Is the media delusional with its 'union counterattack' bs?

[sao123]

What does a private sector employee's salary have to do with anything? If I were a Wisconsin taxpayer, that would not matter. However that public sector $48K/year + healthcare + retirement benefits package (which add another $20,000+ to that 48K figure) pricetag would concern me.

The teachers salary should be whatever the taxpayers of Wisconsin can afford to pay. The problem is the rest of the state workers are also doing better than the general public in Wisconsin. Those taxpayers cannot support this budget.

It used to be an honor and a privilege to work for the government. Now it is the golden egg.

Unions have no place in the public sector.

exactly the mentality I was talking about. Why arent you lining up to accept reduced salary jobs? Why dont you volunteer to do your exact same job for 5K less per year?

 

[Red Dawn]

Is there an occupation other then politician, soldier, or millionaire that isn't a target for the right?

CEO's

 

[Bowfinger]

What does a private sector employee's salary have to do with anything? If I were a Wisconsin taxpayer, that would not matter. However that public sector $48K/year + healthcare + retirement benefits package (which add another $20,000+ to that 48K figure) pricetag would concern me.

The teachers salary should be whatever the taxpayers of Wisconsin can afford to pay. The problem is the rest of the state workers are also doing better than the general public in Wisconsin. ...

The real problem is this piece of propaganda gets endlessly parroted and too many dupes accept it as fact. You are comparing white collar professionals to "high school dropouts working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds." Yes, they make more. Duh!

As has been pointed out before, a much greater proportion of Wisconsin public employees work in white collar jobs that require greater educational qualifications and command higher salaries than the average Wisconsin workforce as a whole. Therefore, it is pretty much a given that WI public employees will be paid more than the state average. When one does an apples to apples comparison, however, the total compensation of WI state employees -- salaries plus benefits -- is actually somewhat less than their peers in the private sector.

That doesn't necessarily mean they deserve a raise. There are other reasons some people prefer to work in the pubic sector. It does mean the anti-union forces are lying when they yammer about WI state employees' exceptional pay.

 

[HomerJS]

So here is a typical article floating around the web
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisco...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDd2lzZGVmZWF0Y291
Wis. defeat could help launch counterattack on GOP

Are the people who write this stuff stupid? Have they forgotten that the unions have been fighting against the GOP for decades?

Did they forget that the NEA supports the Democrats 20 to 1 over the GOP?

Did they forget that 5 out of the 10 largest political donors are unions who give nearly 100% of their money to Democrats already?

Did they forget that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is the third largest political donor in the country and they give 98% of their money to Democrats?


Beyond that is interesting how the national media is ignoring all the money the unions gave to the 14 Democrats in Wis. who fled.

According to a newspaper study the 14 Democrats who fled received 18% of their total fund raising from public unions.
http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/unionG_022711.jpg

Meanwhile Gov Walker got $43,000 from the Koch brothers and it became an issue.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-scott-walker-koch-brothers
"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros."

With all that in mind just how are the unions going to "counter attack"?? Are they going to 99% of their money to Democrats now? Oh that will show them Republicans!!!!

The whole concept is just idiocy. The unions are already 100% on the Democrats side and I don't think what we have been watching is going to change anything. About the only outcome is that we now have a bunch of pissed off union workers. Long term though nothing probably changes come election day.

You must be pretty naive to think a mere $43,000 can buy a personal relationship with a governer. That money was just what the Kochs donated directly. You are conviently leaving out money from the Koch PAC, Americans for Prosperity donations and media ads. Also AFP launders money to the Republican Governers Association which goes back to Walker. When I have time to track down those numbers I'll post.

 

[ProfJohn]

Delusional? Is calling Teachers "overpaid" at $48k/year while pleading for Banker/Financial Workers/Others who make $250k+/year as having a difficult time, sanity?

When you add benefits that $48k jumps to $100k in the city of Milwaukee.

 

[ProfJohn]

its all about wages...

A person should recieve his worth in wages regardless of wether he works for the private industry, or the taxpayer funded government.

A deisel mechanic who works for the DOT, should be paid the same as a deisel mechanic who works at ford. A Class A driver should be paid the same to drive for the DOT as hewould to drive for a freight company.
Network Engineers, HR Analysts, Accountants, Civil Engineers, etc should all be paid the same to do their trade, wether they work for the government, or for the private sector.

You morons think that there is some magic bullet, that because someone works for the government, they should automatically work for a reduced rate.

They should get paid the same if the benefits were the same and the qualifications were the same and job difficulty was the same. But they aren't even close.

A lousy mechanic who works for Ford will be fired, a lousy mechanic who works for the government will just be ignored and left to do a lousy job because it is nearly impossible to fire anyone.

 

[Red Dawn]

When you add benefits that $48k jumps to $100k in the city of Milwaukee.

Which they were ready to make concessions on.

 

[sandorski]

taxpayer funded vs private (presuming you ignore the bank bailouts) the two are fundamentally different. Also this dispute is not about wages.

They were both Taxpayer Funded.(it was a discussion involving Bailed Out Banks)

 

[Red Dawn]

In love how the Right defends the lousy and corrupt Financial CEO's who nearly bankrupted the country but get their knickers in a bunch over a small percentage of government workers who aren't nearly as destructive to the country's well being.

 

[werepossum]

exactly the mentality I was talking about. Why arent you lining up to accept reduced salary jobs? Why dont you volunteer to do your exact same job for 5K less per year?

Many of us in the private sector have done exactly that. In my company everyone took a 10% pay cut to avoid having to lay off anyone. In addition, those of us who are owners (and I own only a small part) don't get paychecks when there isn't enough money to pay the others and the bills. I've literally been farther behind in paychecks than I've money invested in the company. This is not at all unusual in the private sector. And yet the public employees of Wisconsin believe they have the right to have people like me fund ALL their retirement and ALL their health insurance costs. In effect, they are merely spoiled children demanding that "others" be taxed more heavily so that they can continue without a drop in lifestyle, and they don't care if some of the newer employees get canned as long as they get theirs.

This is not the high road. This is not even enlightened self interest. This is self interest to the exclusion of everyone else's welfare. And it's shameful.

 

[matt0611]

exactly the mentality I was talking about. Why arent you lining up to accept reduced salary jobs? Why dont you volunteer to do your exact same job for 5K less per year?

I'm guessing because the people he works for are willing to pay him his salary?

 

[ProfJohn]

In love how the Right defends the lousy and corrupt Financial CEO's who nearly bankrupted the country but get their knickers in a bunch over a small percentage of government workers who aren't nearly as destructive to the country's well being.

I wouldn't defend any of those guys. I also think that most of them lost their jobs. (not that it mattered with the golden parachutes etc)

The problem with public union employees is that they are putting an undo hardship on state and local government's with their demands. And when they don't get what they want they strike and cripple the government until it gives in. And when the DMV workers go on strike everything comes to a halt because there is no other alternative. This gives the government workers FAR to much power and leverage over their bosses.

On top of that they are literally financing their bosses via political donations. It is no different than CEO's from different companies serving on each others boards and giving each other fat contracts.

The whole thing is a giant mess.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW the topic of this thread was suppose to be the media meme that what happened in Wis. would result in a huge upswell of support for Democrats and that unions would fire back against Republicans etc etc.

I am not sure if this is media bias or just wishful thinking. And does anyone remember stories like this after Obamacare was based? Did the media ever suggest that its passage would result in Republicans retaking control of congress?

 

[Red Dawn]

I wouldn't defend any of those guys. I also think that most of them lost their jobs. (not that it mattered with the golden parachutes etc)

The problem with public union employees is that they are putting an undo hardship on state and local government's with their demands. And when they don't get what they want they strike and cripple the government until it gives in. And when the DMV workers go on strike everything comes to a halt because there is no other alternative. This gives the government workers FAR to much power and leverage over their bosses.

On top of that they are literally financing their bosses via political donations. It is no different than CEO's from different companies serving on each others boards and giving each other fat contracts.

The whole thing is a giant mess.

They can always fire them and hire non Union.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yea like that is going to happen.

Imaging firing every teacher in the state because they went on strike...

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
And yet the public employees of Wisconsin believe they have the right to have people like me fund ALL their retirement and ALL their health insurance costs. In effect, they are merely spoiled children demanding that "others" be taxed more heavily so that they can continue without a drop in lifestyle, and they don't care if some of the newer employees get canned as long as they get theirs.

This is not the high road. This is not even enlightened self interest. This is self interest to the exclusion of everyone else's welfare. And it's shameful.

Nonsense. You'd have a point if WI state employees' total compensation was actually excessive. Given that it is not, however, your whole premise is based on dishonest propaganda. As I pointed out just a few posts ago:

"The real problem is this piece of propaganda gets endlessly parroted and too many dupes accept it as fact. You are comparing white collar professionals to 'high school dropouts working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds.' Yes, they make more. Duh!

"As has been pointed out before, a much greater proportion of Wisconsin public employees work in white collar jobs that require greater educational qualifications and command higher salaries than the average Wisconsin workforce as a whole. Therefore, it is pretty much a given that WI public employees will be paid more than the state average. When one does an apples to apples comparison, however, the total compensation of WI state employees -- salaries plus benefits -- is actually somewhat less than their peers in the private sector.

"That doesn't necessarily mean they deserve a raise. There are other reasons some people prefer to work in the pubic sector. It does mean the anti-union forces are lying when they yammer about WI state employees' exceptional pay."

So in short, these benefits you keep crying about are in lieu of a fully competitive salary. Further, they offered to accept pay cuts. This puts them in the same boat as their private sector peers, in spite of all the hand waving and disinformaton by Walker's apologists.

 

[Bowfinger]

BTW the topic of this thread was suppose to be the media meme that what happened in Wis. would result in a huge upswell of support for Democrats and that unions would fire back against Republicans etc etc.

I am not sure if this is media bias or just wishful thinking.

I believe it's called accurate reporting and analysis. Of course it didn't take a genius to see that's what would happen, and indeed is happening, so maybe it's more appropriate to say they're simply stating the obvious.

The problem for Dems is this is likely far too early in the campaign cycle to have a significant impact on 2012 elections. Americans simply don't have the attention spans to maintain this level of anti-Republican energy. (If they did, they wouldn't have voted for them in 2010, given how baldly the right fscked over America for the last 30 years.)

And does anyone remember stories like this after Obamacare was based? Did the media ever suggest that its passage would result in Republicans retaking control of congress?

Yes, actually, there was a lot of talk about how this was hurting the Democrats. Of course what ultimately sank the Dems was the horrible economy. Historically, the worse the economy is, the more the party in power takes it on the chin.

 

[werepossum]

Nonsense. You'd have a point if WI state employees' total compensation was actually excessive. Given that it is not, however, your whole premise is based on dishonest propaganda. As I pointed out just a few posts ago:

"The real problem is this piece of propaganda gets endlessly parroted and too many dupes accept it as fact. You are comparing white collar professionals to 'high school dropouts working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds.' Yes, they make more. Duh!

"As has been pointed out before, a much greater proportion of Wisconsin public employees work in white collar jobs that require greater educational qualifications and command higher salaries than the average Wisconsin workforce as a whole. Therefore, it is pretty much a given that WI public employees will be paid more than the state average. When one does an apples to apples comparison, however, the total compensation of WI state employees -- salaries plus benefits -- is actually somewhat less than their peers in the private sector.

"That doesn't necessarily mean they deserve a raise. There are other reasons some people prefer to work in the pubic sector. It does mean the anti-union forces are lying when they yammer about WI state employees' exceptional pay."

So in short, these benefits you keep crying about are in lieu of a fully competitive salary. Further, they offered to accept pay cuts. This puts them in the same boat as their private sector peers, in spite of all the hand waving and disinformaton by Walker's apologists.

Can you please post links to studies showing that Wisconsin public employees are compensated less than equivalent private sector employees? Everything I've seen regarding public sector employees has federal employees earning significantly more and state employees earning about the same, but both with much better total compensation. I'd like to see something that compares, say, government school second grade teachers with private school second grade teachers, government transit workers with private sector workers, government cafeteria workers with private sector cafeteria workers. Usually such studies want to compare education levels only. A doctorate in education does NOT equal a medical doctorate, nor does a government school second grade teacher with a master's in administration deserve more than a private school second grade teacher with a bachelor's in education, any more than a private school second grade teacher with a master's in underwater welding science deserves more than a private school second grade teacher with a bachelor's in education.

 

[bfdd]

You guys who are saying unions don't vote universally do realize that they put a LOT of pressure on their members to vote certain ways, more so in certain parts of the country than others, and they certainly try to indoctrinate members into voting towards the unions cause.

I would know, I've experienced it first hand in a private union.

 

[Bowfinger]

Can you please post links to studies showing that Wisconsin public employees are compensated less than equivalent private sector employees? Everything I've seen regarding public sector employees has federal employees earning significantly more and state employees earning about the same, but both with much better total compensation. I'd like to see something that compares, say, government school second grade teachers with private school second grade teachers, government transit workers with private sector workers, government cafeteria workers with private sector cafeteria workers. Usually such studies want to compare education levels only. A doctorate in education does NOT equal a medical doctorate, nor does a government school second grade teacher with a master's in administration deserve more than a private school second grade teacher with a bachelor's in education, any more than a private school second grade teacher with a master's in underwater welding science deserves more than a private school second grade teacher with a bachelor's in education.

Excuse me, but I assumed you have something factual to support your continued insinuation that the WI state employees' total compensation is excessive when comparing apples to apples. All you have to do to refute me is link this DATA. No? Are you now conceding that you don't have such data, that you're merely reacting emotionally based on what you want to believe is true?

The study I'm citing was linked in an earlier thread, one you abandoned when it was shown actual DATA contradicts your position. If you have something to refute that study, I'd suggest returning to that thread and presenting it. So far you guys have been hopping from one thread to another, parroting the same discredited propaganda based on an absurd "study" comparing primarily educated, white collar professionals to the aforementioned "high school drop-outs working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds." Professional earn more! Film at 11:00!

 

[Bowfinger]

You guys who are saying unions don't vote universally do realize that they put a LOT of pressure on their members to vote certain ways, more so in certain parts of the country than others, and they certainly try to indoctrinate members into voting towards the unions cause.

I would know, I've experienced it first hand in a private union.

Have you ever worked in a public employees union? I did, albeit 20+ years ago. I only remember the union taking a political position once, against a particularly anti-employee governor (much like Walker, in fact). Other than that they were mum. Perhaps that's changed over the ensuing years, but for now my anecdote trumps your anecdote.

 

[bfdd]

Have you ever worked in a public employees union? I did, albeit 20+ years ago. I only remember the union taking a political position once, against a particularly anti-employee governor (much like Walker, in fact). Other than that they were mum. Perhaps that's changed over the ensuing years, but for now my anecdote trumps your anecdote.

How does your anecdote trump mine? Mine was within the last 5 years, yours is 2 + decades out. Relevance back in my court, but of course I understand this is anecdotal. Not very many people on these forums have experience working for a union so I think sharing ours would be helpful don't you think? Our bulletin board right outside the job window in the hall was full of political crap on who we should vote for, pamphlets for certain issues the Union was backing. Of course they never came out and said "vote this way or you're screwed", but they definitely held grudges for differing beliefs.

Not to mention all the bullshit hypocritical crap they pulled. Like bitching about Haliburton, but having absolutely no issue sending guys off to work for one of their subsidiaries.

 

[Bowfinger]

How does your anecdote trump mine? Mine was within the last 5 years, yours is 2 + decades out. Relevance back in my court, but of course I understand this is anecdotal. Not very many people on these forums have experience working for a union so I think sharing ours would be helpful don't you think? Our bulletin board right outside the job window in the hall was full of political crap on who we should vote for, pamphlets for certain issues the Union was backing. Of course they never came out and said "vote this way or you're screwed", but they definitely held grudges for differing beliefs.

Not to mention all the bullshit hypocritical crap they pulled. Like bitching about Haliburton, but having absolutely no issue sending guys off to work for one of their subsidiaries.

Because mine was a public employees union ... but mostly I was just poking fun.

We didn't even have a union hall, as far as I know. We mostly only heard anything from the union during contract negotiations. But yes, that is old information.

Edit: I would add, as I pointed out in one of the other threads, that membership in a public employees union tends to be much more diverse politically than you find in typical trade and manufacturing unions. There was no homogeneity in political views.

 

[werepossum]

Excuse me, but I assumed you have something factual to support your continued insinuation that the WI state employees' total compensation is excessive when comparing apples to apples. All you have to do to refute me is link this DATA. No? Are you now conceding that you don't have such data, that you're merely reacting emotionally based on what you want to believe is true?

The study I'm citing was linked in an earlier thread, one you abandoned when it was shown actual DATA contradicts your position. If you have something to refute that study, I'd suggest returning to that thread and presenting it. So far you guys have been hopping from one thread to another, parroting the same discredited propaganda based on an absurd "study" comparing primarily educated, white collar professionals to the aforementioned "high school drop-outs working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds." Professional earn more! Film at 11:00!

Clearly if I fled from the thread because of the study then I'd know about the study. For the record, I have no problem acknowledging when I am clearly wrong in point of fact. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and perused 37 fucking pages of the OTHER thread on this kerfuffle. On page 37, you began asserting that "data" proved that Wisconsin public employees were underpaid. I am unable to find any study except the ones linked by tk149. The first study he posted asserted only that average Wisconsin TEACHER salaries averaged $74,843 total compensation. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-rand-paul-says-average-public-school-teache/
The average Wisconsin worker earns around $58,000, including benefits. While it's certainly possible and valid to quibble that state employees are better educated, remember that these are the people who have to pay their salaries and (currently) their benefits.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...siness-news-eric-bolling-says-wisconsin-teac/

You have to dig a bit deeper to get a deeper comparison. Here's O'Keefe's, which I reached by following some links from tk149's studies. http://epi.3cdn.net/8808ae41b085032c0b_8um6bh5ty.pdf
Note especially that O'Keefe compares across levels of education, NOT across comparable jobs. A bachelor's in education is treated exactly the same as a bachelor's in, same, organic chemistry. Fine. But when we get to master's degrees, now we have a problem. A teacher (or many other state employees) automatically gets a significant pay raise for attaining a master's degree, even though, as I've mentioned, that master of administration degree means fuckall to a second grade teacher. In the private sector, no such automatic pay raises exist for the vast majority of businesses and jobs. A master of neuroscience degree will not get you a raise unless and until there is a position open that requires that degree AND you are the ONE applicant selected, even though most people would agree that a master of neuroscience degree is vastly more difficult to obtain than is a master of education degree. Indeed, the Master of Professional Science doing high level research becomes equal to the second grade teacher with her master of education degree in O'Keefe's analysis. Now we have a problem, we're no longer comparing apples to apples, we're merely asserting that oranges are more or less apples when we find that useful.

There is another problem as well - teachers. While O'Keefe admits that government employees work fewer hours, his compensation is 2%. Public sector employees work 2% fewer hours compared to private sector employees. Since teachers work roughly 34 weeks a year and form a very large (70% in O'Keefe's study) part of public sector employees - but a very small part of private sector employees - that is clearly bunk. Nearly everyone in the private sector works 46 or more weeks a year; 70% of the public sector employees in O'Keefe's study work roughly 34 weeks a year. You could count part time employees, but since they get paid proportionally plus get hosed on benefits, that only makes public sector employees look better. You do the math, but from where I'm sitting, it's bogus.

Bender and Heywood did a somewhat better study, actually controlling not only for education but also for (roughly) occupation. http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/...ds/{03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116}.PDF

They found that state and local government workers are slightly under compensated, while federal workers are over-compensated. But ignoring the fact that these are two state employees "proving" that state and local government employees are under-compensated by 11% (6% with benefits) and therefore that "equal sacrifice" requires that state and local government employees, in a year (2010) of budget shortfalls, not take cuts in salary and/or benefits, their study had one significant (and surely unintentional) error. Namely, it assumes that benefits are the same between private and public sectors. They are not. Biggs and Richwine did the same study earlier and concluded that state and local government employees receive a 12% premium in total compensation. The difference is due to the fact that the vast majority of private sector employees receive finite or defined contribution benefits; their employers pay a set amount of health insurance and pension costs, and their responsibilities end there. By contrast, most state and local government employees have defined benefits retirement plans, including pensions and health insurance after retirement (which is compounded by the typically younger minimum retirement age of state and local government employees.) To quote Biggs:
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/june-2010/are-government-workers-underpaid-no

But Bender and Heywood’s result holds only if public and private workers receive similar benefits, as the authors believe. Since the CPS doesn’t report benefits directly, Bender and Heywood use data from the National Compensation Survey (NCS), which reports how much employers spend on a variety of non-wage benefits. According to the NCS, both state and local governments and large private-sector employers pay fringe benefits equal to around one-third of their total compensation. Put another way, for each dollar of salary they receive, their employer devotes around 50 cents toward benefits. If these data are dispositive, then state and local workers receive total pay around 11 percent below private employees.

But here’s the problem. In the private sector, the amount employers spend on workers’ benefits is a good measure of what the employees themselves will receive. Most private-sector employers pay matching contributions into 401(k)-type pension plans, premiums for health coverage, and other similar benefits. Once employers have paid these costs, their obligation ends.

Not so in the public sector. In addition to health coverage and other benefits that are consumed today, most state and local employees also become eligible for defined-benefit pensions and health benefits in retirement. But state and local governments haven’t come close to fully funding these obligations. That means that the amount government employers spend today may be well less than what employees will actually receive when they retire. (Just because these benefits are underfunded doesn’t mean they won’t be paid; in most cases, payment is required by law or state constitutions.)

<chart linked below>

Given the data available, it&#8217;s not easy to precisely calculate the effect of unfunded benefits on public-sector compensation. But here&#8217;s an initial attempt to shake the numbers out, starting with defined-benefit pensions.

As of 2006, pensions were funding only around 9 of the required 11 percent, leaving a gap of 2 percent of pay that is unfunded.

State governments need to set aside around 11 percent of workers&#8217; pay each year to cover existing pension costs and the additional benefits generated by workers in that year, according to 2006 data compiled by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Due to rising costs and declining pension assets, today that required contribution rate is likely higher. But, as of 2006, pensions were funding only around 9 of the required 11 percent, leaving a gap of 2 percent of pay that is unfunded.

That doesn&#8217;t sound like much. But it&#8217;s also increasingly understood these figures are a significant underestimate of what pensions truly should be funding. As I&#8217;ve written elsewhere, if pension funding were calculated using private-sector accounting methods&#8212;which is in any case a good approach, since we&#8217;re trying to compare public- and private-sector benefits&#8212;public pensions&#8217; reported funding shortfall of $438 billion (as of 2008) rises to slightly over $3 trillion. To fully fund these pension promises would require annual government contributions not of 11 percent of workers&#8217; wages, but of around 75 percent. But since these benefits will be paid, it makes sense to focus on what governments should fund, not on what they&#8217;re currently funding.

It&#8217;s a similar story with retiree health benefits, which generally provide full health coverage for public employees from the time they retire until they become eligible for Medicare and so-called &#8220;Medigap&#8221; coverage thereafter. Overall retiree health liabilities are smaller than for pensions&#8212;around one-fifth the size, according to a recent Pew Foundation report. The problem is that they&#8217;re almost entirely unfunded.

To fully fund these pension promises would require annual government contributions not of 11 percent of workers&#8217; wages, but of around 75 percent.

A study by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence showed that states should devote an amount equal to around 13 percent of public employees&#8217; pay to funding their retiree health benefits. But as a recent Pew Foundation report showed, most states fund only around one-third this much. In other words, state and local workers are promised unfunded retiree health benefits worth around 9 percent of pay, but this value isn&#8217;t reflected in compensation data.

I&#8217;m hesitant to put a total value on these unfunded promises, given the multiple moving parts and haphazard state of the data. But if public-sector workers are promised pension benefits that should require another 60 percent of wages to cover and retiree health benefits that should require an additional 9 percent of wages, then total effective compensation is almost 50 percent higher than you would conclude based solely on what government currently pays its employees. That&#8217;s more than enough to make up for Bender and Heywood&#8217;s 11 percent gap in what government employers currently pay relative to the private sector, and would leave state and local workers almost one-third better paid overall.

Now, there may be some reasons to scale these estimates back a bit. But the generosity of public-sector pension and retiree health benefits and the degree of underfunding mean that looking only at what government employers currently pay toward benefits isn&#8217;t representative of what government employers&#8212;and the taxpayers&#8212;ultimately will pay for these benefits.

http://www.american.com/graphics/2010/Compensation Chart.JPG

Your move, Beavis. But in any case, remember that it is not necessary to believe that public sector employees are overpaid to believe that public sector employees should not have collective bargaining.

 

[fskimospy]

BTW the topic of this thread was suppose to be the media meme that what happened in Wis. would result in a huge upswell of support for Democrats and that unions would fire back against Republicans etc etc.

I am not sure if this is media bias or just wishful thinking. And does anyone remember stories like this after Obamacare was based? Did the media ever suggest that its passage would result in Republicans retaking control of congress?

Yes, newspapers continually talked about the political implications of the passage of health care reform, including the possibility of it energizing Republican voters. Your problem is that you're trying to compare health care reform that the public was fairly evenly split on with this assault on unions, which is highly unpopular.

The fact that you would think the media should treat an extremely unpopular move by Republicans as equivalent to a 50/50 to at best mildly unpopular Democratic initiative is awfully silly. Then again, you put your news through an extreme right wing filter, so this probably makes sense to you.