? Simple market forces at work. When the economy is good and humming along, employees have more power and wages/benefits will increase. When (if!) that happens, should companies be allowed to collude to set wages and benefits artificially lower?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yeah no shit, that's basicly what I said. Take away the Unions and the Republicans hurt the Democrats.

Yeah, no shit -- the Democrats only want to protect their voting demographic. You guys acts as if the Republicans are the only ones with political motivations. Rather than launch into a one-sided diatribe against the Republicans, call it what it is -- the Democrats are playing politics just as much as the Republicans.

 

[trenchfoot]

If the economy was in good shape, noone would be bitching about the unions except the few that are ideologically conditioned to do it.

Now that we are in bad shape, the ideologically conditioned ones just bitch a whole lot louder as they can see an opportunity to advance their ideology during these hard times.

And guess who had a major, pivotal role in causing these hard economic times we now live in?

Answer: Why, the rich opulence chasing masters of these same opportunists. Gee, how convenient. They create for themselves an opportunity to destroy one of the major obstacles toward ramming their ideologies down every single person's throats who dare try to live the American Dream; who dare try to make life worth living; who dare try to build a foundation for their children to succeed and prosper in life. Why, the nerve of these peasants trying to grab a share of THEIR money. Yeah, the rich are supposed to have ALL the money so they can be all-powerful. Yeah, that's the way things should be...like all those other third world countries whose dictators our nation's rich are so jealous of.

Take that all away just to make the rich much richer. Yeah, makes sense...to them....somehow.

 

[Anarchist420]

The people are the problem. If the people were willing to give up harmful state services (traffic laws, prosecution of someone who didn't harm anyone, driver's licenses), then they wouldn't be in this mess.

It's a shame that the will of the majority is always decisive.

 

[yllus]

That analogy is often given for a statistical correlation logical fallacy.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Often said or not, it's inaccurate - at least in your application of it.

 

[HumblePie]

Because the spector of Unionization looms in the background.

Not in Texas it doesn't and there is no problems with crap like that at all.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

If and when unions are out of the picture, what incentive would private business have to pay a decent wage to anyone ever again, or benefits, or 40 hour work weeks, or a clean safe working environment? If you have a kid and take away the moral incentive, what happens to that kid? If private business no longer fears unions, their fear and incentive to do the right thing to respect employees, you will end up with employers with no respect for employees. Your average worker will be reduced to.... company slave.
No benefits.
No healthcare.
No holidays off.
80 hour work week paid as 40.
No vacations.
No retirement.
No weekends off.
What? Never would happen?
Google "life before unions".
Then google "what to do when you're royally screwed as an employee".
But... guess thats one of those lessons people will learn the hard way.

You make it sound like unions actually do something nowadays. You realize that we have laws on the books now to present unfair treatment of workers, don't you? Unions were useful back when workers really were at the mercy of their employers. Now employers have to abide by certain standards. Unions have become superfluous and only serve to give perks to the high-level bosses.

 

[JockoJohnson]

No. Here's a very clip from Rachel Maddow today with some info that it's not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

Remember, it is as you say a 'narrative', that's how propaganda works, something that 'sounds good' but is inaccurate.

They're grabbing the fiscal crisis (their policies brought about) to pursue their agenda, shifting wealth from the people (unions) to the rich (note corporation tax cuts).

LOL, sounds like people are getting pissy that the republicans are not letting a crisis go to waste. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the great new mayor of Chicago:

http://www.google.com/search?q=neve...u&sa=X&ei=gYNmTfqkAYbGlQekz4H_AQ&ved=0CC0QqwQ

(sorry for the long link, it is a list of youtube videos with Emanuel saying that very quote)

 

[JockoJohnson]

The Republicans want to bust the Unions because they know it will weaken their political opponents, Democrats and that's all this is about.

If so, so what. Obamacare got passed with a supermajority. Take advantage of the situation to crush your enemies. Isn't that what politics is all about?

 

[Exterous]

Lowballed? Wait a second, you're assuming that you're somehow entitled to more than what the market will bear. Why is that? If they can fill the position with a qualified candidate for less than what you're asking, why should they not? Simple market forces at work. When the economy is good and humming along, employees have more power and wages/benefits will increase. When (if!) that happens, should companies be allowed to collude to set wages and benefits artificially lower?

There is a certain expectation of compensation for skills/education. I had an offer requiring more education/certs than my current job offering 25% less total compensation and another offering 30% less total compensation than my current job.

Now - the short answer is that, because the offering was so much lower than the various salary sites had listed for what would be a job title promotion I expected to be compensated much closer to what the average was.

Longer answer:

Will they fill these positions with these offerings? Maybe but with such a drastic change in offered compensation you have to wonder about the quality of work and if the employee would bolt at the next opportunity. You will see less demand and desire to work hard and educate which will make the field unappealing as a job choice. The job market will trundle along with those remaining in the field, masking long term employee level shortfalls that take a great deal of time to make up.

Sure it may be market forces at work (which are far form simple) but we have seen how the race to get the cheapest labor possible has worked in the past as driven by market forces. (which shows a lack of long term planning) Not to mention that our existing larbor market does not have the best history of what I would consider proper treatment of the American worker.

IMO the common notion of 'market forces' is flawed when applied to the job market. The job pool changes slowly and cannot react quickly the rapidly changing economic conditions due to inherent educational/skill requirements. As such, rapid (and IMO short sighted) fluctuations in compensation can have long term detrimental ripple effects.

I call that expectations. You may call that entitlement if you like.