The end of public employee unions? Let's hope so

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by mikejones, Jan 11, 2016.

  1. mikejones

    mikejones Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

    Supreme Court Seems Poised to Deal Unions a Major Setback

    "The justices appeared divided along familiar lines during an extended argument over whether government workers who choose not to join unions may nonetheless be required to help pay for collective bargaining. The court’s conservative majority appeared ready to say that such compelled financial support violates the First Amendment. Collective bargaining, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, is inherently political when the government is the employer, and issues like merit pay, promotions and classroom size are subject to negotiation."

    =======================================

    This is wonderful news, and I and all other middle-class taxpayers applaud the SC in hopes that it will terminate the lecherous efforts of public employee unions to steal more of my tax dollars intended to provide basic services as a resident of my city, and not age 50 lavish retirements with gold-plated pension/health benefits to undeserving public employees. The destruction of the public employee unions would give financial breathing room and support for cities already bankrupt or soon to be due to the lunatic, greedy, endless demands of public employee unions for ever greater salaries and benefits far exceeding what they could earn in the private sector - all delivered by corrupt politicians seeking to buy their votes on our backs as taxpayers.

    Public unions should never have been allowed in the first place, and it is long past time that they are reigned in and even better, terminated outright. Let's hope that the SC fixes a problem 60 years in the making.
     
  2. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Reference; http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions

    Excerpt;

    When Chris Christie became New Jersey's governor in January, he wasted no time in identifying the chief perpetrators of his state's fiscal catastrophe. Facing a nearly $11 billion budget gap — as well as voters fed up with the sky-high taxes imposed on them to finance the state government's profligacy — Christie moved swiftly to take on the unions representing New Jersey's roughly 400,000 public employees.

    On his first day in office, the governor signed an executive order preventing state-workers' unions from making political contributions — subjecting them to the same limits that had long applied to corporations. More recently, he has waged a protracted battle against state teachers' unions, which are seeking pay increases and free lifetime health care for their members. Recognizing the burden that such benefits would place on New Jersey's long-term finances, Christie has sought instead to impose a one-year wage freeze, to change pension rules to limit future benefits, and to require that teachers contribute a tiny fraction of their salaries to cover the costs of their health insurance — measures that, for private-sector workers, would be mostly uncontroversial.

    The firestorm that these proposals have sparked demonstrates the political clout of state-workers' unions. Christie's executive order met with vicious condemnation from union leaders and the politicians aligned with them; his fight with the public-school teachers prompted the New Jersey Education Association to spend $6 million (drawn from members' dues) on anti-Christie attack ads over a two-month period. Clearly, the lesson for reform-minded politicians has been: Confront public-sector unions at your peril.

    Yet confront them policymakers must. As Christie said about the duel with the NJEA, "If we don't win this fight, there's no other fight left." Melodramatic as this may sound, for many states, it is simply reality. The cost of public-sector pay and benefits (which in many cases far exceed what comparable workers earn in the private sector), combined with hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities for retired government workers, are weighing down state and city budgets. And staggering as these burdens seem now, they are actually poised to grow exponentially in the years ahead. If policymakers fail to rein in this growth, a fiscal crack-up will be the inevitable result.

    New Jersey has drawn national attention as a case study, but the same scenario is playing out in state capitals from coast to coast. New York, Michigan, California, Washington, and many other states also find themselves heavily indebted, with public-sector unions at the root of their problems. In exchange, taxpayers in these states are rewarded with larger and more expensive, yet less effective, government, and with elected officials who are afraid to cross the politically powerful unions. As the Wall Street Journal put it recently, public-sector unions "may be the single biggest problem...for the U.S. economy and small-d democratic governance." They may also be the biggest challenge facing state and local officials — a challenge that, unless economic conditions dramatically improve, will dominate the politics of the decade to come.


    IMO, no matter the reason for government labor costs, whether it be unions or reckless management, if the costs are too high for the taxpayers, then the costs must be lowered. Burgeoning labor costs simply are not sustainable! Doing nothing or focusing solely on unions is not a solution...
     
  3. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    9,290
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The unions are fading into the sunset because the union leaders got greedy and crooked. All that money and power corrupted them. The exact same thing is happening to our great United States.
     
  4. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The Right has made a massive mistake going after unions as they have. It's almost as though they've made a 'martyr' of unions. People are going to want unions or something like them in the years to come.

    I can't say 'when', but in due time there will be some iteration or function, which does exactly what unions used to do for people's wages and to grant them better political voice.

    The right hasn't squashed the 'spirit' of why people formed unions overall; they will COME BACK and likely stronger than they were before. It will only be a matter of time and political opportunity... both of which will inevitably come about.
     
  5. Teilhard

    Teilhard New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,509
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And workers who don't want to join a union will be free to work for $2/hr., with no benefits, no job protection, no pension, no 40 hr. week, no overtime …
     
  6. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep. Once more people realize they are being relatively screwed... they will clamor for more leverage (even politically). And that is what they will (again) find with unions. Despite their faults (human invention that they are), they serve a purpose which focuses upon the REAL interests of those who do the work.
     
  7. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Unions have a place in our country, but not in their present role as a sort of Mafia style racketeering group
     
  8. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we don't need Unions until employers start doing away with health insurance, sick leave, vacation time, etc etc..
     
  9. franfran

    franfran New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And when that happens you won't have the unions to stop it.
     
  10. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unions should end political partisan activities.

    i think that's one of the big issues.

    they should also end yearly events where they pay for hotels and such.

    if they need a big event, do it local.

    my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Union dues, which are a lot, are not so you can get a free getaway to Florida. and its not so you can donate money or advocate for a candidate i dont agree with
     
  11. mikejones

    mikejones Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This thread is about PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS, NOT private sector ones. The two have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other.
     
  12. Dollface

    Dollface New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The death of the middle class is the result of the decline of the Unions. Keep that up and we will be back to the days of company owned towns
     
  13. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure they don't. If this case goes down against public sector unions, then comes the equal protection argument when it comes to private sector unions and then comes the same argument about closed shops and we end up with a national right to work ruling. Personally, I support right to work laws, but your bright line is not so bright over the long haul regardless of whether I support them or not. Any SCOTUS ruling that changes anything dominoes in time, and sometimes in unexpected places and ways.
     
  14. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are they so undeserving? They give the public the best years of their lives and when they reach retirement age or can no longer work you want to throw them out with the trash. How charitable of you. You get gold-plated pension/health benefits when you retire, so why shouldn't they??

    You get a raise every year; why shouldn't they? after all they keep you safe, bring you to the hospital when your sick (they might even try to save your life with cpr if they find your heart stopped), pick up your garbage, pull you out of a burning structure if your trapped, etc. But lets dump on them because it's convenient. People like you and your selfish attitudes make me want to vomit.

    I guess you don't think American workers deserve right's in the workplace do you?? Push come to shove, if the SCOTUS rules against unions, they'll become ever stronger since they'll most likely go back to their grass roots. Try reading labor history in this country and figure out why you have a 40 hour work week, medical benefits or holidays. Might just open your eyes up a little bit.
     
  15. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree totally with the emboldened words. The Public sector employees are a very large voting bloc which the private sector taxpaying voters have to contend with in any attempt to get government spending under control.
     
  16. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they are the yin to the employers yang, they keep each other in check

    that said, I agree, only those that are part of the union shoudl pay dues

    .
     
  17. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If a public service union goes belly up.............let 'em.
     
  18. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So I did a little research before answering you on this. The median police officer and teacher salary in the Pacific Northwest (looking at Oregon and Washington) is in the mid-50s. Benefits and employer costs bump up the cost of that employee to about 70k. I didn't check, but I suspect firefighters and paramedics are probably also in that range. Virtually all of these employees are union members. When thinking about this, look at the salary and benefits as a package. I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not that cost is worth it.

    I'm sort of curious if that seems like too much to you.

    Another question I have is this: Let's say you could get rid of the public employee unions. If you were the City Manager/Mayor of a city, what would you do to that salary package? If you wanted it to cost less, what would you cut? How much?
     
  19. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is super dramatic. Unions are kaput.
     
  20. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You are wrong about that. If you don't think so, ask the employees who are union members. Many of the same functions and benefits are derived via public employee unions as those in the private sector.

    So, you can draw that line if you wish, but I certainly will not.
     
  21. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Great points.

    And you summed-up exactly why unions are needed/desired... in BOTH the public and private sector.

    Yes, it would be nice if all employers/managers could escape he bounds of human nature and do 'right' by all who work for them, but that is not reality. In the real world, employees have problems about/within the workplace which the interests of businesses or management may have little to zero interest in... if it were not for the leverage or influence of collective bargaining and oversight by those who have the interests of worker-bees at heart.

    Someone above tried to say that this topic is separate from one on private sector unions... but my experiences as a 'worker' tell me something very different. While legally all things may not be the same, functionally there are scores of similarities.
     
  22. Gaius_Marius

    Gaius_Marius Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you had functioning unions you probably wouldn't need a minimum wage. Denmark has never had a state legislated minimum wage because the unions has taken care of negotiating wages with private industry.
    Right wingers in the US want to kill unions and not have a legislated minimum wage. They really do excel in screwing the workers.
     
  23. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    For now, they may have faded... but the need and function they provide is something human beings will always clamor for. In some for or the other, groups of people will have something like a union (call it whatever you will). Employees need a voice and history readily explains why that is so.

    Still, you are talking about only 'some' people or unions; it is not everyone. And what organizations or institutions are completely without some form of corruption? People (even America) need unions as much as ever. And while they aren't perfect, society is most likely better for having their influence overall. They have a part in balancing people's lives with the work they must do. That is always important to consider and address.

    It is not new. Even so, I and millions of other people don't see the value in tossing out everything when something can be corrected/improved as required.
     
  24. Bluespade

    Bluespade Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    15,669
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have no clue what you're talking about. Everything a public sector extracts for benifits comes from the TAX PAYER. Do you understand how that's completely different from how private sector unions negotiate for their benifits, and whom they negotiate with for benifits? I doubt it.
     
  25. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,838
    Likes Received:
    7,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems some on the right hate anything that gives some power to the employed and not the employer. I guess we should all grovel at the feet of whomever has hired us and thank them for the opportunity to help make them richer.

    That said, I've never agreed with mandatory union membership, anywhere. To me it seems rather stupid that companies who try to stop workers from organizing are the bad guys, and unions that force you to be in them are the good guys. Voluntary membership only if you ask me.
     

Share This Page