The WI Bill - Real Analysis

[fskimospy]

My position, and I believe Fern's as well, is that the power dynamics are sufficiently different between the public and private sector that allowing collective bargaining tips the scales too far in to workers favor.

Right, and I'm saying that if you analyze the data more closely you don't really see that happening. Government jobs require more education than private sector jobs on average, more government workers are unionized than average, etc. If you control for all these factors, in general the differences aren't nearly as large as people think.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Right, and I'm saying that if you analyze the data more closely you don't really see that happening. Government jobs require more education than private sector jobs on average, more government workers are unionized than average, etc. If you control for all these factors, in general the differences aren't nearly as large as people think.

Well link to a study that uses your preferred methodology. I also don't agree that you should control for the percent of workers in unions. If the industry is non union in the private sector why should it be unionized in the public sector? If there is cheaper non union labor available the government should use that.

Edit: The other thing to keep in mind is that public employee total compensation should be significantly BELOW private sector compensation because of the job security they get. I would consider them over payed even if the pay were at parity.

 

[Fern]

My position, and I believe Fern's as well, is that the power dynamics are sufficiently different between the public and private sector that allowing collective bargaining tips the scales too far in to workers favor.

Yes, exactly.

In looking back over my post I see I made a typo. Could have confused readers about my intent.

Fern

 

[Carmen813]

The contentious part of the bill is the union busting features, which is the required yearly vote and the optional union dues. Both of those are targeted purely at dismantling the union. Limiting the union's ability to negotiate salaries to the CPI is a method of making the union toothless, which will lead to less membership and eventual dissolution of the union.

There is no other legitimate reason for those provisions. It is union-busting legislation hiding under the pretense of fiscal responsibility, and frankly, it should offend anyone of even somewhat libertarian leanings since it's an assault on worker's rights.

This is aside from the fact that limiting wages to the CPI is bad policy simply because living costs are rising at rates that FAR outpace inflation and the methods used to calculate the CPI. The formula is simply outdated.

 

[Carmen813]

Well link to a study that uses your preferred methodology. I also don't agree that you should control for the percent of workers in unions. If the industry is non union in the private sector why should it be unionized in the public sector? If there is cheaper non union labor available the government should use that.

Edit: The other thing to keep in mind is that public employee total compensation should be significantly BELOW private sector compensation because of the job security they get. I would consider them over payed even if the pay were at parity.

There are plenty of private sector areas that have been decimated by rules that private sector industries have created. This leaves work in the public sector as the only viable option for the majority. A good example is social services, but specifically mental health. Insurance regulations (created by the companies, not government) have basically made it impossible for private mental health practices to survive.

Private companies could offer job security on par, or exceeding, public jobs if they wanted to. They did so as little as 30 years ago. However, that costs money. Too many companies are narrowly focused on short-term profits now to consider the potential benefits of keeping staff on long term.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

There is no other legitimate reason for those provisions. It is union-busting legislation hiding under the pretense of fiscal responsibility, and frankly, it should offend anyone of even somewhat libertarian leanings since it's an assault on worker's rights.

Uh, it has more to do with fiscal issues than you can imagine. Each city, county, etc is stuck with personnel costs they have no control over... but yeah - you people can come up with whatever BS you wish to throw a fit over.
Hell, some of you libs have even gone so far as to koch up a konspiracy that this is all about the koch brothers. lol, it's times like this that I just have to laugh at how stupid some of you libs are.

 

[FDF12389]

And while the teachers are on strike they aren't going to receive any compensation.

Teachers in WI get 10 sick days a year and they roll over, ALL these "sick" teachers are being paid with MY tax dollars.

 

[FDF12389]

So then your beef is with the state government, not the teachers. The teachers aren't getting the money, the state government is now collecting your taxes and not paying them. Glad we got to the bottom of this.

See above. Nice to see people not from WI arguing this, with a flawed understanding of how these unions operate, and how completely out of control the public unions are.

 

[Red Dawn]

Teachers in WI get 10 sick days a year and they roll over, ALL these "sick" teachers are being paid with MY tax dollars.

Not when the Union goes on strike which it hasn't done.

 

[FDF12389]

The contentious part of the bill is the union busting features, which is the required yearly vote and the optional union dues. Both of those are targeted purely at dismantling the union. Limiting the union's ability to negotiate salaries to the CPI is a method of making the union toothless, which will lead to less membership and eventual dissolution of the union.

There is no other legitimate reason for those provisions. It is union-busting legislation hiding under the pretense of fiscal responsibility, and frankly, it should offend anyone of even somewhat libertarian leanings since it's an assault on worker's rights.

This is aside from the fact that limiting wages to the CPI is bad policy simply because living costs are rising at rates that FAR outpace inflation and the methods used to calculate the CPI. The formula is simply outdated.

You're full of shit if you honestly believe someone should be FORCED into a union, FORCED to pay union dues when they do not want to be. Why? Please try and explain how that is logical.

 

[IBMer]

You're full of shit if you honestly believe someone should be FORCED into a union, FORCED to pay union dues when they do not want to be. Why? Please try and explain how that is logical.

While I actually agree with the having to pay the union dues manually, I just want to point out that a common argument is that people can always find a different job in the "Free Market" yet here they are being forced. No they aren't forced, they can always find a job teaching in Private Schools which generally aren't unionized.

 

[Carmen813]

Uh, it has more to do with fiscal issues than you can imagine. Each city, county, etc is stuck with personnel costs they have no control over... but yeah - you people can come up with whatever BS you wish to throw a fit over.
Hell, some of you libs have even gone so far as to koch up a konspiracy that this is all about the koch brothers. lol, it's times like this that I just have to laugh at how stupid some of you libs are.

Straw man, thy name is CAD.

They have plenty of control over who they hire.

 

[IBMer]

Uh, it has more to do with fiscal issues than you can imagine. Each city, county, etc is stuck with personnel costs they have no control over... but yeah - you people can come up with whatever BS you wish to throw a fit over.
Hell, some of you libs have even gone so far as to koch up a konspiracy that this is all about the koch brothers. lol, it's times like this that I just have to laugh at how stupid some of you libs are.

Soros' Conspiracies want to say Hi! to you.

 

[Carmen813]

You're full of shit if you honestly believe someone should be FORCED into a union, FORCED to pay union dues when they do not want to be. Why? Please try and explain how that is logical.

If the union spent resources negotiating that persons pay and benefits, I see no reason why they shouldn't expect compensation. As the other person said, no one is forced to take these jobs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Straw man, thy name is CAD.

They have plenty of control over who they hire.

Uh, didn't say they didn't have control over who they hire. Nice try though.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

If the union spent resources negotiating that persons pay and benefits, I see no reason why they shouldn't expect compensation. As the other person said, no one is forced to take these jobs.

So you're fine with a worker not having the CHOICE to join a union or not?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So you're fine with a worker not having the CHOICE to join a union or not?

Of course they're happy as long as the choice is what they dictate.

 

[IBMer]

Of course they're happy as long as the choice is what they dictate.

We should go back to that thread about if it is ok for a business owner to allow smoking inside the business and see all of these jokers saying "They have a choice they can get a job else where" and yet don't apply that here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

We should go back to that thread about if it is ok for a business owner to allow smoking inside the business and see all of these jokers saying "They have a choice they can get a job else where" and yet don't apply that here.

Unions own the businesses? interesting...

 

[IBMer]

Unions own the businesses? interesting...

Sorry did the business not make a contract with the union enforcing union only?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Sorry did the business not make a contract with the union enforcing union only?

The unions can decide whether or not they are exclusive or not. They usually are exclusive since they want all the power and money from dues. So employees don't have a choice if they already worked there and a union comes in.

 

[trenchfoot]

The unions can decide whether or not they are exclusive or not. They usually are exclusive since they want all the power and money from dues. So employees don't have a choice if they already worked there and a union comes in.

Please define "exclusive". It can be misconstrued in a few ways, so if you would.....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Please define "exclusive". It can be misconstrued in a few ways, so if you would.....

no it can't when it comes to unions. please educate yourself. I'm sick of having to repeat this every time a union thread comes up.
http://www.nlrb.gov/
http://www.teamster.org/content/definitions-common-labor-terms
http://www.nrtw.org/

Start with those.

 

[WackyDan]

2) That there is no fiscal crisis in WI, and as a matter of fact until a corporate tax cut that Walker rammed through last month there was no projected deficit at all. In other words this is an invented crisis, invented for the purpose of union busting.

I'm not majorly pro or anti-union (never personally been in one) but this whole situation is really beginning to smell like a scam to me-a scam designed trod down the little guys further.

You are mistaken....There never was a surplus, and the gov't of WI is in deep debt thanks to the former governor raiding another fund.

Here you go: http://politifact.com/wisconsin/sta...-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

 

[WackyDan]

Let's make it clear for any further discussion. Union busting is is an action or series of actions designed to prevent workers from using collective bargaining. Period!

Such actions in the past have run the gamut from firing workers who advocate organizing to firing on workers with machine guns. The term union busting is defined by the goal, not some tightly defined range of actions.

This legislation is without question designed to take away any meaningful opportunity for the effective use of collective bargaining. The bill is clearly worded in how it will accomplish this, the intent obvious to the most casual observer.

The claim that the state should not be burdened with collecting union dues seems odd to me. Most companies I have worked for had a payroll collection system for United Way pledges. None ever claimed it to be a burdensome chore. I know of companies that let employees buy work boots from a truck and deduct the payments in increments from paychecks. Some companies allow workers to purchase company products by signing a slip and requesting a series of payroll deductions to pay for them. Don't see a problem with this.

United Way pledges and the other stuff you mentioned are VOLUNTARY.