Gov. Brown following in Gov. Walkers footsteps

[rudder]

So Gov. Brown has discovered that public employee pensions are out of control in California. He is proposing to have employees contribute more towards retirement and health insurance.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011...seeks-pension-reforms-raising-retirement-age/

Does anyone foresee a recall election? Will the public employee unions stage a sit in at the capitol? Will Governor Brown's name be vilified as was Gov. Walkers?

As with Wisconsin, the Governor realizes that the taxpayer base can only support so much. It will be interesting to see the reaction from this happening in a high profile state with a Democratic governor.

 

[Ausm]

How do these proposed reforms relate to the Walker/Koch bros Legislation that passed in my State which eliminates 98% of the Collective bargaining rights for public employees?

 

[fskimospy]

So Gov. Brown has discovered that public employee pensions are out of control in California. He is proposing to have employees contribute more towards retirement and health insurance.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011...seeks-pension-reforms-raising-retirement-age/

Does anyone foresee a recall election? Will the public employee unions stage a sit in at the capitol? Will Governor Brown's name be vilified as was Gov. Walkers?

As with Wisconsin, the Governor realizes that the taxpayer base can only support so much. It will be interesting to see the reaction from this happening in a high profile state with a Democratic governor.

Yeah, because pension reform and the elimination of union collective bargaining rights are the same thing. Did you even read your own article? You can support or be against his changes to the pension system, but no matter what it is it has nothing to do with what people were protesting Scott Walker's goofy ass about.

I vote we recall your ability to post.

 

[rudder]

Yeah, because pension reform and the elimination of union collective bargaining rights are the same thing. Did you even read your own article? You can support or be against his changes to the pension system, but no matter what it is it has nothing to do with what people were protesting Scott Walker's goofy ass about.

I vote we recall your ability to post.

the crux of the issue is public employees should not be unionized in the first place. The government is not in the business to make money and is supported by taxpayers. So Gov Brown is not specifically saying there will be no collective bargaining... but then again he is changing what these pubic employee unions collectively bargained for... stating they are a very bad deal for taxpayers. I apologize as sometimes I forget people responding to news articles that are anti-leftist generally don't put any thought into their replies.

 

[PokerGuy]

OP: silly person, it's only when a non-dimlib proposes something that it's the end of the world and horrible. When Brown realizes the inevitable (as everyone will at some point), that the costs of these union-driven benefits can not be sustained, he'll be forced to make changes, but the unions won't let him. Fun ensues

 

[MovingTarget]

Changing benefit/pension obligations due to the current fiscal reality does not make California like Wisconsin. Unless California is trying to strip public employees of collective bargaining rights, then you really can't make a valid comparison.

 

[PokerGuy]

Changing benefit/pension obligations due to the current fiscal reality does not make California like Wisconsin. Unless California is trying to strip public employees of collective bargaining rights, then you really can't make a valid comparison.

It's just a matter of time before this becomes a problem. As long as the employees have the power to bargain for unsustainable benefits (and the taxpayer has no way to slow it down), the problem will continue to build. Eventually, everyone is forced to realize those benefits can't be sustained and that bargaining power has to be removed for things to get resolved.

 

[thraashman]

Let's see, Brown wants to do something that the unions in Wisconsin agreed to do without legislation. He's not trying to remove their First Amendment rights like Walker did in Wisconsin. And yes, what Walker did was anti First Amendment. People are allowed to appoint someone who speaks for them, and making that person speaking for them illegal is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

 

[PokerGuy]

Let's see, Brown wants to do something that the unions in Wisconsin agreed to do without legislation.

The only reason they agreed to do that was because they knew as long as their bargaining rights were intact, they could gain everything back and then some in future negotiations. Now that they can't do that anymore, the issue can actually be addressed.

He's not trying to remove their First Amendment rights like Walker did in Wisconsin. And yes, what Walker did was anti First Amendment. People are allowed to appoint someone who speaks for them, and making that person speaking for them illegal is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Sigh. You don't seem to understand the first amendment. There's nothing in there about having the right to have someone collectively bargain on your behalf. You can have someone "speak" for you all you like.

 

[Ausm]

So basically it is OK for a Conservative poster to make assumption and go off on a tangent on their original posts but the same doesn't hold true for a Liberal poster

Thanks for making that clear to me I guess it took me 16 or so years to figure this out

 

[thraashman]

The only reason they agreed to do that was because they knew as long as their bargaining rights were intact, they could gain everything back and then some in future negotiations. Now that they can't do that anymore, the issue can actually be addressed.



Sigh. You don't seem to understand the first amendment. There's nothing in there about having the right to have someone collectively bargain on your behalf. You can have someone "speak" for you all you like.

Hey, guess what, there's nothing in the First Amendment that says your money is your speech. Bargaining is a form of speech. Letting someone bargain collectively on your behalf falls far more directly under the First Amendment than anything involving money.

 

[rudder]

Let's see, Brown wants to do something that the unions in Wisconsin agreed to do without legislation. He's not trying to remove their First Amendment rights like Walker did in Wisconsin. And yes, what Walker did was anti First Amendment. People are allowed to appoint someone who speaks for them, and making that person speaking for them illegal is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

There is a difference between public employees having a voice in the form of a lobbying group and one that collectively bargains for pay and benefits. I am quite sure the pubic employees in Wisconsin can form a public employee association that can lobby the legislature at the behest of the public employees.

Again... governments are not in the business to produce profit. Their revenue comes from the taxpayer. The tax base could not sustain the pay, pensions, and such in Wisconsin and it is the same in the state of California... so says Jerry Brown.

 

[woolfe9999]

So Gov. Brown has discovered that public employee pensions are out of control in California. He is proposing to have employees contribute more towards retirement and health insurance.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011...seeks-pension-reforms-raising-retirement-age/

Does anyone foresee a recall election? Will the public employee unions stage a sit in at the capitol? Will Governor Brown's name be vilified as was Gov. Walkers?

As with Wisconsin, the Governor realizes that the taxpayer base can only support so much. It will be interesting to see the reaction from this happening in a high profile state with a Democratic governor.

FYI, it isn't the portion of Walker's law that requires employee contributions to pensions and healthcare that is controversial and unpopular. It is the portion that limits collective bargaining that is.

Here is how a similar law in Ohio, which is likely going to get thrown out by referendum in November, is polling:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45024409/ns/politics/

The Quinnipiac survey showed an interesting split in voters’ views about public employees. Majorities said they oppose banning public employees from striking, oppose limiting collective bargaining rights for public sector workers, and oppose eliminating seniority as the sole factor in layoffs.

But majorities do support requiring public employees to pay at least 15 percent of their health insurance costs and to contribute ten percent of their pay towards their pensions.

 

[bfdd]

Seems like a good idea. Brown has been pretty hard at work since getting elected.

 

[PokerGuy]

FYI, it isn't the portion of Walker's law that requires employee contributions to pensions and healthcare that is controversial and unpopular. It is the portion that limits collective bargaining that is.

The problem is you can't limit one without the other. You can't effectively limit benefits / pensions and all that jazz if the the other side collectively bargains and you have no leverage. So the taxpayer pays out the nose, that's how we got to the point where the public sector benefits are unsustainable.

Here is how a similar law in Ohio, which is likely going to get thrown out by referendum in November, is polling:

Yep, the people are too dumb to realize that the issue is really one and the same, and that by throwing out the law they are taking money directly out of their pocket and handing it to the unions.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45024409/ns/politics/

 

[a777pilot]

How do these proposed reforms relate to the Walker/Koch bros Legislation that passed in my State which eliminates 98% of the Collective bargaining rights for public employees?

Only 98%? They need to go back and make sure that there are NO public sector unions.....at all.

If the state of California was smart....LOL!....they would do away with all public sector unions. That would be a start to fixing their problems, but just a small step.

 

[Ausm]

Only 98%? They need to go back and make sure that there are NO public sector unions.....at all.

If the state of California was smart....LOL!....they would do away with all public sector unions. That would be a start to fixing their problems, but just a small step.

Someday you'll move out of your Mom's basement get a Job and learn how the REAL world works.

 

[umbrella39]

Basement... he's got to get down off the post he shares with Donatello first...

 

[woolfe9999]

The problem is you can't limit one without the other. You can't effectively limit benefits / pensions and all that jazz if the the other side collectively bargains and you have no leverage. So the taxpayer pays out the nose, that's how we got to the point where the public sector benefits are unsustainable.



Yep, the people are too dumb to realize that the issue is really one and the same, and that by throwing out the law they are taking money directly out of their pocket and handing it to the unions.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45024409/ns/politics/

I understand your point, but it isn't valid. No, the two aren't necessarily linked, and yes, there is a difference between what Brown has proposed and the Walker law. Brown's proposal would make mandatory changes to state pension rules. Public employees retain their collective bargaining rights, but by definition you can't bargain for something that is now illegal. The employees, however, retain their collective bargaining rights in general. The Walker law made changes to the pension rules *and* it eliminated most collective bargaining rights for state employees in general. In fact, the only collective bargaining right retained under Walker's law is the right to bargain over base wages, and then only to the extent of bargaining for CPI raises. Brown's proposal would make the pension changes stick but doesn't otherwise tamper with collective bargaining rights. It's what Walker should have done if he desired a pragmatic solution to the state's budget problem. Instead, he took an ideological approach of busting the unions, and now he is facing recall.

- wolf

 

[Ausm]

Basement... he's got to get down off the post he shares with Donatello first...

Which one is that? I need a good laugh this afternoon.

 

[a777pilot]

Someday you'll move out of your Mom's basement get a Job and learn how the REAL world works.

She'll be so happy.

 

[MovingTarget]

The problem is you can't limit one without the other. You can't effectively limit benefits / pensions and all that jazz if the the other side collectively bargains and you have no leverage. So the taxpayer pays out the nose, that's how we got to the point where the public sector benefits are unsustainable.

The government has no leverage against public unions? I think not. Remember what happened to the air traffic controllers during the Reagan administration? The government can still lay off workers based on fiscal reality too. That most certainly is leverage. It is the same leverage that corporations have. Just because the employer is the government doesn't change that.

 

[a777pilot]

Which one is that? I need a good laugh this afternoon.

I believe he is referring to little old me. I live in Texas and have a basement. It's great being retired.

 

[a777pilot]

The government has no leverage against public unions? I think not. Remember what happened to the air traffic controllers during the Reagan administration. The government can still lay off workers based on fiscal reality. That most certainly is leverage. It is the same leverage that corporations have. Just because the employer is the government doesn't change that.

LOL!

The main purpose of public sector unions is to take taxpayer's money and funnel it to the Democrat Party. Don't think so? Then see how the public sector unions feel about giving up automatic deduction of union dues.

 

[MovingTarget]

LOL!

The main purpose of public sector unions is to take taxpayer's money and funnel it to the Democrat Party. Don't think so? Then see how the public sector unions feel about giving up automatic deduction of union dues.

Not only is that false, it is irrelevant to my point. I was responding to the previous statement that the government has no leverage against employee unions. They most certainly do. That doesn't mean that the government wins every time. If they did, it wouldn't be called bargaining.