Print Page - Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?

Title: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 12:03:10 PM

Here are some examples of WHY I think they suck!!!

:rant:

No Volunteer Crossing Guards Allowed
A Wausau public employee union filed a grievance to prohibit a local volunteer from serving as a school crossing guard. The 86-year-old lives just two blocks away and serves everyday free of charge.

Principal Steve Miller says, "He said, you know, this gives me a reason to get up in the morning to come and help these kids in the neighborhood."

But for a local union that represents crossing guards, it isn't that simple. Representatives didn't want to go on camera but say if a crossing guard is needed, then one should be officially hired by the city.

Source: WAOW-TV, 1/27/10 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=11891208)
$6,000 Extra for Carrying a Pager
Some state employees, due to the nature of their positions, are required to carry pagers during off-duty hours in order to respond to emergency situations. Due to the collective bargaining agreements, these employees are compensated an extra five hours of pay each week, whether they are paged or not.

For an employee earning an average salary of $50,000 per year, this requirement can cost more than $6,000 in additional compensation.

Source: 2008-09 Agreement between the State of Wisconsin and AFSCME Council 24

Arbitrator Reinstates Porn-Watching Teacher
A Cedarburg school teacher was reinstated by an arbitrator after being fired for viewing pornography on a school computer. The school district ultimately succeeded in terminating the teacher only after taking the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayers.

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/23/08 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.jsonline.com/news/32598479.html)
'Outstanding First Year Teacher' Laid Off
Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit.

Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, "Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers.

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/14/10 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/96349689.html)

Union Opposes Cost-Saving Lawn Mowing Program
As a cost cutting measure, Racine County began using county inmates to cut the grass in medians and right-of-ways at no cost to the taxpayers. A county employee union filed a grievance indicating it was the right of government workers to cut the grass, even though it would cost the taxpayers dramatically more.

Source: Racine Journal Times, 5/12/10 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_6a940044-5e23-11df-91a0-001cc4c03286.html)

A Year's Worth of Pay for 30 Days of Work
Under the Green Bay School District's collectively bargained Emeritus Program, teachers can retire and receive a year's worth of salary for working only 30 days over a three year period. This is paid in addition to their already guaranteed pension and health care payouts.

Source: WLUK-TV, 3/3/11 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/140-green-bay-teachers-looking-to-retire)

The $150,000 Bus Driver
In 2009, the City of Madison's highest paid employee was a bus driver who earned $159,258, including $109,892 in overtime, guaranteed by a collective bargaining agreement. In total, seven City of Madison bus drivers made more than $100,000 per year in 2009.

"That's the (drivers') contract," said Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson.

Source: Wisconsin State Journal, 2/7/10 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_24af32d4-13f4-11df-86b2-001cc4c002e0.html)

$150,000 Correctional Officers
Correctional Officer collective bargaining agreements allow officers a practice known as "sick leave stacking." Officers can call in sick for a shift, receiving 8 hours of sick pay, and then are allowed to work the very next shift, earning time-and-a-half for overtime. This results in the officer receiving 2.5 times his or her rate of pay, while still only working 8 hours.

In part because of these practices, 13 correctional officers made more than $100,000 in 2009, despite earning base wages of less than $60,000 per year. The officers received an average of $66,000 in overtime pay for an average annual salary of more than $123,000 with the highest paid receiving $151,181.

Source: Department of Corrections

Previously the Governors office released these examples of the fiscal impact of collective bargaining:

Paid-Time off for Union Activities
In Milwaukee County alone, because the union collectively bargained for paid time off, fourteen employees receive salary and benefits for doing union business. Of the fourteen, three are on full-time release for union business. Milwaukee County spent over $170,000 in salary alone for these employees to only participate in union activities such as collective bargaining.

Surrender of Management Rights
Because of collecting bargaining, unions have included provisions in employee contracts that have a direct fiscal impact such as not allowing management to schedule workers based on operational needs and requiring notice and approval by the union prior to scheduling changes. As County Executive Walker attempted to reduce work hours based on budget pressures and workload requirements by instituting a 35 hour work week to avoid layoffs, which the union opposed. Additionally, government cannot explore privatization of functions that could save taxpayers money.

WEA Trust
Currently many school districts participate in WEA trust because WEAC collectively bargains to get as many school districts across the state to participate in this union run health insurance plan as possible. Union leadership benefits from members participating in this plan. If school districts enrolled in the state employee health plan, it would save school districts up to $68 million per year. Beyond that if school districts had the flexibility to look for health insurance coverage outside of WEA trust or the state plan, additional savings would likely be realized.

Viagra for Teachers
The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association (MTEA) tried to use a policy established by collective bargaining to obtain health insurance coverage that specifically paid for Viagra. Cost to taxpayers is $786,000 a year.

Reference: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/milwaukee-schools-ban-viagra-teachers-union-sues-discrimination/story?id=11378595 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://abcnews.go.com/Health/milwaukee-schools-ban-viagra-teachers-union-sues-discrimination/story?id=11378595)

Unrealistic Overtime Provisions
On a state level, the Department of Corrections allows correctional workers who call in sick to collect overtime if they work a shift on the exact same day. The specific provision that allows this to happen was collectively bargained for in their contract. Cost to taxpayers $4.8 million.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Sandy Eggo on March 10, 2011, 12:16:01 PM

So, do I go out and find numerous stories which give examples of what's right with unions? I'm not sure that would prove anything except what we already know, there's pros and cons.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 12:27:31 PM

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 10, 2011, 12:16:01 PM
So, do I go out and find numerous stories which give examples of what's right with unions? I'm not sure that would prove anything except what we already know, there's pros and cons.

I understand Sandy...I'm sure you could find some to support it. But, when a State is facing a finanial crissis as WI is....

All Gov Walker is wanting to do is:

• Restricts public employees from negotiating everything except their wage

• Does not affect police and fire workers

• Limits wage increases to the rate of inflation

• Requires any larger wage increase to be approved by referendum

• Requires public employees to pay 5.8 percent of their pensions and 12 percent of their health care benefits

• Requires that collective bargaining units take annual votes to maintain certification as a union

• Prohibits employers from collecting union dues

• Releases members of collective bargaining units from dues paying requirements

• Authorizes restructuring of principal payments in the current budget for general obligation bonds, reducing debt payment costs by $165 million

• Increases general revenue for Medicaid to cover an estimated $153 million deficit

• Provides $22 million to address shortfalls in the prisons budget

• Authorizes the Department of Administration to sell state heating plants, with the net proceeds deposited in the budget stabilization fund

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:09:31 PM

(Sorry all the pretty charts and graphs that provide visual confirmation of the text of this piece don't show up so well when copying and pasting). . . but you can view this article in its entirety here:

http://www.badforindiana.org/ (http://www.badforindiana.org/)

EPI BRIEFING PAPER
EcoNomIc PolIcy INstItutE ● FEBRuARy 17,2011 ● BRIEFING PAPER #299
The
CompensaTion penalTy
of "righT-To-work" laws
By ElisE goulD anD HEiDi sHiErHolz
Recent proposals to advance so-called "right-to-work" (RTW) laws are being suggested in states as a way to boost economic growth. In this economic climate, something called right-to-work legislation sounds positive, but the name is misleading: these laws do not guarantee a job for anyone. In fact, they make it illegal for a group of unionized workers to negotiate a contract that requires each employee who enjoys the benefits of the contract terms to pay his or her share of costs for negotiating and policing the contract. This provision directly limits the financial viability of unions, reducing their strength and ability to negotiate favorable contracts, higher wages, and better benefits. Similarly, by diminishing union resources, an RTW law makes it more difficult for unions to provide a workers' voice on policy issues ranging from unemployment insurance to workers compensation, minimum wages, and other areas. The simple reality is that RTW laws undermine the resources that help workers bargain for better wages and benefits.
This briefing paper directly examines the impact of RTW on the wages and benefits received by workers, both union and nonunion. It does this by examining differences in the wages and benefits workers receive in RTW and non-RTW states. In a regression framework, we analyze the relation- ship between RTW status and wages and benefits after controlling for the demographic and job characteristics of workers, in addition to state-level economic conditions and cost-of-living differences across states. We find the following:
•   Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socio- economic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
Table of ConTenTs
background ............................................................................................2
How do RTW and non-RTW states compare? .........................2
What is the independent effect of right-to-work on wages? ..........................................................3
RTW status and employer-sponsored benefits .....................6 The necessity of rigorous methodology...................................8 Conclusions.............................................................................................8 appendix............................................................................................... 10
www.epi.org
Economic Policy institutE • 1333 H strEEt, nW • suitE 300, East toWEr • WasHington, Dc 20005 • 202.775.8810 • WWW.EPi.org
•   The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
•   The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 per- centage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in our regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.
•   This briefing paper provides the most comprehensive study to date of the relationship between RTW status and compensation. Using a full set of explanatory variables, including state-level controls, it is clear that our analysis stands apart as being more rigorous than others of this type.
Our results apply not just to union members, but to all employees in a state. Where unions are strong, compensa- tion increases even for workers not covered by any union contract, as nonunion employers face competitive pressure to match union standards. Likewise, when unions are weakened by "right-to-work" laws, the impact is felt by all of a state's workers.
We measure the particular effects of RTW laws on com- pensation among workers who are not unionized or covered by union contracts. The wage penalty for nonunionized workers is 3.0%, and the benefit penalty is 2.8 percentage points and 5.3 percentage points for health and pension benefits, respectively. Our results suggest that proposals to advance RTW laws likely come at the expense of workers' wages and benefits, both within and outside of unions.
Background
The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (1935) sanctioned a state's right to pass laws that prohibit unions from requiring a worker to pay dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Within a couple of years of the amendment's passage, 12 states passed these so-
called "right-to-work" laws, as did many other states in the intervening years. Today, right-to-work laws are in place in 22 states, predominantly in the South and Southwest. (For a complete list of states that currently have RTW laws, see Appendix Table A1.)
Although there has been an extensive amount of research on the effect of right-to-work laws on union density, organizing efforts, and industrial development (see Moore 1998 and Moore and Newman 1985 for literature overviews), there has been surprisingly little examination of the perhaps more important issue of right-to-work laws’ effect on wages and even less on employer-sponsored benefits.
The limited amount of research that does examine the effect of right-to-work laws on wages can be divided into two areas: RTW laws' effect on union wage premiums, or the effect of these laws on overall wages. Our research focuses on the latter. Since right-to-work laws affect union density and effectiveness (Farber 1985), the effect of the union wage premium is not easily disentangled from the effects of RTW legislation. Our analysis tries to overcome the shortcomings in previous research in this area. First, we control for differences in cost of living throughout the United States, thereby making wages in various parts of the country as comparable as possible. Second, we measure the spillover effects of RTW legislation by examining wages and benefits of nonunionized workers.
how do rTw and
non-rTw states compare?
To determine the effect of right-to-work laws on wages, we estimate log wage equations using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey – Outgoing Rota- tion Group (CPS-ORG) for 2009. The sample consists of 108,627 workers, ages 18-64, who earn wages and salaries. About 37% of the sample lives in states with RTW laws. Average hourly wages are $20.91, and median hourly wages are $17.00.
Table 1 displays the characteristics of workers in both RTW and non-RTW states. On many levels, these two sets of workers are similar. The average age is nearly the same, as is the share of the workforce that is male and that is married. Educational attainment is similar, with workers in non-RTW states having slightly higher levels
EPi BriEfing PaPEr #299 ● fEBruary 17, 2011
● PagE 2
TaBle 1

of schooling. The racial/ethnic composition varies, with more white workers in non-RTW states, and more Afri- can American and Hispanic workers in RTW states.
The biggest difference between workers in RTW and non-RTW states is the fact that workers in non-RTW states are more than twice as likely to be in a union or protected by a union contract. Average hourly wages, the prime variable of interest, are 16% higher in non-RTW
states ($22.11 in non-RTW vs. $19.06 in RTW states). Median wages (not shown) are 14.4% higher in non- RTW states ($17.16 vs. $15.00).
what is the independent effect
of right-to-work on wages?
As shown in Table 1, there are differences between workers' characteristics in RTW and non-RTW states, and some of
EPi BriEfing PaPEr #299 ● fEBruary 17, 2011
● PagE 3
these characteristics will have a direct impact on workers' expected wages. For instance, workers in non-RTW states have somewhat higher levels of educational attainment, which is associated with higher wages, on average. Con- trolling for these factors in a multivariate regression model helps us factor in these differences, allowing us to come closer to identifying the "pure," or independent, RTW effect on wages.
In Table 2, we construct a regression model, starting with the most general and building up to a model that controls for the full range of explanatory variables. The dependent variable is always the natural log of hourly wage, and the variable of interest is an indicator variable taking on the value one when the worker lives in a RTW state and zero otherwise. (Full regression results are reported in Appendix Table A2.)
The results of the uncontrolled model mimic the differences in wages found in the descriptive statistics. Wages in RTW states are 13.7% lower than in non-RTW states. The basic set of controls includes the demo- graphic variables included in Table 1 – age, age squared, race/ethnicity, education indicators, sex, marital status, urbanicity, an indicator for being an hourly worker, an indicator for being a full-time worker – in addition to a worker's major industry and occupation. As with worker characteristics, the industry and occupation mix in the state could affect the average wage. Again, controlling for these differences allows us to better isolate the relation- ship between RTW states and wages. As expected, the
coefficient on the RTW indicator moves closer to zero, and wages in RTW states are found to be 9.1% lower, on average, after controlling for these worker differences.
The third column of Table 2 includes additional state- level variables on the economic conditions – measured by the state unemployment rate – and differences in cost of living across states. Averages for these three continuous variables are found at the bottom of Table 1. The Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) established a method that was used by researchers in the Census Bureau to calculate a cost-of-living adjustment to the hourly wage. PERI used Fair Market Rents, which consider housing and utilities prices, to construct a state-by-state cost-of-living adjustment. This measure (COL_PERI) creates an index of prices relative to the national average.
The second measure of cost of living (COL_MO) is based on data collected from the 3rd quarter of 2010 by the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center. The cost-of-living adjustment scale for each state is based on the average of the indices of cities in that state. As expected, New England, Alaska, Hawaii, and the West Coast are among the most expensive areas to live, while Midwest and Southern states continue to be some of the least expensive.
We include both indicators for cost of living in the full model because they measure costs slightly differently; how- ever, running this regression produces comparable results regardless of which one is used. Controlling for these price differences captures the extent to which higher costs, and
TaBle 2
Wage regressions: estimates of coefficient of right-to-work indicator (full sample)

EPi BriEfing PaPEr #299 ● fEBruary 17, 2011
● PagE 4
therefore higher wages may be found in non-RTW states for reasons other than their lack of RTW legislation, letting us better isolate the relationship between wages and RTW status.
As the methodology above attests, we have attempted as nearly as possible to isolate the impact of "right-to-work" legislation itself, apart from the myriad other factors that impact wages in a given state. All told, our model controls for 42 demographic, economic, geographic, and policy factors. After controlling for this full complement of dif- ferences, we find wages in RTW states to be statistically
and economically significantly lower than in non-RTW states. On average, "right-to-work" laws are associated with wages – for everyone, not just union members – that are 3.2% lower than they would be without such a law.
Beyond the overall impact of "right-to-work" laws on the workforce as a whole, it is important for policy makers to understand the particular effect such laws can have on specific communities within the state. To get at this question, we ran a series of regressions on demographic subgroups of the population. Here again we are looking at the relationship between RTW laws and wages in both
TaBle 3
Wage regressions on restricted samples: estimates of coefficient of right-to-work indicator
Model with no controls

EPi BriEfing PaPEr #299 ● fEBruary 17, 2011   ● PagE 5
the model without meaningful controls and the fully controlled model (comparable to column 3 in Table 2). In the model with no controls, it appears that male and female workers experience the same wage penalty, but after controlling for individual and state characteristics, we find that women's wages are penalized further (4.4%) in RTW states than men's (1.7%). The wage penalty exists across all categories of educational attainment and racial/ ethnic groups; however, we find that it is higher among nonwhites, with the RTW penalty being 4.8% for blacks and 4.4% for Hispanics.
It is particularly important to note that "right-to- work" laws have a statistically significant negative effect on the wages of nonunion workers, as shown in the last row of Table 3. Using the fully controlled regression model, our analysis indicates that nonunion workers in RTW states have wages that are 3.0% lower, on average, than their counterparts in non-RTW states.
rTw status and employer-sponsored benefits To determine the effect of right-to-work laws on employer- sponsored benefits, we use the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey from March 2010, referring to full-year 2009 information.1 The sample consists of 21,834 employees, ages 18-64. As with the wage data, about 37%
of the sample lives in states with RTW laws. Examining this sample, we find that 69.7% of workers have employer- sponsored health insurance, and 42.1% have employer- sponsored pensions.2 In raw comparisons, about 4.5% more of the workforce is covered by employer-sponsored insurance in non-RTW states than in RTW states. Similarly, about 4.5% more of the workforce receives a pension through their job in non-RTW states than in RTW states.
We follow the same methodology as in the wage analysis, starting with a model with no controls and building up to one with a full set of controls. In addition to the overall cost-of-living measures, the health insurance regressions also include average family premiums within each state to further control for the effects of prices on the rate at which employers offer and employees take up these benefits. The key results are shown in Table 4 (with detailed regression results in Appendix Table A3).
As expected, the results of the uncontrolled model directly replicate the descriptive statistics that show benefit coverage is lower in RTW than non-RTW states. Workers' employer-sponsored health insurance coverage in RTW states is 4.5 percentage points lower and employer- sponsored pension coverage is 4.6 percentage points lower than among workers in non-RTW states. The full model confirms these results. After controlling for differences in prices across states as well as individual socioeconomic
TaBle 4
benefit regressions: estimates of coefficient of right-to-work indicator (full sample)

EPi BriEfing PaPEr #299 ● fEBruary 17, 2011
● PagE 6
characteristics, workers in RTW states, on average, are less likely to receive health insurance (by 2.6 percentage points) and pensions (by 4.8 percentage points) from employers. These estimates imply a much larger percentage drop in actual coverage, since coverage even in non-RTW states is far from universal: coverage of employer-sponsored
health insurance and pensions is, respectively, 71.5% and 44.9% in non-RTW states. Therefore, a 2.6 percentage- point estimated deterioration in health insurance coverage in non-RTW states implies a 3.8% reduction in coverage, or 2 million fewer covered workers. Likewise, a 4.8 per- centage-point estimated deterioration in pension coverage
TaBle 5
benefit regressions on restricted samples: estimates of coefficient of right-to-work indicator
Dependent variable: employer-sponsored health insurance
Dependent variable: employer-sponsored pension
sample
EPi BriEfing PaPEr #299 ● fEBruary 17, 2011   ● PagE 7
in non-RTW states implies a 12.1% reduction in pension coverage, or 3.8 million fewer workers with pensions.
Because the sample size is smaller in the benefit analysis, it is harder to conduct a detailed analysis for subgroups of the population. But some findings are clear and statis- tically significant: In this case, male and female workers in non-RTW states are equally more likely to have employer- sponsored benefits.
We find that RTW legislation has large spillover effects, that is, the legislation doesn't only affect unionized workers, but also those that lack union contract coverage. The coefficient of RTW for the nonunion subgroup is quite large: -2.8 percentage points for insurance and -5.3 per- centage points for pensions. This suggests that even among nonunion workers, living in a RTW state makes them less likely to enjoy valuable employer-sponsored benefits.
The necessity of
rigorous methodology
Tables 2 and 4 show that workers in RTW states have lower compensation, on average, than their counterparts in non-RTW states. How much of this difference can be attributed to RTW status itself? There is an inherent "endo- geneity" problem in any attempt to answer that question, namely that RTW and non-RTW states differ on a wide variety of measures that are also related to compensation, making it difficult to isolate the impact of RTW status. The approach we use to identify the independent effect on compensation of being in a RTW state is admittedly limited, but we do control for all of the many observable characteristics that are available in the CPS, including edu- cation, race/ethnicity, age, gender, marital status, union status, industry, occupation, urbanicity, whether a worker is an hourly worker, and whether a worker is a full-time worker. We also control for macroeconomic differences between states that may affect compensation packages, including cost-of-living measures and the unemployment rate. But despite our comprehensive set of observable controls, there may be unobservable state-level characteristics that lead to both lower average compensation packages and an increased likelihood of RTW legislation (for example, a broader political climate that puts workers at a disadvantage).
With these caveats, the analysis presented above is as close as rigorous social science can get to identifying
the specific impact of "right-to-work" laws on wages and benefits. In fact, almost all other studies on RTW fail to use such rigorous methods. For instance, in a report from the Indiana Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Vedder, Denhart, and Robe (2011) examine the effects of RTW legislation on income growth from 1977-2008. In our analysis, we include a full set of demographic variables, including race/ethnicity, gender, education, age, marital status, and metro area. Of this list, Vedder et al. control only for the change in college attainment. We control for work characteristics such as being in a union or having a union contract, hourly worker and full-time worker status, 12 major industry categories, and nine occupational classi- fications. Of this list, Vedder et al. only control for average proportion of employment in manufacturing. Both of our studies control for a labor force measure; ours is the unemployment rate, while Vedder et al. use the change in the employer-to-population ratio. They also include population growth, imperative for looking at changes over long spans of time when growth occurred unevenly across the country. We also control for two measures of cost of living, which captures the extent to which higher costs and therefore higher wages may be found in non-RTW states for reasons other than their lack of RTW legislation, letting us better isolate the relationship between wages and RTW status; Vedder et al. do not control for cost of living. Their remaining control variable is years that have elapsed since each state attained statehood, for which they offer no justification.
In short, we include the set of controls that the standard econometric practice demands in analyses of this type. Vedder et al. (2011) do not meet this standard, calling into question the validity of their analysis.3
Conclusions
Once we control for our comprehensive set of both individual and state-level observable characteristics, we find that the mean effect of working in a right-to-work state is a 3.2% reduction in wages for workers in these states. We also find a 2.6 and 4.8 percentage-point reduction in employer-sponsored health insurance and employer-sponsored pensions, respectively. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the wage penalty for nonunionized workers is 3.0%, and the benefit penalty is 2.8 percentage
EPi BriEfing PaPEr #299 ● fEBruary 17, 2011
● PagE 8
points and 5.3 percentage points for health and pension benefits, respectively.
It is notoriously difficult to separate out the effect of a single public policy on wages across a statewide economy. It is possible that future data will enable even more exact measurements. However, our findings – that "right–to- work" laws are associated with significantly lower wages and reduced chances of receiving employer-sponsored health insurance and pensions – are based on the most rigorous statistical analysis currently possible. These findings
should discourage right-to-work policy initiatives. The fact is, while RTW legislation misleadingly sounds like a positive change in this weak economy, in reality the opportunity it gives workers is only that to work for lower wages and fewer benefits. For legislators dedicated to making policy on the basis of economic fact rather than ideological passion, our findings indicate that, contrary to the rhetoric of RTW proponents, the data show that workers in "right-to-work" states have lower compensa- tion – both union and nonunion workers alike.
EPi BriEfing PaPEr #299 ● fEBruary 17, 2011
● PagE 9
appendix
TaBle a1
Right to work states
alabama arizona arkansas florida georgia idaho iowa Kansas louisiana mississippi nebraska
souRcE: U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division.
nevada north carolina north Dakota oklahoma south carolina south Dakota tennessee texas utah Virginia Wyoming
EPi BriEfing PaPEr #299 ● fEBruary 17, 2011   ● PagE 10
RTW indicator Union indicator White non-Hispanic Hispanic Asian Other race/ethnicity Male Some high school Some college Associate's degree College Advanced degree Age Age squared
TaBle a2

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 01:13:35 PM

bump!

All Gov Walker is wanting to do is:

• Restricts public employees from negotiating everything except their wage

• Does not affect police and fire workers

• Limits wage increases to the rate of inflation

• Requires any larger wage increase to be approved by referendum

• Requires public employees to pay 5.8 percent of their pensions and 12 percent of their health care benefits

• Requires that collective bargaining units take annual votes to maintain certification as a union

• Prohibits employers from collecting union dues

• Releases members of collective bargaining units from dues paying requirements

• Authorizes restructuring of principal payments in the current budget for general obligation bonds, reducing debt payment costs by $165 million

• Increases general revenue for Medicaid to cover an estimated $153 million deficit

• Provides $22 million to address shortfalls in the prisons budget

• Authorizes the Department of Administration to sell state heating plants, with the net proceeds deposited in the budget stabilization fund.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:22:57 PM

Facts
Out‐of‐state special interest groups are pushing to pass a falsely‐labeled "right to work" law in Indiana. These groups claim such laws create economic prosperity, but many measures show Indiana's working families are better off than working families in states with RTW.
Wages
• On average, workers in states with RTW laws earn $5,538 a year less than workers in other states.
• Overall, union members earn 28 percent ($198) more per week than nonunion workers. Hispanic union members earn 50 percent ($258) more each week than nonunion Hispanics and African Americans earn 29 percent ($168) more each week if they are union members.
• Median weekly wages in 17 of the 22 states with these laws are lower than the $714 median wage in Indiana.
• Indiana's manufacturing workers earn $2.17 more an hour than the average manufacturing worker wage in states with "right to work" for less laws.

Higher Workplace Fatality Rates
• The rate of workplace deaths is 52.9 percent higher in states with RTW laws, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Health Care
• Indiana Workers are more likely to have insurance (14.2 percent are uninsured, compared with 16.7 percent in RTW states). So are our children (8.6 percent of Indiana children are uninsured, compared with 10.4 percent in states with these laws).
• Hoosiers are more likely to have job‐based health insurance than residents in 17 of the 22 states with RTW laws. Overall, 64.3 percent of us have job‐based health insurance, compared with 60.1 percent in states with these laws.
• Nationwide, 78 percent of private‐sector union workers have access to medical insurance through their jobs, compared with 51 percent of nonunion workers. And 77 percent of private‐sector union workers have 'access to guaranteed (defined‐benefit) retirement plans through their jobs, compared with just 20 percent of nonunion workers.
• Nationwide, only 2.9 percent of union workers are uninsured, compared with 14.2 percent of nonunion workers.
Pensions
• Indiana Workers are more likely to have pensions. Only 43 percent of private‐sector workers have employer‐provided pension coverage in RTW states, compared with 53.1 percent here in Indiana.
Education
• RTW states spend $2,671 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than other states.
• Students here are more likely to be at grade level in math and reading. In Indiana, 35.1 percent of 8th grade students were proficient in math in 2007 (compared with 29.6 percent states with RTW laws) and 31.1 percent were proficient in reading (compared with 28.1 percent).
• States with these laws spend less to educate their children than we do in Indiana‐$9,005 on average for the 2008‐2009 school year, compared with $9,780 in Indiana.

http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/whatRTWmeanstoIUCI.pdf (http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/whatRTWmeanstoIUCI.pdf)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:25:29 PM

New Research Counters Arguments for "Right-To-Work" Laws
Erin Johansson and Michael Wasser December 2010

The 1947 passage of the Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act allowed states to make it illegal for employers and unions to bargain agreements stipulating that all employees represented by a union had to pay dues. Without these agreements, unions are required to represent and negotiate on behalf of all the employees they represent, regardless of whether they choose to pay dues or decide to be "free riders." Since 1947, twenty-two states have passed RTW laws.
RTW laws don't generate jobs, economic growth
Proponents of RTW laws claim that they enable a more business-friendly environment and lead to economic growth for states and their residents.1 Yet recent studies rebut claims of economic growth and instead find that laws suppress wages. Lonnie Stevans, Professor of Information Technology and Quantitative Methods at Hofstra University, tested this claim by comparing the business formation and economic growth of RTW states with non-RTW states using recent data from the U.S. Small Business Administration.2 Stevans controlled for variables like education levels, population changes, and type of employment in the states to accurately measure the relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth.
Stevans found that a state's RTW law:    Has no impact on economic growth
   Has no influence on employment    Has no influence on business capital formation (the ratio of firm 'births'
to the number of firms)    Is correlated with a decrease in wages
Stevans also found that the average real state GDP growth rate of RTW states is not significantly different than non-RTW states. Based on his analysis, he observed, "From a state's economic standpoint, being right-to-work yields little or no gain in employment and real economic growth."
Prior research on RTW employment growth was inaccurate
Charlene Kalenkoski and Donald Lacombe, professors in the Department of Economics at Ohio University, recently examined previous research claiming that RTW laws attract manufacturing employment to a state.3 Though prior studies have tried to measure the impact of RTW on employment, they failed to account for geographic characteristics such as natural or labor
1 Right to Work Frequently-Asked Questions. (2010). Retrieved August 25, 2010, from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. website, http://www.nrtw.org/en/b/rtw_faq.htm.
Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.) Retrieved August 25, 2010, from National Right to Work Committee website, http://www.nrtwc.org/about/frequently-asked-questions/.
Johnson, R. et al. (2008). Is unionization the ticket to the middle class? The real economic effects of labor unions. Washington, DC: U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
2 Stevans, L.K. (2009). The effect of endogenous right-to-work laws on business and economic conditions in the United States: A multivariate approach. Review of Law & Economics, 5(1), 595-612.
3 Kalenkoski, Charlene and Donald Lacombe. "Right-to-Work Laws and Manufacturing Employment: The Importance of Spatial Dependence," Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 73, No. 2 (Oct., 2006), pp. 402-418.
resources that also impact employment. When Kalenkoski and Lacombe measured the impact of RTW laws without accounting for a multitude of geographic factors, their estimates "dramatically overstate the positive relationship between RTW legislation and manufacturing employment." When they did control for geographic factors, they found RTW legislation is associated with only a slight increase in manufacturing employment, along with a decrease in employment in agriculture, fishing, mining and some service industries. They concluded that "improperly controlling for geographic factors can lead to incorrect inferences and misinform policy."
RTW laws lead to declines in workplace representation and wages
From the above studies, it's clear that passing a RTW law is not a path to saving your state's economy. Yet we know from many studies that RTW laws do lead to declines in union representation.4 According to one study, one-third of the difference in union representation rates between RTW and non-RTW states is attributable to RTW laws.5
With reduced collective power in the workplace, it's no surprise that RTW legislation leads to lower wages. Lonnie Stevans, as noted above, found that RTW laws are correlated with lower wages. Henry Farber, Professor of Economics at Princeton University, found that after Idaho passed a RTW law in 1985, there was a statistically-significant drop in nonunion wages relative to other states.6
Lawrence Mishel, President of the Economic Policy Institute, also measured the impact of RTW laws on wages.7 He found that workers living in RTW states earn 6.5% less than comparable workers living in non-RTW states. Even after controlling for regional costs of living, Mishel found that workers in RTW states earned less. He also found that for workers living in a RTW state on the border of a non-RTW state, being near a non-RTW state raises their wages.
If more states enact RTW laws, economic recovery is at risk
Our economy is dependent on consumer spending, and when workers don't have money in their pockets to spend, our economy suffers. According to recent remarks by Federal Reserve Chairmen Ben Bernanke, rising wages spur consumer spending and would "help sustain growth" in the economy.8 Yet if more states enact RTW legislation, research indicates that rather than generating more jobs, legislators risk depressing wages and impeding this economic recovery.
4 Hogler, Raymond, Steven Shulman and Stephan Weiler. 2004. "Right-to-Work Laws and Business Environments: An Analysis of State Labor Policy," Journal of Managerial Issues 16, No. 3: 289-304; Davis, Joe C., and John W. Huston. 1995. "Right-to-work laws and union density: New evidence from micro data," Journal of Labor Research 16:223-9; Garofalo, Gasper A., and Devinder M. Malhotra. 1992. "An integrated model of the economic effects of right-to-work laws," Journal of Labor Research 13:293- 305; Hirsch, Barry T. 1980. "The determinants of unionization: An analysis of inter-area differences," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 33:147-61; Carroll, Thomas M. 1983. "Right-to-work laws do matter," Southern Economic Journal 50:494-509.
5 Garofalo, 1992. 6 Farber, H.S. 2005. "Nonunion Wage Rates and the Threat of Unionization," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 58(3): 335-352. 7 Mishel, Lawrence. 2001. "The Wage Penalty of Right-to-Work Laws," Economic Policy Institute <http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_rtw_index> 8 "Bernanke Says Rising Wages Will Lift Spending," New York Times, 2 Aug 2010.

http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/EPI-RTWReport2011.pdf (http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/EPI-RTWReport2011.pdf)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:27:24 PM

The 2006 Indiana Right to Work Campaign
January, 2006
Jeff Vincent
Indiana University Division of Labor Studies
© 2006 IU-ISLS
The 2006 Indiana Right to Work Campaign Introduction
For more than 50 years, there has been a concerted effort to attack unions in so-called "right to work" (RTW) campaigns. The union-only shop was outlawed in 1947 and ever since, the National Right to Work Committee (NRTWC) and other special interests have been trying to further limit voluntary negotiations between unions and employers. In theory, the regulatory framework under U.S. labor law assures that bargaining between unions and employers is conducted in good faith. In practice, RTW deliberately weakens this system.
RTW laws undermine the most basic principles of collective bargaining. RTW activists insist that individual preferences always supersede majority rule. Under U.S. labor law, individual workers already have specific rights. They do not have to join unions, nor do they have to cover the costs of a union's political, legislative, social or charitable activities. In the 22 RTW states however, the law encourages workers to avoid paying for any union operating costs. Since unions have a legal duty to represent all workers in the bargaining unit, detaching contract administration from financial obligations is nothing but a conscious effort to restrict their bargaining power.
For the last three years, NRTWC and other anti-union organizations have been campaigning for RTW legislation in Indiana. This recent political activism is the end result of a century-long strategy to advance the open-shop movement. A major part of this initiative in Indiana and elsewhere is thwarting worker rights. RTW activists tout the "economic freedom," of the individual as one of their core principles. But whose freedom of choice is really at stake?
RTW activists claim to speak for workers by denouncing unions. What is it about unions that they don't like? It's simple: Unions raise wages and improve the work environment. RTW promises a few greedy employers more power to dictate wage rates and job conditions. Special interest groups also want to maintain their financial stake in the multi-billion dollar "union avoidance" industry. In short, RTW is nothing more than anti-union strategy disguised as economic development legislation.
RTW in Indiana -1-
A Short History
Funded by an extensive and largely secret financial network, anti- union organizations have slowly been gaining political power. Organizations like the NRTWC spend millions of dollars promoting the kind of free enterprise rhetoric that existed when employers called all the shots and workers had no voice on the job. The open shop movement itself has a long history in the United States. In the early 20th century, the movement promoted sweatshops and fought unions in the name of business competition. Today's RTW activists use much of the same divisive rhetoric to defend their agenda.
By World War I, the National Association of Manufacturers was losing the battle of public opinion over sweatshops, so it tried to equate union activism with treason. A series of anti-union propaganda posters was widely distributed in 1917 under the guise of assisting the war effort.1   Entering the 1920s, some employers successfully marshaled the power of government to roll back worker rights that had advanced during the war. The open shop movement issued its American Plan, which declared that enlightened employers made unions unnecessary. The decade saw the formation of hundreds of open-shop associations across the US whose express purpose was to thwart union organizing.
In the wake of this assault, a steady decline in union membership marked the era. The economy of the early 1920's was prosperous and "welfare capitalism" was practiced in many industries. Under this theory, benevolent employers provided everything workers would want. In practice, employers of the period continued to discriminate against union members and also refused to recognize unions, even when a majority of workers were members.
After WWII, the open shop movement immediately set about challenging the political consensus responsible for the worker rights legislation of the New Deal. Aggressive bargaining had been curtailed during the war and disparities between wage rates and profits resulted in a wave of strikes. Long-standing anti-union sentiments fed claims that unions were too powerful. Employers and special
1 For examples see WHi(X3)21423 and WHi(X3)46665, iconographic collections, State Historical Society of Wisconsin. For a first person description of business opposition to sweatshop regulation see also Florence Kelly The Autobiography of Florence Kelley: Notes of 60 Years, Charles H. Kerr, 1986
RTW in Indiana -2-
interest groups renewed their efforts to shape anti-union ideas and symbols. Advertising and public relations budgets skyrocketed as business organizations sought to reframe anti-unionism in terms of the public interest.
Groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce spent a considerable amount of money on public relations convincing politicians that unions threatened free enterprise. Lobbying for passage of the Taft-Hartley Act cost the National Association of Manufacturers alone over $3 million. 2 Their propaganda campaign ultimately was successful and open shop agenda gained significant momentum with the passage of the Taft- Hartley Act in 1947. The movement turned to RTW legislation and has been active in various states ever since.
The precipitous decline in union density and bargaining power which began during the previous decade perhaps symbolizes the final break with favorable New Deal policies toward worker rights. The original federal labor policy embodied in the 1935 Wagner Act encouraged collective bargaining as a work organization strategy. As Roy Adams asserts, the abandonment of this principle should be cause for concern:
One common belief is that the Wagner Act failed because the majority of employees decided that they preferred individual to collective bargaining. To accept the statement as true one must hold that employees prefer not to be involved by right in the establishment of policies that critically affect their working lives. They prefer instead to defer to a greater authority. If that is true then we should not rest content with the demise of collective bargaining as many employment relations experts would have us do. A widespread deferral to authority suggests that we have a serious political problem. We have a citizenry with authoritarian attitudes, and if that is so the very foundations of our democracy are at risk.3
Misleading Claims about Economic Benefits
In 2005, the NRTWC circulated a classic "boilerplate" study in Indiana promoting a RTW law as one of the most effective economic development tools available to policymakers.4 The study claims that RTW is "a simple policy reform" and attempts to prove that income
2 Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor
and Liberalism 1945-1960 University of Illinois Press, 1994. In today's dollars this
amount would be the equivalent of more than $30 million.
3 Roy J. Adams, "Universal Joint Regulation: A Moral Imperative," Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting, Industrial Relations Research Association, 1990
4 Boilerplate refers to a standardized template used repeatedly in other RTW campaigns, supplemented by economic data specific to the target state.
RTW in Indiana -3-
growth and expanded job opportunities are correlates of their anti- union agenda. 5 This agenda is captured succinctly in the report's primary economic claim that RTW laws "facilitate faster productivity growth, which is a key factor for improving employee earnings and employer profit."
The RTW literature makes no attempt to develop a systematic analysis of what workers themselves want and how their needs might differ from their employers. Instead, as the Indiana study declares, employers and workers benefit equally from "less burdensome taxes and bureaucratic red tape." This assertion appears to have a spurious correlation with RTW laws but is in fact, related to the effort to delegitimize union involvement in the employment relationship. The literature describing unions' impact on business competitiveness is ignored in favor of ideological assertions that an idealized meritocracy (where the employer unilaterally determines merit) is superior to collective bargaining for workers.
The NRTWC rhetoric against "Big Labor" and its association with "Bigger Government" are indicative of a specific bias based on political association. This approach is reflected in claims by the RTW ally, The Mackinac Institute, which argues that RTW forces union leaders to strive for "consensus" and direct negotiations toward their members' immediate interests.6 Drawing a similar conclusion, the Indiana study claims that RTW diminishes "union officials' ability to elect and reelect business hindering state and local politicians." By analogy, one might argue that individuals' voluntary tax contributions might force consensus among political leaders as well. However, in both cases, majority rule and the ability to vote incumbents out of office are direct and more effective methods of democratic representation.
State business climate rankings are another area where the special interests have promoted RTW. One of the tools used to attract new businesses to an area is the promotion of a favorable local "climate," i.e., specific factors thought to have an impact on site location decisions. The NRTWC's economic arguments are based on the rather nebulous claim that RTW policies are designed to create a friendly business climate. RTW assumes that non-union workers' lower wage rates create this more favorable climate.
5 Stan Greer, The Economic Benefits of an Indiana Right to Work Law, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, 2004 6 William T. Wilson The Effect of Right to Work Laws on Economic Development, 2002
RTW in Indiana -4-
Ideological biases against unions can be found in many business climate rankings. Promoting cheap labor is the main interest of RTW supporters when using these indexes. One group promoting RTW is the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) which produces the so- called U.S. Economic Freedom Index. The index supposedly measures "how friendly (or unfriendly) each state government is toward free enterprise and consumer choice." According to PRI, non- RTW states are "economically oppressive." 7
In one popular ranking, the Small Business Survival Index (SBSI), RTW is assumed to represent direct cost savings. The NRTWC goes so far as to assert that the SBSI "indicates that RTW status alone is an excellent predictor of overall business climate favorability." The SBSI is the creation of Raymond Keating, chief economist for the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council. The council was formerly called the Small Business Survival Committee. This name is now the title of the "activist and grassroots network" within SBSC, which claims 70,000 members. The council's mission is "to influence legislation and policies that help to create a favorable and productive environment for small businesses and entrepreneurship." They believe a union shop is one factor in "government-imposed or government-related costs impacting small businesses and entrepreneurs."
Keating believes that "unions are becoming obsolete." This vague assertion becomes a dubious statistical artifact in his index, which calculates the absence of a RTW law as a negative economic attribute. Keating states that the weakened role of unions in RTW states provides "a more dynamic, flexible workforce in the state, which translates into an amenable environment for increased productivity and improved efficiency."8 No evidence is offered to support this claim. In fact, the SBSO itself reveals the fallacy of this type of economic development thinking.
The actual state rankings on the SBSI do not remotely support the conclusions of the NRTWC. Indiana ranks 9th on the 2005 index. Also in the top 10 are non-RTW states Michigan (5), Washington (4), and Colorado (10). Most RTW states are ranked lower than Indiana on the SBSI index: South Carolina (12), Virginia (13), Tennessee (15), Arkansas (16), Arizona (17), Georgia (22), North Dakota (26), Oklahoma (29), Utah (30), Kansas (31), Nebraska (35), Louisiana (35), North Carolina (39) and Iowa (41).
7 Peter Fisher, Grading Places: What Do the Business Climate Rankings Really Tell Us? Economic Policy Institute, 2005 8 Available online: http://www.sbecouncil.org/FactOfWeek.asp?FormMode=Call&LinkType=Text&ID=65
RTW in Indiana -5-
Unions and Economic Development
The major data problem for RTW activists is their failure to articulate a robust theory explaining how weakening unions meets basic economic development goals. Indeed, these basic goals run counter to the RTW concept. Quite simply, economic development is a public good with a principal policy goal of producing a high and rising standard of living for all citizens.9 Adopting this theoretical perspective, at least one state business climate index reaches a very different conclusion about the role of workers in determining economic development strategies. The Work Environment Index (WEI), constructed by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, ranks states in terms of working conditions. PERI researchers found "the various business indexes do not measure business climate in consistent ways and do not produce even broadly similar rankings from state to state." An effort to correlate working conditions with business climate indexes found that states with good working conditions also provide an attractive economic climate for business.10
State and local governments have a whole range of options for economic competitiveness that do not rely on cheap labor availability. Successful outcomes for of economic development policies can be evaluated by measuring expansion of business activity and job creation. The determinants of business activity are widely documented and play an important part in shaping economic development policies.
By contrast, the assessment of job creation most often involves a simple summation of the number of jobs in local labor markets. Just as business vitality cannot be determined by counting firms, counting jobs is an insufficient measure of economic health. Job factors related to wages and salaries, overall quality of work, stability of the skilled labor force or long-term productive capacity are not important policy considerations for RTW activists.
The availability of critical labor resources is highly dependent on factors of supply and demand in local labor markets. Competitive businesses are attracted to and grow in areas where the highest value productive inputs can be obtained. Workers invest time and
9 Michael E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press 1990 10 James Heintz, Jeannette Wicks-Lim, Robert Pollin, Decent Work in America: The State by State Work Environment Index, 2005
RTW in Indiana -6-
money in education, anticipating this value being reflected in higher wages and salaries. Like other social contracts between workers and employers, this one stands on shaky ground.
While significant public investments are made to fund economic development activities, RTW policies represent a narrow and outdated strategy. They are based on thwarting worker rights and overtly favor capital over labor resources. RTW activists express a utopian optimism that their strategy will produce a high skill, high wage workforce. However, the RTW strategy does not necessarily provide positive net economic activity. Other labor resource factors which make important contributions to economic growth, especially high education and skill levels in the workforce, are inimical to low wage rates. Negative multiplier effects as a result of such strategies must be considered as well since once low wage workers are substituted for those earning higher wages, consumption and tax revenues decline. Wage rates are only one component of overall labor costs and it is likely that the unstable labor supply associated with low wages will increase inefficiencies and long-run costs.
Workers caught in the cycle of deindustrialization are advised to "go back to school." Vast resources are committed to support retraining but little attention is paid to market imbalances in terms of employer demand. The invisible hand of market forces does not raise the demand for skilled labor if the costs for individual employers outweigh the social benefits of training and education.11 Success in a global economy is dependent on the productivity of capital and labor resources. The economist Kenneth Arrow long ago recognized that the final outcome of any educational investments depended on the "cooperation" of the worker and private capital.12 By definition, every collective bargaining agreement represents a very specific and meaningful form of that cooperation.
The demarcation between managerial decision-making power and that of workers is a socio-historical process, not evidence of some natural law. Workers unquestionably have a stake in the health of any company and already hold considerable collective knowledge about the production process. Yet, they or their representatives seldom have any formal input on substantive business decisions. One
11 Joel Rogers, Vocational Training: Reflections on the European Experience and its Relevance for the U.S., Governor's Commission for a Quality Workforce (Wisconsin) 1990 12 Kenneth J. Arrow, "The Social Discount Rate" Cost Benefit Analysis of Manpower Policies, W. Donald Wood and Gerald G. Somers, eds., Industrial Relations Center, Queens University, 1969. See also, The Business Roundtable, Workforce Training and Development for U.S. Competitiveness, 1993.
RTW in Indiana -7-
of the strongest arguments against the RTW concept of unlimited management authority is that management doesn't know everything.
The marginalization of worker participation has far-reaching consequences and actually biases economic development policies in favor of low-skill, low-wage work. What is needed is an examination of new paradigms of worker and community participation in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of economic policy initiatives. Involving unions would represent a salutary departure from mainstream economic development practices.
If a rising standard of living is to be realized for everyone, Indiana's economic development policies must reflect the interests of a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Workers must be represented along with business and government organizations if high wage, high skill job creation will ever be realized. Unions remain a vital, if underutilized, competitive asset because they can give voice to ideas and concerns from workplaces and communities.13 The real challenge for contemporary economic policy is recognizing how worker decision-making can be built into the design and basic organization of work. If worker autonomy is truly valued over dependence, these policies will afford some manner of choice respecting production, including the development of skills and the use of technology. In all respects, RTW fails to do this.
What do the Data Show about RTW?
The NRTWC defines declining incomes as the economic policy problem facing Hoosier workers. However, RTW appears to be completely unrelated to the solution. Macroeconomic data show clearly and consistently that union workers earn more than their non- union counterparts. This fact is well known and is the reason why most workers indicate they would prefer a union job. Coercive measures to compel membership are not part of the union mission, despite the rhetoric of the RTW activists.
Are workers being misled by "Union Bosses?" More accurate explanations for the problem of declining incomes involve laissez- faire and other brutal doctrines of social darwinism that our society rejected long ago. But economic problems do not solve themselves. Long-term trends indicate that economic policies have been balanced on the backs of workers with little to show for it.
13 For a review of the literature see, Dale Belman, "Unions, the Quality of Labor Relations and Firm Performance," in Unions and Economic Competitiveness, Lawrence Mishel and Paula B. Voos, eds., M.E. Sharpe, 1992
RTW in Indiana -8-
Right to work legislation was a key component of the "southern strategy" of economic development. At one time, factories and jobs flowed from the north to the south because of comparative wage advantages. Even today, union membership is far lower in right to work states than elsewhere. So are wages and benefits for the average worker.
Whatever comparative wage advantages may have existed in the past, RTW states now are locked in the same process of deindustrialization that has decimated traditional middle-income union jobs. Manufacturing and information industries have traditionally provided higher wages and good benefits, so job losses in these sectors are worth noting. Even after a considerable amount of time has passed (60 years in some cases) RTW anti-union activism has not produced a favorable economic climate for workers. The data shown below clearly demonstrate this. As indicated below, RTW states are subject to the same forces of globalization as the union shop states. The RTW states are no more immune to deindustrialization than the rest of the U.S.
The adoption of a RTW law would be a fundamental step backwards for Indiana. Individual states cannot win the race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions. Union members, like all workers, are autonomous and independent citizens who are quite capable of protecting their own interests without the interference of RTW activists. Hoosier workers, left unhindered, will act to preserve the existing legal framework for union representation, something anathema to RTW. Rejecting RTW legislation creates an opportunity for labor, business and government to join together to solve the real problems Indiana workers face in the global economy.
RTW in Indiana -9-
Jobs Lost in Right to Work States 2002-2004
Date of   Manufacturing RTW Law   Jobs Lost
State %
Information Jobs Lost
%
Alabama   1953   15,504   5.0   2,885   8.4 Arizona   1947   7,408   4.0   3,967   7.6 Arkansas   1947   10,209   4.8   191   0.9 Florida   1944   17,519   4.3   10,561   5.9 Georgia   1947   19,154   4.1   12,942   9.8 Idaho   1986   3,145   4.9   +778   +8.5 Iowa   1947   4,334   1.9   1,562   4.4 Kansas   1958   4,575   2.5   9,082   17.9 Louisiana   1976   8,749   5.4   +703   +2.4 Mississippi   1954   8,445   4.5   1,498   9.3 Nebraska   1947   4,552   4.3   3,245   13.1 Nevada   1951   +3,192   +7.5   2,076   12.2 North Carolina   1947   63,787   9.9   6,560   8.3 North Dakota   1947   +895   3.8   230   2.9 Oklahoma   2001   9.762   6.4   3,749   10.6 South Carolina   1954   22,681   7.8   1,896   6.7 South Dakota   1947   +471   +1.2   78   1.1 Tennessee   1947   15,722   3.7   2,935   5.7 Texas   1947   60,235   6.3   23,043   9.3 Utah   1955   +837   +0.7   792   2.7 Virginia   1947   22,188   6.9   5,582   5.3 Wyoming   1963   Not available   -   not available   -
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
RTW in Indiana -10-
Workers Lose Wages Under Right to Work
$800
A $700
v
e r $600
a g e $500
W e $400 e k
l $300 y
W $200 a
g e $100
$0
Union States RTW States
All Workers
Women Workers
Black/African American Workers
Hispanic/Latino Workers
Asian Workers
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
RTW in Indiana -11-
Workers Lose Wages in Right to Work States
$740 $720 $700 $680
Average Weekly $660
Wage
$640 $620 $600 $580 $560
Union Shop States
RTW States
Indiana
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Families Lose Income in Right to Work States
Median Family Income
$58,000 $56,000 $54,000 $52,000 $50,000 $48,000 $46,000 $44,000
Union Shop States
RTW States
Indiana
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
RTW in Indiana -12-
What Workers Lose Under Right to Work
17.3%
16.8%
18.0%
17.5%
17.0%
16.5%
16.0%
15.5%
15.0%
Weekly Wage Cut
Annual Family Income Loss
Estimates based on Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
RTW in Indiana -13-
Economic Activity is Lower in Right to Work States
Average Gross State Product (in billions)
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Union Shop States
RTW States
Indiana
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
RTW in Indiana -14-
Basic Living Standards are Lower in Right to Work States
90% 89% 88% 87% 86% 85% 84% 83% 82% 81% 80%
Union Shop States RTW States Indiana
Above Poverty
Health Insurance Coverage
HS Education or Above
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
RTW in Indiana -15-

http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/2006%20IN%20RTW%20Campaign.pdf (http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/2006%20IN%20RTW%20Campaign.pdf)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 01:31:40 PM

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:32:16 PM

http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/RTWDataZone.pdf (http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/RTWDataZone.pdf)
The Wage Penalty of "Right-to-Work" Laws
by Lawrence Mishel
The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (1935) sanctioned a state's right to pass laws that prohibit unions from requiring a worker to pay dues, even when the worker is covered by a union -negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Within a couple of years of the ammendment's passage, 12 states passed these so-called "right-to-
work" (RTW) laws, as did many other states in the intervening years.1 Although there has been an extensive amount of research on the effect of right-to-work laws on union density, organizing efforts, and industrial development (see Moore (1998) and Moore and Newman (1985) for literature overviews), there has been surprisingly little examination of the perhaps more important issue of right-to-work laws' effect on wages.
The limited amount of research that does examine the effect of right -to -work laws on wages can be divided into two areas: RTW laws effects on union wage premiums or the average effects of these laws on wages. Our research focuses on the latter. Since right -to-work laws affect union density and effectiveness (Farber 1985), the effect of the union wage premium is not easily disentangled from the effects of RTW legislation. Our analysis tried to overcome the shortcomings in previous research in this area. First, we control for differences in cost of living throughout the United States, thereby making comparable wages in various parts of the country. Secondly, we examine how metropolitan areas located in both right-to-work and non-right-to-work states affect wages.
We find that the mean effect of working in a right -to-work state results in a 6% to 8% reduction in wages for workers in these states, with an average wage penalty of 6.5%. Controlling for regional costs of living reduces this amount to approximately 4%. We find that previous research reporting real wage gains associated with right-to-work states is almost purely the result of border cities that benefit from their proximity to a non-RTW state.
Data and Analysis
To determine the effect of right -to-work laws on wages we estimate log wage equations using the Bureau of Labor Statistic's current population survey- outgoing rotation group (CPS-ORG) data for 2000. The sample consists of 152,576 prime age workers, ages 18 -64, who earn wages or salaries. Average hourly wages for the sample were $15.54, and median hourly wages were $12.25. Median wages for workers living in right -to-work states were $11.45, while wages for those living in non -RTW states were $13.00, indicating that wages were 11.9% lower in RTW states.
Whether this wage disadvantage in these states is due to RTW laws can only be determined by controlling for other characteristics. To this end, we specify wage regressions (Model 1) that control for the following personal and geographic characteristics: race/ethnicity, age, age squared, marital status, sex, education, urbanicity, employed full-time, hourly worker, union status, industry (22 categories), and occupation (13 categories). A second set of regression results (Model 2) controls for state of residence, which should
The Wage Penalty of "Right-to-Work" Laws | EPI DataZone
control all the characteristics of a state-other than its RTW status-that differ from other states, including cost-of-living. A third set of results (Model 3)
controls for differences in intra-state and inter-state costs of living. 2 Our regression results follow Dumond, Hirsch, and MacPherson's (1999) specification of the regional cost of living controls. However, we have limited confidence in these estimates, since there is no universally accepted method of adjusting for regional costs of living, and it is impossible to test the accuracy of using an index based on fair market rents. In each model the mean effect is estimated using a simple indicator variable for right-to-work states.
Our first set of regression results indicate that workers living in right -to -work states earn 6.5% less than comparable workers in non-RTW states. This regression model essentially compares workers with similar demographics (education, age, race, etc.) and occupations within an industry across the two types of states, those with RTW laws and those without. The second regression model controls for different state effects not captured by industry and occupation, partially capturing price differences between states. These results indicate that a worker living in a right-to-work state earns, on average, 7.8% less than a comparable worker in a non-RTW state. The final regression model compares workers with similar demographic, industry and occupations but also controls for cost of living using an index of the fair market rents. These results indicate that, on average, a worker living in a right -to -work state earns 3.8 % less than a worker living in a non -RTW state. Estimates from this last regression model, however, are suspect given the lack of an established series for controlling for regional, inter-state, or intra-state costs of living (see Table 1). Our best estimate is that workers living in right-to-work states earn, on average, 6.5% less than similar workers in non-RTW states.
An analysis along gender lines reveals similar trends. On average, men in RTW states earn 7.8% less than their counterparts in non-RTW states; women in RTW states earn 6.8% less (Table 2).
Unlike previous research by Bennett (2001), we find that, even after controlling for regional costs of living, workers in right -to-work states earn less per hour. Particularly interesting is the affect on workers living in cities that are stretch across state line, placing it in both a right-to-work state and a non-RTW state. Seventeen out of 433 metropolitan areas in our sample (nearly 4%) spill over from a right-to-work state to a non-RTW state. Our analysis indicates that, in areas where a pure RTW state effect exists (i.e., no spill-over effect), the right- to -work penalty is larger (see Table 3). In fact, we find that living near a non -
RTW state helps raise workers' wages. 3
There may be reasons why states choose to adopt right -to-work laws that this analysis fails to address. It may be that the wage structure or industry mix within a state helps determine why state legislatures or voters adopt right-to- work laws. To control for this, we estimate a series of regressions that model a state's decision to adopt right -to-work. Both Wessels (1981) and Moore et al. (1986) have designed models that consider the endogeneity of right-to-work law, and find that "once the influence of wages in the passage of RTW laws is accounted for, RTW laws have no independent effect on wages" (Moore 1998, 459). We estimate the probability of a state passing a RTW law using mean and median wages as well as other state-level demographic characteristics. We then use these estimated values in a two-stage least -squares estimation. Even after correcting for endogeneity in this way, we find that RTW laws have statistically significant and negative impacts on workers living in right-to-work states.
Conclusion
The Wage Penalty of "Right-to-Work" Laws | EPI DataZone
The most important aspect of right -to-work law is its effect on wages. That there have only been a handful of studies directly assessing the impact of these laws on workers' earnings is surprising. What research there is on the subject is mixed, with findings critically dependent on model specification. Unlike most research up to this point, this analysis focuses on the impact of regional costs of living and finds that workers living in RTW states earn significantly less than workers living in non-RTW states. We also find that care must be taken in examining the true effect of right-to-work legislation.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the effect of RTW legislation can be found in those metropolitan areas that occupy both RTW and non-RTW states. In these cases, estimating the effects separately indicates that workers living in these metropolitan areas are helped by the higher earnings typical of the non- RTW state.
Endnotes
1. Currently the following states have right -to -work laws: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming.
2. Inter -state and intra-state cost of living controls are based on the Department of Housing and Urban Development "Fair Market Rents" for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). We use the 45th percentile in each MSA.
3. To test the robustness of these results, we estimate a model that combines both state-level indicators, regional indicators, and costs of living variables as well as all the control variables listed in model (1). In this combined model we find that both the pure right-to-work effect and the total right-to-work effect are - 1.9% and -1.7%, respectively; in neither case are the estimates statistically different from zero. As with other estimates that include a measure of cost of living (COL), we find these estimates to be sensitive to the particular COL measure and unreliable since we have no faith in any particular measure of COL.
References
Bennett, J.T. 2001. Right To Work - Prescription for Prosperity and Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Labor Relations Research. Dumond,
J.M., B.T. Hirsch, and D.A. MacPherson. 1999. Wage Differentials Across Labor Markets and Workers: Does Cost of Living Matter? Economic Inquiry. Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 577-98.
Farber, H. S. 1985. "The Extent of Unionization in the United States." in Thomas Kochan, ed., Challenges and Choices Facing American Unions Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Moore, W. J., and R.J. Newman. 1985. The Effects of Fright -to-Work Laws: A Review of the Literature. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 571 -85.
Moore, W.J. 1998. The Determinants and Effects of Right -To-Work Laws: A Review of the Recent Literature. Journal of Labor Research Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 449-69.
Moore, W.J., J.A. Dunlevy, and R.J. Newman. 1986. Do Right -to -Work Laws Matter? Comment. Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 515 -24.
Wessels, W.J. 1981. Economic Effects of Right to Work Laws. Journal of Labor Research. Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 55-75.
The Wage Penalty of "Right-to-Work" Laws | EPI DataZone
Table 1. Right-to-Work Differential
Model   Model   Model 123
Mean Effect   -6.50%   -7.80%   -3.80% t-statistic   -27.1   -2.51   -15.22
(1) model has no state controls (see above for regressors), but controls for worker characteristics. (2) model adds state controls (3) model with MSA level cost of living controls
Table 2. Estimates of Mean Effect of RTW states for Men and Women:
male
Mean Effect   -6.10% t-statistic   -17.74
female
-6.80% -20.79
male
-7.80% -1.82
female
-6.80% -20.79
male
-3.70% -10.42
female
-3.70% -11.01
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
(1) model has no state controls (see above for regressors), but controls for worker characteristics. (2) model adds state controls (3) model with MSA level cost of living controls
Table 3. Right-to-Work Differential – Pure Right-to-Work Effect.
Model   Model   Model 123
Mean Effect   -6.8   -11.7   -4.1 t-statistic   -28.09   -4.11   -16.07
(1) model has no state controls (see above for regressors), but controls for worker characteristics. (2) model adds state controls (3) model with MSA level cost of living controls

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:35:25 PM

Role of National Right to Work in the Anti-Union Network
National Right to Work is the country's oldest organization dedicated solely to destroying unions. Its network consists of four organizations that share leadership, offices, resources and staff, all with the common goal of undermining workers' freedom of association. To carry out this mission, the National Right to Work Committee employs over 200 staff to lobby, fundraise, distribute propaganda, and interfere with workers' union organizing efforts, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation employs nearly 50 staff for its litigation efforts.1

While the organization has doggedly pursued an anti-union agenda for a half century, its public profile has recently been eclipsed by the big-budget anti-union front group the Center for Union Facts .

Does National Right to Work have anything to do with right-to-work laws?
When anti-union ideologues lost an effort to enact a national law weakening unions, they created the National Right to Work Committee in 1955 to pass such laws at the state level. The group's single-minded focus of doing away with unions was as unambiguous then, as it is today, however the name it shares with the very legislation it was created to pass, is purposely confusing. For more background on this deceptively-titled legislation, click here .

What is the True Agenda Behind National Right to Work?
Does National Right to Work advocate on behalf of workers?
The group claims to be a "worker advocate."2 But the organization doesn't concern itself with improving workers' job conditions, benefits, or treatment. An examination of press releases issued by the National Right to Work Foundation between 2003 and 2005 reveals there was no discussion by the group of improving benefits for workers, better working conditions, or workplace dignity; and only one reference to increasing wages. There were, however, 267 negative references to unions.

"The terrorist could then use his influence with the union to make it easier for a terrorist colleague to board a plane or to get a bomb through baggage screening."
- National Right to Work's warning that an airport screeners' union could be infiltrated by terrorists32

If National Right to Work is really advocating for workers, why is does it refuse to disclose its donors?
Whose interests are they really fighting for? The funding trail that exists points to anti-union businesses:3
A lawsuit revealed that 84 percent of the National Right to Work Committee's 1973 budget was funded by corporations, and other employers.4
Early known donors include:

Wofford Camp who served on a U.S. Chamber of Commerce committee and was a California grower who fought efforts by farm workers to organize unions.5
Roger Milliken, former president of Milliken & Company, who shut down one of his southern textile plants as retaliation against his employees' vote to form a union.6
The Foundation bragged that "over 350 Presidents and Chairmen of the Board listed in Dun & Bradstreet's Directory of Million Dollar Corporations," were associated with it.7
Anti-union companies indirectly fund National Right to Work through foundations. The network has received major grants from the Walton Family Foundation (funded with profits from Wal-Mart), Castle Rock Foundation (funded with profits from Coors beer), and Publix Super Markets Charities.8
The group's original leadership also suggests an anti-union agenda shaped by the interest of employers. For instance, the Committee's first chairman of the board was Edwin Dillard, president of Old Dominion Box Company, who vehemently fought his workers' efforts to organize his company's plants in the South.9 Fred Hartley, the Committee's first president, was the former Congressman who sponsored the Taft-Hartley Act amending the National Labor Relations Act to expand employers' rights, not workers.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/national-right-to-work/national-right-to-work.html (http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/national-right-to-work/national-right-to-work.html)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 01:40:42 PM

It appears to me that you want to post lengthy articles...and bury the plain and simple truth of this bill....let's not make more out of it than it is.

American Rights at Work Education Fund is an outreach organization dedicated to promoting the freedom of workers to form unions and bargain collectively.

HUH, go figure... :rolleyes:

bump!

All Gov Walker is wanting to do is:

• Restricts public employees from negotiating everything except their wage

• Does not affect police and fire workers

• Limits wage increases to the rate of inflation

• Requires any larger wage increase to be approved by referendum

• Requires public employees to pay 5.8 percent of their pensions and 12 percent of their health care benefits

• Requires that collective bargaining units take annual votes to maintain certification as a union

• Prohibits employers from collecting union dues

• Releases members of collective bargaining units from dues paying requirements

• Authorizes restructuring of principal payments in the current budget for general obligation bonds, reducing debt payment costs by $165 million

• Increases general revenue for Medicaid to cover an estimated $153 million deficit

• Provides $22 million to address shortfalls in the prisons budget

• Authorizes the Department of Administration to sell state heating plants, with the net proceeds deposited in the budget stabilization fund

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: me on March 10, 2011, 01:44:24 PM

I'm afraid your point is going to be a moot point if teachers are laid off because the state can't afford to pay them. What will be gained by that? The union doesn't care because the laid off teacher still has to pay dues.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:46:10 PM

Lengthy articles that contain the details that support my view that ALL of this RTW legislation being forced upon the citizens of this state and others, is WRONG!

It is documented, proven, and FACTUAL information that has been compiled by respected professional and educational institutions of higher learning.

But as usual, you won't read it, much less give it any consideration what so ever. You just roll your eyes and push forward with the job killing, worker killing, quality of life killing, wage killing, propaganda being proliferated by the corporate shill republicans! :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:47:00 PM

Quote from: me on March 10, 2011, 01:44:24 PM
. . . The union doesn't care because the laid off teacher still has to pay dues.

Source????

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:50:14 PM

http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/whatRTWmeanstoIUCI.pdf (http://www.union1.org/badforindiana/PDF%20Files/whatRTWmeanstoIUCI.pdf)

The above was written by the trades that will DIRECTLY and NEGATIVELY impact the work YOU do!

If Union electricians and builders don't build or flee the state, how well do you think your company is going to be doing in 18 months? Think you'll still have a job? I highly doubt it. . .

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:53:56 PM

Madison, Wisconsin (CNN) -- Throngs of protesters gathered in Madison, Wisconsin, Thursday, pounding on the windows of the state legislature one day after the Senate passed an amended form of a controversial bill that curtails the bargaining rights of most state workers.
Their actions prompted Capitol police to close the building and forcibly remove demonstrators inside who refused to leave. Police later re-opened one entrance of the building.
"These arrogant actions are what I had a nightmare about last night," said Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, a Democrat, who called the lockdown an "outrage.". . .

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/10/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/10/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1)

Right now I have visions of Kent State running through my head. Anybody else believe it is going to eventually come to just such a result in Wisconsin? :spooked:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: me on March 10, 2011, 02:06:05 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:53:56 PM
Madison, Wisconsin (CNN) -- Throngs of protesters gathered in Madison, Wisconsin, Thursday, pounding on the windows of the state legislature one day after the Senate passed an amended form of a controversial bill that curtails the bargaining rights of most state workers.
Their actions prompted Capitol police to close the building and forcibly remove demonstrators inside who refused to leave. Police later re-opened one entrance of the building.
"These arrogant actions are what I had a nightmare about last night," said Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, a Democrat, who called the lockdown an "outrage.". . .

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/10/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/10/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1)

Right now I have visions of Kent State running through my head. Anybody else believe it is going to eventually come to just such a result in Wisconsin? :spooked:

Obama needs to get those people calmed down before it gets any further out of hand. Can you imagine the stink that would be raised it this were the Republican's or Tea Party people doing this?

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:07:15 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:46:10 PM
But as usual, you won't read it, much less give it any consideration what so ever. You just roll your eyes and push forward with the job killing, worker killing, quality of life killing, wage killing, propaganda being proliferated by the corporate shill republicans! :rolleyes:

any proof? Quit assuming you know what I read and don't read.....you are so ate up with your "sterotypical" corporate republican hatred...YOU refuse to even entertain what is really going on in WI.

I guess it is okay for me to assume what you think, since you are okay with assuming what I think and read.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:09:54 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 01:53:56 PM
Madison, Wisconsin (CNN) -- Throngs of protesters gathered in Madison, Wisconsin,

who was bussed in by unions from all over the country...

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/ny-unions-bus-in-hundreds-of-protesters-to-madison/ (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/ny-unions-bus-in-hundreds-of-protesters-to-madison/)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:11:51 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:07:15 PM
any proof? . . .

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 01:40:42 PM

HUH, go figure... :rolleyes:

bump!

All Gov Walker is wanting to do is:

. . .

Enough said.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:14:39 PM

Quote from: me on March 10, 2011, 02:06:05 PM
Obama needs to get those people calmed down before it gets any further out of hand. Can you imagine the stink that would be raised it this were the Republican's or Tea Party people doing this?

WHY exactly, is it the responsibility of the POTUS to impose federal authority upon the dealings of the state?

The state will just activate those units of the National Guard not currently deployed in the middle east.
Watch. . . Kent State all over again. . .

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:17:06 PM

bump.

Here are some examples of WHY I think they suck!!!

(http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/rant.gif)

No Volunteer Crossing Guards Allowed
A Wausau public employee union filed a grievance to prohibit a local volunteer from serving as a school crossing guard. The 86-year-old lives just two blocks away and serves everyday free of charge.

Principal Steve Miller says, "He said, you know, this gives me a reason to get up in the morning to come and help these kids in the neighborhood."

But for a local union that represents crossing guards, it isn't that simple. Representatives didn't want to go on camera but say if a crossing guard is needed, then one should be officially hired by the city.

Source: WAOW-TV, 1/27/10 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=11891208)
$6,000 Extra for Carrying a Pager
Some state employees, due to the nature of their positions, are required to carry pagers during off-duty hours in order to respond to emergency situations. Due to the collective bargaining agreements, these employees are compensated an extra five hours of pay each week, whether they are paged or not.

For an employee earning an average salary of $50,000 per year, this requirement can cost more than $6,000 in additional compensation.

Source: 2008-09 Agreement between the State of Wisconsin and AFSCME Council 24

Arbitrator Reinstates Porn-Watching Teacher
A Cedarburg school teacher was reinstated by an arbitrator after being fired for viewing pornography on a school computer. The school district ultimately succeeded in terminating the teacher only after taking the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayers.

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/23/08 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.jsonline.com/news/32598479.html)
'Outstanding First Year Teacher' Laid Off
Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit.

Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, "Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers.

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/14/10 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/96349689.html)

Union Opposes Cost-Saving Lawn Mowing Program
As a cost cutting measure, Racine County began using county inmates to cut the grass in medians and right-of-ways at no cost to the taxpayers. A county employee union filed a grievance indicating it was the right of government workers to cut the grass, even though it would cost the taxpayers dramatically more.

Source: Racine Journal Times, 5/12/10 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_6a940044-5e23-11df-91a0-001cc4c03286.html)

A Year's Worth of Pay for 30 Days of Work
Under the Green Bay School District's collectively bargained Emeritus Program, teachers can retire and receive a year's worth of salary for working only 30 days over a three year period. This is paid in addition to their already guaranteed pension and health care payouts.

Source: WLUK-TV, 3/3/11 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/140-green-bay-teachers-looking-to-retire)

The $150,000 Bus Driver
In 2009, the City of Madison's highest paid employee was a bus driver who earned $159,258, including $109,892 in overtime, guaranteed by a collective bargaining agreement. In total, seven City of Madison bus drivers made more than $100,000 per year in 2009.

"That's the (drivers') contract," said Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson.

Source: Wisconsin State Journal, 2/7/10 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_24af32d4-13f4-11df-86b2-001cc4c002e0.html)

$150,000 Correctional Officers
Correctional Officer collective bargaining agreements allow officers a practice known as "sick leave stacking." Officers can call in sick for a shift, receiving 8 hours of sick pay, and then are allowed to work the very next shift, earning time-and-a-half for overtime. This results in the officer receiving 2.5 times his or her rate of pay, while still only working 8 hours.

In part because of these practices, 13 correctional officers made more than $100,000 in 2009, despite earning base wages of less than $60,000 per year. The officers received an average of $66,000 in overtime pay for an average annual salary of more than $123,000 with the highest paid receiving $151,181.

Source: Department of Corrections

Previously the Governors office released these examples of the fiscal impact of collective bargaining:

Paid-Time off for Union Activities
In Milwaukee County alone, because the union collectively bargained for paid time off, fourteen employees receive salary and benefits for doing union business. Of the fourteen, three are on full-time release for union business. Milwaukee County spent over $170,000 in salary alone for these employees to only participate in union activities such as collective bargaining.

Surrender of Management Rights
Because of collecting bargaining, unions have included provisions in employee contracts that have a direct fiscal impact such as not allowing management to schedule workers based on operational needs and requiring notice and approval by the union prior to scheduling changes. As County Executive Walker attempted to reduce work hours based on budget pressures and workload requirements by instituting a 35 hour work week to avoid layoffs, which the union opposed. Additionally, government cannot explore privatization of functions that could save taxpayers money.

WEA Trust
Currently many school districts participate in WEA trust because WEAC collectively bargains to get as many school districts across the state to participate in this union run health insurance plan as possible. Union leadership benefits from members participating in this plan. If school districts enrolled in the state employee health plan, it would save school districts up to $68 million per year. Beyond that if school districts had the flexibility to look for health insurance coverage outside of WEA trust or the state plan, additional savings would likely be realized.

Viagra for Teachers
The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association (MTEA) tried to use a policy established by collective bargaining to obtain health insurance coverage that specifically paid for Viagra. Cost to taxpayers is $786,000 a year.

Reference: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/milwaukee-schools-ban-viagra-teachers-union-sues-discrimination/story?id=11378595 (https://email.journalbroadcastgroup.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://abcnews.go.com/Health/milwaukee-schools-ban-viagra-teachers-union-sues-discrimination/story?id=11378595)

Unrealistic Overtime Provisions
On a state level, the Department of Corrections allows correctional workers who call in sick to collect overtime if they work a shift on the exact same day. The specific provision that allows this to happen was collectively bargained for in their contract. Cost to taxpayers $4.8 million.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:19:45 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:09:54 PM

who was bussed in by unions from all over the country...

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/ny-unions-bus-in-hundreds-of-protesters-to-madison/ (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/ny-unions-bus-in-hundreds-of-protesters-to-madison/)

So? The Tea Party does the very same thing ALL of the time!

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:22:50 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:19:45 PM
So? The Tea Party does the very same thing ALL of the time!

I just pointed out an observation, that's all.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:32:30 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:22:50 PM
I just pointed out an observation, that's all.

Uh huh. . .

So how many did they bus to the Indiana Statehouse today to swell the ranks to 8,000?

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110310/NEWS05/110310007/Republicans-corporations-targets-union-rally?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|IndyStar.com (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110310/NEWS05/110310007/Republicans-corporations-targets-union-rally?odyssey=mod%7Cbreaking%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:51:13 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:32:30 PM
Uh huh. . .

So how many did they bus to the Indiana Statehouse today to swell the ranks to 8,000?

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110310/NEWS05/110310007/Republicans-corporations-targets-union-rally?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|IndyStar.com (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110310/NEWS05/110310007/Republicans-corporations-targets-union-rally?odyssey=mod%7Cbreaking%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com)

Out the 25,000, the THOUGHT was coming?..............there are plenty of rumors that Ohio and Ill was sending in some troops. Also, it was "highly" suggested by IBEW, it's members to attend.....

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:52:04 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:51:13 PM
Out the 25,000, the THOUGHT was coming?..............there are plenty of rumors that Ohio and Ill was sending in some troops. Also, it was "highly" suggested by IBEW, it's members to attend.....

Hearsay . . . :rolleyes:

The fact is, whatever is happening in Wisconsin is going to happen right here too. You can take that to the bank. . .

And those Tea Parties aren't going to be immune from it either. . .

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:53:32 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:52:04 PM
Hearsay . . . :rolleyes:

roll your eyes, that is fine with me....I know, I work with these guys. I have had plenty of discussions with them.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:55:20 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:52:04 PM
Hearsay . . . :rolleyes:

The fact is, whatever is happening in Wisconsin is going to happen right here too. You can take that to the bank. . .

and this WILL be a good thing for hoosiers.....except those who are public employees and NOW, they will be on a level playing field with the rest of us....and the taxpayer will be the winners.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:56:19 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:53:32 PM
roll your eyes, that is fine with me....I know, I work with these guys. I have had plenty of discussions with them.

Enjoy it while it lasts, because you know as well as I do that the legislation under consideration in this state is going to serve to slash the throats of every single one of those guys and send them to the social assistance roles. . .[

The fact is, whatever is happening in Wisconsin is going to happen right here too. You can take that to the bank. . .

And those Tea Parties aren't going to be immune from it either. . .

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:57:26 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:55:20 PM
and this WILL be a good thing for hoosiers.....except those who are public employees and NOW, they will be on a level playing field with the rest of us....and the taxpayer will be the winners.

No, it won't. When it impacts you personally, and it WILL, you will sing another tune. (You heard it here first folks so mark the date and take notes).

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:59:43 PM

Seriously Henry, your stance on all of this has me very worried about you. Anyone else working in an industry that relies on UNION trades for their well being is shaking in their boots over this. They see clearly that this legislation will mark the end of their livelihoods. Why don't you see that????

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 03:11:07 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 02:59:43 PM
Seriously Henry, your stance on all of this has me very worried about you. Anyone else working in an industry that relies on UNION trades for their well being is shaking in their boots over this. They see clearly that this legislation will mark the end of their livelihoods. Why don't you see that????

I have talked to several Palehorse, I was not born yesterday. This is nothing more than a power ploy by the unions to scare it's masses. This is all about the teachers union. It is a reality check for some of these private unions who have been getting fat for years now. It is time to stop the abuse on the taxpayers. The only thing this will do to the IBEW is remind them of what happens when you get too greedy. There will be some negotiating ONCE the dems come back....The pendulam has got to swing back. It has been stuck on one side for too long.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 03:14:25 PM

btw, we do not HAVE to use union trades. We do so because they are good workers, well trained and are some of the best. I have no problem with the IBEW, except they are making it difficult for us to compete in the market, because it costs us more every contract time...the want more and more and more EVERY year.....even though the rest of the working class is cutting back.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 03:16:15 PM

Maybe it IS time for the POTUS to get involved.... :rant:

Capitol Chaos: Lawmakers Get Death Threats

MADISON - The State Department of Justice confirms that it is investigating several death threats against a number of lawmakers in response to the legislature's move to strip employees of many collective bargaining rights.
Among the threats the Justice Department is investigationg is one that was emailed to Republican Senators Wednesday night. Newsradio 620 WTMJ has obtained that email.

The following is the unedited email:
Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes
will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain
to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it
will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit
that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for
more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in
the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me
have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that
support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing
with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand
for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many
others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.
We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a
nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave
it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the
message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are
now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a
demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed
in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.
This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't
tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are
not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided
to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's
necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making
them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families
and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please
understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked
everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel
that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives
of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and
say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!
Reply Reply to all Forward

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 03:26:30 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 03:11:07 PM
I have talked to several Palehorse, I was not born yesterday. This is nothing more than a power ploy by the unions to scare it's masses. This is all about the teachers union. It is a reality check for some of these private unions who have been getting fat for years now. It is time to stop the abuse on the taxpayers. The only thing this will do to the IBEW is remind them of what happens when you get too greedy. There will be some negotiating ONCE the dems come back....The pendulam has got to swing back. It has been stuck on one side for too long.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 03:14:25 PM
btw, we do not HAVE to use union trades. We do so because they are good workers, well trained and are some of the best. I have no problem with the IBEW, except they are making it difficult for us to compete in the market, because it costs us more every contract time...the want more and more and more EVERY year.....even though the rest of the working class is cutting back.

Man, you are so misinformed. . . Remember, you are talking to a guy who HATED unions and everything they stand for. . . until I moved to Indiana.

In states like Illinois, unions are redundant and that served to fuel my perspectives on them. Once I moved here, and realized Indiana's "at will" status unfairly stacked the deck against the workers at all levels, I began to realize the ONLY safe haven for workers in this state is the union. It changed my mind it is so bad in this state.

I don't disagree that there are abuses in the system; on BOTH sides, and it ranges from unreasonable wage demands to selling out the future of a company via unreasonable concessions made for short range success. But IMHO selling out all unions and all workers in the state, by undermining the validity and negotiating power of all unions is akin to slitting our own throats. It provides additional power to the corporation/owner in an environment that ALREADY provides them an unacceptable level of power to begin with. Power that they abuse across the board in this state.

You may not see it within your company yet, but mark my words you will if things continue as they are going now. You've been lucky thus far, but even luck has its limitations. . . And when the company you work for begins to see they are going to HAVE to make some hard choices, it will be no more Mr. Nice Guy. . . And the mask will come off.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 03:41:06 PM

Palehorse AGAIN, this whole deal is about public unions. Teachers in particular. All the hype is brought on by the private unions. They are fearful they are next. That is not the case though.

The fact is, there should be NO person who wants to work for the State, a teacher in particular, that should be forced to join and forced to pay union dues. Also, the fact that the Gov now wants them to pay a small portion of THEIR pension and Healthcare, to keep from laying off more teachers. THIS is a problem that many taxpayers want fixed.

Private Unions have no immediate ramifications from this. NONE!

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 03:44:02 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 03:16:15 PM
Maybe it IS time for the POTUS to get involved.... :rant:

Capitol Chaos: Lawmakers Get Death Threats

MADISON - The State Department of Justice confirms that it is investigating several death threats against a number of lawmakers in response to the legislature's move to strip employees of many collective bargaining rights.
Among the threats the Justice Department is investigationg is one that was emailed to Republican Senators Wednesday night. Newsradio 620 WTMJ has obtained that email.

The following is the unedited email:
Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes
will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain
to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it
will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit
that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for
more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in
the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me
have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that
support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing
with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand
for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many
others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.
We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a
nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave
it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the
message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are
now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a
demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed
in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.
This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't
tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are
not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided
to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's
necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making
them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families
and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please
understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked
everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel
that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives
of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and
say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!
Reply Reply to all Forward

Why? It is an internal issue within the state, and the state's responsibility to address within the constricts of the law.

When you mess with people's livelihoods, especially in times as severely depressed as these, you just cannot expect them to roll over and take it. . . (Not that I am condoning or in any way supporting this action mind you).

The above merely serves to accentuate the level of emotional rage the people of the state of Wisconsin feel over what their elected officials are trying to ram down their throats!

I wonder if those who have been newly elected would have been successful in obtaining office had they disclosed the fact that this was one of their intentions?

I wonder why, if these elected officials feel so strongly that this needs to be passed, why they do not put it to a yes/no vote by the people of the state?

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 03:47:48 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 03:41:06 PM
Palehorse AGAIN, this whole deal is about public unions. Teachers in particular. All the hype is brought on by the private unions. They are fearful they are next. That is not the case though.

The fact is, there should be NO person who wants to work for the State, a teacher in particular, that should be forced to join and forced to pay union dues. Also, the fact that the Gov now wants them to pay a small portion of THEIR pension and Healthcare, to keep from laying off more teachers. THIS is a problem that many taxpayers want fixed.

Private Unions have no immediate ramifications from this. NONE!

Yep. That would be the exact validation they are using to bust the unions in the states.

But, the fact of the matter is that when this happens, corporate Amerika will be stampeding to obtain the very same ability in private industry, and since 90+% of our elected representation is in the back pocket of corporate Amerika, do you really have to ask which way that is going to go?

Lemme ask you this, what ever happened to living within your means? Leave it as it is and lay off!

The fact is in the state of Wisconsin teachers and all public workers had agreed to concessions in order to avoid teacher layoffs, but the republicans chose instead to enact union busting legislation.

And by the way, federal law ALREADY covers the point of being "forced into a union or to pay dues", by making it illegal to be done. So WHY does ANY state feel this is necessary? If it is being done, then there is a federal law against it under which they can be prosecuted. Why the redundancy??????

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 10, 2011, 03:55:06 PM

What I would like to see is more Republicans and Teabaggers with a heart. For these people to have a heart, caring about other people, caring for poor people, widows and orphans. Caring about less intelligent people, than they think they are. These people that would want their fellow men and women to have a good job, make good money and wanting to have good health care.

But what we have how and you can see it every day right here on the Zone. Is that they only care about themselves, not wanting to pay tax for the betterment of all of the people in America. Wanting to preserve their life style at some ones else's expense. Stabbing everyone who wants to protect themselves from the uncaring Slave Masters of the work force.

Professing to be a God fearing person, but will stab anyone in the back, keeping him or her down. I think it is some form of insecurity lack of self esteem, maybe even cowards. With them they have to have someone to look down at. Wanting to take a woman's rights away from her and want to throw their religion down some else's throat.

Yes, this is the present day Republicans and Tea Party people. Let us pray. :pray: :preach: and a :kiss:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 04:05:24 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 03:47:48 PM
The fact is in the state of Wisconsin teachers and all public workers had agreed to concessions in order to avoid teacher layoffs, but the republicans chose instead to enact union busting legislation.

the fled the state.....there is no concessions when they are not here to concess.

Palehorse, I know there is dirty laundry on both sides....I am not ignorant to think that there are not those who want the Unions to be busted, but realisticly THAT is not going to happen. We both know this. I am sick and tired of the NEA and their stronghold over our Schools. I am also, sick and tired of wasted tax dollars.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 04:06:56 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 03:47:48 PM
Yep. That would be the exact validation they are using to bust the unions in the states.

But, the fact of the matter is that when this happens, corporate Amerika will be stampeding to obtain the very same ability in private industry, and since 90+% of our elected representation is in the back pocket of corporate Amerika, do you really have to ask which way that is going to go?

Lemme ask you this, what ever happened to living within your means? Leave it as it is and lay off!

The fact is in the state of Wisconsin teachers and all public workers had agreed to concessions in order to avoid teacher layoffs, but the republicans chose instead to enact union busting legislation.

And by the way, federal law ALREADY covers the point of being "forced into a union or to pay dues", by making it illegal to be done. So WHY does ANY state feel this is necessary? If it is being done, then there is a federal law against it under which they can be prosecuted. Why the redundancy??????

and before you ask:

(*) Taft-Hartley Act
It was not until two years after the close of World War II that the first major modification of the National Labor Relations Act was enacted. In 1947, the Labor-Management Relations Act -- also known as the Taft-Hartley Act, after its two sponsors, Sen. Robert A. Taft (OH-R) and Rep. Fred A. Hartley, Jr. (NJ-R) -- was passed by Congress, Vetoed by President Truman (on the basis that it was anti- Labor), and then reapproved over his veto. This comprehensive measure:

(*) established procedures for delaying or averting so-called "national emergency" strikes;
(*) excluded supervisory employees from coverage of the Wagner Act;
(*) prohibited the "closed shop" altogether;
(*) banned closed-shop union hiring halls that discriminated against non-union members.

Taft-Hartley retained the Wagner Act's basic guarantees of workers' rights to join unions, bargain collectively, and strike [Gee, thanks!--HB], and retained the same list of unfair labor practices forbidden to employers. The Act also added a list of unfair labor practices forbidden to unions. These included:
(*) restraint or coercion of workers exercising their rights to bargain through representatives of their choosing;
(*) coercion of an employer in his choice of persons to represent him in discussions with unions;
(*) refusal of unions to bargain collectively;
(*) barring a worker from employment because he had been denied union membership for any reason except non-payment of dues;
(*) striking to force an employer or self-employed person to join a union;
(*) secondary boycotts;
(*) various types of strikes or boycotts involving interunion conflict or jurisdictional agreements;
(*) Levying of excessive union initiation fees;
(*) certain forms of "featherbedding" (payment for work not actually performed).

The Taft-Hartley Act included a number of other provisions. These included:
(*) authorization of suits against unions for violations of their economic contracts;
(*) authorization of damage suits for economic losses caused by secondary boycotts and certain strikes;
(*) relaxation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to permit injunctions against specified categories of unfair labor practice;
(*) establishment of a 60-day no-strike and no-lockout notice period for any party seeking to cancel an existing collective bargaining agreement;
(*) a requirement that unions desiring status under the law and recourse to NLRB protection file specified financial reports and documents with the U.S. Department of Labor;
(*) the abolition of the U.S. Conciliation Service and establishment of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service;
(*) a prohibition against corporate or union contributions or expenditures with respect to elections to any Federal office;
(*) a reorganization of the NLRB and a limitation on its power;
(*) a prohibition on strikes against the government;
(*) the banning of various types of employer payments to union officials.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 04:09:53 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 04:05:24 PM
the fled the state.....there is no concessions when they are not here to concess.

Palehorse, I know there is dirty laundry on both sides....I am not ignorant to think that there are not those who want the Unions to be busted, but realisticly THAT is not going to happen. We both know this. I am sick and tired of the NEA and their stronghold over our Schools. I am also, sick and tired of wasted tax dollars.

Apples and oranges. . . Democrats exercised their right to caucus outside of the state AFTER the republicans declined concessions offered up by the unions and their membership within the state and instead attempted to ram this anti union legislation down everyone's throat.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 04:10:17 PM

Quote from: The Troll on March 10, 2011, 03:55:06 PM
But what we have how and you can see it every day right here on the Zone. Is that they only care about themselves, not wanting to pay tax for the betterment of all of the people in America. Wanting to preserve their life style at some ones else's expense. Stabbing everyone who wants to protect themselves from the uncaring Slave Masters of the work force.

Professing to be a God fearing person, but will stab anyone in the back, keeping him or her down. I think it is some form of insecurity lack of self esteem, maybe even cowards. With them they have to have someone to look down at. Wanting to take a woman's rights away from her and want to throw their religion down some else's throat.

I want the truth from my zoners, do you see that here? There are roughly four of us who regulary post. Is that the vibe you get from us?

I'm sick of certain people blabbing in the air......making generalizations. Do I throw religion at you guys? Do I put down women?

Somebody needs to have some balls, and tell this person to grow up and discuss, and quit the bashing just because others have differing opinions on how to make this country an better place.

Do you think I am willing to stab others in the back?

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 04:13:47 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 04:09:53 PM
Apples and oranges. . . Democrats exercised their right to caucus outside of the state AFTER the republicans declined concessions offered up by the unions and their membership within the state and instead attempted to ram this anti union legislation down everyone's throat.

but when the republicans voted NO (a legal process) to stop Obamacare that was being RAMMED down the throats, and every poll indicated that Americans was against it....yet, YOU guys said it was obstructionism. Leaving the state IS against the democratic process, and they COULD be forced by law to do their job.....That didn't happen.

It there a BIT of hypocricy (sp?) here?

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 04:16:43 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 04:13:47 PM
but when the republicans voted NO (a legal process) to stop Obamacare that was being RAMMED down the throats, and every poll indicated that Americans was against it....yet, YOU guys said it was obstructionism. Leaving the state IS against the democratic process, and they COULD be forced by law to do their job.....That didn't happen.

It there a BIT of hypocricy (sp?) here?

Stay on point Henry. . . The legitimacy of the actions undertaken over the past 2.25 years by repubs and dems is another subject entirely.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 05:09:08 PM

Yet, here again we see states attempting to enact local laws that are redundant to federal law, and to what end?

Bottom line is that this will end up costing every single worker in the state money in lost earnings, and additional taxation necessary to enforce all this crap. . . Watch. . .

Why not enforce the laws already in force????

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 07:13:30 PM

Yep, this is going to get VERY interesting. . .

Reports are currently surfacing that the people of the state of Wisconsin are now starting to DEMAND a recall surrounding the 8 newly elected republican senators in the state. . . :biggrin:

It may or may not work, but one thing is for sure. . . NEXT election those seats will ALL be filled by democrats. . . The actions of the republican party have just assured it!

In fact, if I have this figured correctly, the next presidential election will see a RECORD number of individual voters voting straight ticket democrat!!!

These morons are sealing their own fate and are so full of themselves that they are blind to what they are doing! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 10, 2011, 07:23:10 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 07:13:30 PM
Yep, this is going to get VERY interesting. . .

Reports are currently surfacing that the people of the state of Wisconsin are now starting to DEMAND a recall surrounding the 8 newly elected republican senators in the state. . . :biggrin:

It may or may not work, but one thing is for sure. . . NEXT election those seats will ALL be filled by democrats. . . The actions of the republican party have just assured it!

In fact, if I have this figured correctly, the next presidential election will see a RECORD number of individual voters voting straight ticket democrat!!!

These morons are sealing their own fate and are so full of themselves that they are blind to what they are doing! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

I think things will change in a big way for the Democrats in Wisconsin. But they are to many dumbass Republicans here in Indiana voting against their best interest and their own jobs.

Some of them are so ignorant they would vote straight Republican, even if they knew the Republicans was going to take their jobs this year. :yes: :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 10, 2011, 09:28:40 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 04:10:17 PM
I want the truth from my zoners, do you see that here? There are roughly four of us who regulary post. Is that the vibe you get from us?

I'm sick of certain people blabbing in the air......making generalizations. Do I throw religion at you guys? Do I put down women?

Somebody needs to have some balls, and tell this person to grow up and discuss, and quit the bashing just because others have differing opinions on how to make this country an better place.

Do you think I am willing to stab others in the back?

But Henry, ever since I came on the Zone you have bashed the unions and the union workers.

One of you first statements was. It's unfair for some uneducated worker in an auto plant making more than me and also have better benefits. Especially after all the time I spent getting an education.

I really think this is one one of the things that change my mind about you and gave me a poor opinion of you. Selfish and cold hearted. :yes: You marked yourself as someone who think they are better than anyone else. I'm sorry but that's how I feel. You don't like union workers because they make more than you and have more benefits. So you knifed me in the back because I'm a UAW UNION WORKER AND DAMN GLAD I AM. I sure love my union pension. Bless the UAW :4th4:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Sandy Eggo on March 10, 2011, 09:30:27 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 04:10:17 PM
I want the truth from my zoners, do you see that here? There are roughly four of us who regulary post. Is that the vibe you get from us?

I'm sick of certain people blabbing in the air......making generalizations. Do I throw religion at you guys? Do I put down women?

Somebody needs to have some balls, and tell this person to grow up and discuss, and quit the bashing just because others have differing opinions on how to make this country an better place.

Do you think I am willing to stab others in the back?

Henry, we've been posting together for years. I don't think I'm alone in saying that you're very highly thought of. We trade opinions and ideas here, but at the end of the day we're all still friends. I wouldn't worry so much about what he says. His comments reflect more on him than they do you. Seriously. :hug:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 07:26:31 AM

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 10, 2011, 09:30:27 PM
Henry, we've been posting together for years. I don't think I'm alone in saying that you're very highly thought of. We trade opinions and ideas here, but at the end of the day we're all still friends. I wouldn't worry so much about what he says. His comments reflect more on him than they do you. Seriously. :hug:

So what you just said is that you agree with what he has said about unions and poor uneducated people, woman's rights to an abortion just because you are friends for such a long long time and the mean old Troll doesn't have the right to call him on it.

In America you can say what you want and think what you want and you can be friends with KKK, Nazis, theives and even union people. But we also have the right to say they are wrong. As Henry says so well, WHAT EVER!

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Sandy Eggo on March 11, 2011, 07:40:13 AM

Quote from: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 07:26:31 AM
So what you just said is that you agree with what he has said about unions and poor uneducated people, woman's rights to an abortion just because you are friends for such a long long time and the mean old Troll doesn't have the right to call him on it.

In America you can say what you want and think what you want and you can be friends with KKK, Nazis, theives and even union people. But we also have the right to say they are wrong. As Henry says so well, WHAT EVER!

Uh no, not close, but I do agree with him that yu don't have to be so nasty to state an opinion. Seriously, what does that say about you and your ability to intellegently discuss a topic? It pretty much says that you're incapable and all of the bluster and profanity smacks of insecurity. Do you think anyone can respect you or your opinion with the way you act? Even people who might agree with your stance on things shy away from you because no one wants to be associated with your foul statements.

That's what he said that I agree with.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Sandy Eggo on March 11, 2011, 07:44:57 AM

Oh and "call him" or anyone else on anything, you never provide facts, so you've yet to prove anyone wrong OR that your comments are more than the inane ramblings of a disgruntled insecure old man. :smile:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 08:04:00 AM

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 11, 2011, 07:44:57 AM
Oh and "call him" or anyone else on anything, you never provide facts, so you've yet to prove anyone wrong OR that your comments are more than the inane ramblings of a disgruntled insecure old man. :smile:

Wow, I must have hit a button, TWO POSTS IN A ROW. Why should I provide all of that crap off of the internet when I know what I say is true. You sure haven't prove me wrong have you and if you could you sure would have been down my throat.

Inane ramblings of an old man. Danae you so full of yourself. When you walked in my shoes as long as I have, now watch what I'm about to say. You're going to be a real bitch. With that being said doesn't mean you one now. :wink: I can't think of a better word, sorry.

What do you get when you call someone silly when he's crazy. Calling so one not smart when he is stupid. Calling someone anal when he's an asshole. It's just words. I so sorry that I hurt your tender ears I thought this was an adult channel. Not Sunday school. You just got to grow up Danae. This is a cold cold world. :biggrin:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Sandy Eggo on March 11, 2011, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 08:04:00 AM
I don't prove anything because I can't. I'm full of shit. I curse and throw temper tantrums to disguise my feeling of inadequacy.

Fixed it for you. ;D

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: me on March 11, 2011, 09:17:33 AM

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 11, 2011, 08:57:33 AM
Fixed it for you. ;D

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 09:51:36 AM

Quote from: The Troll on March 10, 2011, 09:28:40 PM
But Henry, ever since I came on the Zone you have bashed the unions and the union workers.

One of you first statements was. It's unfair for some uneducated worker in an auto plant making more than me and also have better benefits. Especially after all the time I spent getting an education.

I really think this is one one of the things that change my mind about you and gave me a poor opinion of you. Selfish and cold hearted. :yes: You marked yourself as someone who think they are better than anyone else. I'm sorry but that's how I feel. You don't like union workers because they make more than you and have more benefits. So you knifed me in the back because I'm a UAW UNION WORKER AND DAMN GLAD I AM. I sure love my union pension. Bless the UAW :4th4:

And Troll, I got to be honest with you. You may very well think I am selfish and cold hearted...I'm good with that. You have every right to feel anyway you want.

I don't have a hatred with all Unions. The IBEW is a very, very good union. They provide very skilled and well trained electricians. They get paid very well and IF they do not work to the perfection that my company requires, we can send them back to the hall.

Our customers expect top quality when they call us, and we ALWAYS deliver.

With that said, I wish the UAW would have been similar. If a GM plant manager was not getting the hard work or performance expected of a person to do a particular job, they could send him to the hall and get someone who was willing to work for their good pay. Unfortunately that was not the case. We got a lot of no good, lazy, worthless bums getting paid GREAT money to F@#$ off!! The management had on choice but to pamper his butt and TRY to get some production out them. NOW, don't get me wrong Troll, listen to me here. I know for a fact that there were many workers that DID their job. My dad was one of them, I'm sure YOU was one of them...and YOU did have a skilled trade, which I admire. Had they had a union that had a HALL of workers to pick from, things would have been different today. I think we would STILL have plants in Anderson Indiana producing auto parts.

Troll, you say that I think I am better than others, well I KNOW I am better than anyone who wants a free handout....but, I am not above anyone else who is just trying to make ends meet in this world. The UAW had a bunch of lazy, no-good, bums!! THAT IS A FACT!! Deal with it!! THEY are the reason WE no longer have a thriving auto industry. I am NOT jealous of them by any way, shape or form....I just think they are TRASH for ruining a good thing. I too am sorry, but that is how I FEEL!! And I will until my dying day.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Doc on March 11, 2011, 11:44:16 AM

Unionized labor is something that I'm very familiar with because of what it has done to my father. For the better part of three decades he has been a union iron worker. He has always been my hero for the way he provided for our family and he is the example I follow with my own family. In the past few years I noticed a change in my father's attitude toward his job. He used to believe the union was what kept him in his current job, but now he now despises it. The union is taking care of the younger, non-experienced people who have been hired at almost the same pay rate that he earns. He also notices that these same new hires have little work ethic and even less ambition. They refuse to work overtime unless mandatory, show up to work late and hung over, and constantly leave an hour early. And yet with all this, when it comes time for yearly wage increases, they are rewarded with the same pay increase. When I ask my father what the union has done for him, his reply is "Nothing. Bob (his boss) has always been very good to us with raises, benefits, and contract renegotiations. He even manages our pension fund himself." My father has spoken of attempts in the past to oust the union. Of course these attempts were met with harsh critcism, usually from the younger employees. Stories like this are what truly boils my blood. In my humble opinion, I feel that today's organized labor movement has done nothing to protect worker's rights, but everything to promote laziness and incompetency.

My father says that my uncle who is in a Mechanics Union has brainwashed him into thinking 3 things.

1. Someone else "Up top" is holding him back.

2. That only the union can help him find another job and stay employed.

3. He only has to give 50% effort and blame the other 50% he's not giving on somebody else.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 12:23:35 PM

Quote from: Doc on March 11, 2011, 11:44:16 AM
Unionized labor is something that I'm very familiar with because of what it has done to my father. For the better part of three decades he has been a union iron worker. He has always been my hero for the way he provided for our family and he is the example I follow with my own family. In the past few years I noticed a change in my father's attitude toward his job. He used to believe the union was what kept him in his current job, but now he now despises it. The union is taking care of the younger, non-experienced people who have been hired at almost the same pay rate that he earns. He also notices that these same new hires have little work ethic and even less ambition. They refuse to work overtime unless mandatory, show up to work late and hung over, and constantly leave an hour early. And yet with all this, when it comes time for yearly wage increases, they are rewarded with the same pay increase. When I ask my father what the union has done for him, his reply is "Nothing. Bob (his boss) has always been very good to us with raises, benefits, and contract renegotiations. He even manages our pension fund himself." My father has spoken of attempts in the past to oust the union. Of course these attempts were met with harsh critcism, usually from the younger employees. Stories like this are what truly boils my blood. In my humble opinion, I feel that today's organized labor movement has done nothing to protect worker's rights, but everything to promote laziness and incompetency.

My father says that my uncle who is in a Mechanics Union has brainwashed him into thinking 3 things.

1. Someone else "Up top" is holding him back.

2. That only the union can help him find another job and stay employed.

3. He only has to give 50% effort and blame the other 50% he's not giving on somebody else.

Thanks for the anecdote. . . :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 12:24:50 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 12:23:35 PM
Thanks for the anecdote. . . :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: yeah God forbid another person should give his/her opinon on here that don't agree with the masses... :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: me on March 11, 2011, 12:53:11 PM

Quote from: Doc on March 11, 2011, 11:44:16 AM
Unionized labor is something that I'm very familiar with because of what it has done to my father. For the better part of three decades he has been a union iron worker. He has always been my hero for the way he provided for our family and he is the example I follow with my own family. In the past few years I noticed a change in my father's attitude toward his job. He used to believe the union was what kept him in his current job, but now he now despises it. The union is taking care of the younger, non-experienced people who have been hired at almost the same pay rate that he earns. He also notices that these same new hires have little work ethic and even less ambition. They refuse to work overtime unless mandatory, show up to work late and hung over, and constantly leave an hour early. And yet with all this, when it comes time for yearly wage increases, they are rewarded with the same pay increase. When I ask my father what the union has done for him, his reply is "Nothing. Bob (his boss) has always been very good to us with raises, benefits, and contract renegotiations. He even manages our pension fund himself." My father has spoken of attempts in the past to oust the union. Of course these attempts were met with harsh critcism, usually from the younger employees. Stories like this are what truly boils my blood. In my humble opinion, I feel that today's organized labor movement has done nothing to protect worker's rights, but everything to promote laziness and incompetency.

My father says that my uncle who is in a Mechanics Union has brainwashed him into thinking 3 things.

1. Someone else "Up top" is holding him back.

2. That only the union can help him find another job and stay employed.

3. He only has to give 50% effort and blame the other 50% he's not giving on somebody else.

Unfortunately that's typical of the union employee today. Are you talking an in shop Ironworker or a construction Ironworker?

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 12:56:17 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 12:24:50 PM

:rolleyes: yeah God forbid another person should give his/her opinon on here that don't agree with the masses... :rolleyes:

I certainly have not made any statement that could even remotely be considered as attempting to "gate" anyone's opinion around here; except perhaps by the most extreme of spin-mastering amongst the membership.

What I do with everyone here is expect that if they hold an opinion that is opposite those of anyone else, that they support and defend that position. Period. I dare ask questions designed to clarify/explore and now you are going to hold my feet to the fire for doing so? Phhhht!

I do not suffer fools, idiots, zealots, nor trolls lightly, and I will call them out every time I see them.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 12:57:41 PM

Quote from: me on March 11, 2011, 12:53:11 PM
Unfortunately that's typical of the union employee today. Are you talking an in shop Ironworker or a construction Ironworker?

Here we go. . . :rolleyes:

Have anything besides an amusing anecdote to support that statement?

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 01:01:12 PM

Quote from: Doc on March 11, 2011, 11:44:16 AM
Unionized labor is something that I'm very familiar with because of what it has done to my father. For the better part of three decades he has been a union iron worker. He has always been my hero for the way he provided for our family and he is the example I follow with my own family. In the past few years I noticed a change in my father's attitude toward his job. He used to believe the union was what kept him in his current job, but now he now despises it. The union is taking care of the younger, non-experienced people who have been hired at almost the same pay rate that he earns. He also notices that these same new hires have little work ethic and even less ambition. They refuse to work overtime unless mandatory, show up to work late and hung over, and constantly leave an hour early. And yet with all this, when it comes time for yearly wage increases, they are rewarded with the same pay increase. When I ask my father what the union has done for him, his reply is "Nothing. Bob (his boss) has always been very good to us with raises, benefits, and contract renegotiations. He even manages our pension fund himself." My father has spoken of attempts in the past to oust the union. Of course these attempts were met with harsh critcism, usually from the younger employees. Stories like this are what truly boils my blood. In my humble opinion, I feel that today's organized labor movement has done nothing to protect worker's rights, but everything to promote laziness and incompetency.

My father says that my uncle who is in a Mechanics Union has brainwashed him into thinking 3 things.

1. Someone else "Up top" is holding him back.

2. That only the union can help him find another job and stay employed.

3. He only has to give 50% effort and blame the other 50% he's not giving on somebody else.

Why would I expect anything less from Doc. We heard all of his religious crap and now we hear all of his anti-union talk. We all know that his dad would have got all that good pay and benefits without the union. :rolleyes: :razz:

:blah: :suck: :blah: :suck: :blah:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 01:02:16 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 12:56:17 PM
I certainly have not made any statement that could even remotely be considered as attempting to "gate" anyone's opinion around here; except perhaps by the most extreme of spin-mastering amongst the membership.

What I do with everyone here is expect that if they hold an opinion that is opposite those of anyone else, that they support and defend that position. Period. I dare ask questions designed to clarify/explore and now you are going to hold my feet to the fire for doing so? Phhhht!

I do not suffer fools, idiots, zealots, nor trolls lightly, and I will call them out every time I see them.

you sure don't seem to mind what the Troll does...he can't support squat he says....just have to take his word for it... ;)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 01:24:52 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 01:02:16 PM
you sure don't seem to mind what the Troll does...he can't support squat he says....just have to take his word for it... ;)

At least he sticks around to defend his positions.

And exercising a little personal initiative and conducting research to disprove or prove his positions is up to him. . . and the opposition. Personally I've found it a bit of a challenge to dispute his positions, but have pointed them out when I've come across accredited information that opposes his views. . .

Your personal objections with his approach or style are not an issue for me.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 01:27:04 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 01:24:52 PM
At least he sticks around to defend his positions.

And exercising a little personal initiative and conducting research to disprove or prove his positions is up to him. . . and the opposition. Personally I've found it a bit of a challenge to dispute his positions, but have pointed them out when I've come across accredited information that opposes his views. . .

Your personal objections with his approach or style are not an issue for me.

;) okay

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 02:48:11 PM

Here is a great explanation of why I am agains PUBLIC Unions....

http://www.youtube.com/v/QyxuUjgHkgs

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: me on March 11, 2011, 03:00:35 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 12:57:41 PM
Here we go. . . :rolleyes:

Have anything besides an amusing anecdote to support that statement?

Call it an amusing anecdote if you wish it's pure fact. When people who work for a union start talking about how lazy the workers have gotten that's bad.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 03:01:27 PM

Quote from: me on March 11, 2011, 03:00:35 PM
Call it an amusing anecdote if you wish it's pure fact. When people who work for a union start talking about how lazy the workers have gotten that's bad.

That's what I thought. . .

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 04:37:50 PM

18 Republican senators from Wisconsin report getting death threats after passing bill to end collective bargaining for most public workers (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/18%20Republican%20senators%20from%20Wisconsin%20report%20getting%20death%20threats%20after%20passing%20bill%20to%20end%20collective%20bargaining%20for%20most%20public%20workers)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 04:43:02 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 02:48:11 PM
Here is a great explanation of why I am agains PUBLIC Unions....

http://www.youtube.com/v/QyxuUjgHkgs

That's a nice piece of propaganda. A nice piece of Republican and anti-union propaganda. Hitler's Goble, minster of German propaganda in world war two would be proud of this piece of crap.

Who did this fine piece, with all of the figures and the percentages. Like I have always said. Figures lie and liars figure. Shove it Henry and you know where and I do love unions. :rolleyes: :biggrin:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 04:43:59 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 04:37:50 PM
18 Republican senators from Wisconsin report getting death threats after passing bill to end collective bargaining for most public workers (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/18%20Republican%20senators%20from%20Wisconsin%20report%20getting%20death%20threats%20after%20passing%20bill%20to%20end%20collective%20bargaining%20for%20most%20public%20workers)

Not surprising. Even the peasants wanted to kill the king/queen when their policies and taxation rates became draconian.

When you start kicking a stump you are going to dig up a lot more than rotting wood, but also the skunks that live beneath it.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 04:46:57 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 04:37:50 PM
18 Republican senators from Wisconsin report getting death threats after passing bill to end collective bargaining for most public workers (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/18%20Republican%20senators%20from%20Wisconsin%20report%20getting%20death%20threats%20after%20passing%20bill%20to%20end%20collective%20bargaining%20for%20most%20public%20workers)

When you are killing someones job and lively hood. I wonder why a threat would be issued. :yes: :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 04:48:26 PM

Quote from: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 04:43:02 PM
That's a nice piece of propaganda. A nice piece of Republican and anti-union propaganda. Hitler's Goble, minster of German propaganda in world war two would be proud of this piece of crap.

Who did this fine piece, with all of the figures and the percentages. Like I have always said. Figures lie and liars figure. Shove it Henry and you know where and I do love unions. :rolleyes: :biggrin:

the truth of it all kind of hurts a little don't trolly... ;) ;D

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 04:50:01 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 04:43:59 PM
Not surprising. Even the peasants wanted to kill the king/queen when their policies and taxation rates became draconian.

When you start kicking a stump you are going to dig up a lot more than rotting wood, but also the skunks that live beneath it.

but Sarah Palin having a bulleye on a political map is just a travesty...put actual death threats by democrats are okay? :confused: ....I get it. ;)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 04:57:03 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 04:43:59 PM
Not surprising. Even the peasants wanted to kill the king/queen when their policies and taxation rates became draconian.

When you start kicking a stump you are going to dig up a lot more than rotting wood, but also the skunks that live beneath it.

being a little dramatic aren't you?............some teachers are going to have to pay SOME of their HC and pensions now....WOW! let's kill some people.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 05:02:24 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
but Sarah Palin having a bulleye on a political map is just a travesty...put actual death threats by democrats are okay? :confused: ....I get it. ;)

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 04:57:03 PM
being a little dramatic aren't you?............some teachers are going to have to pay SOME of their HC and pensions now....WOW! let's kill some people.

Actually, both incidents are very similar; both resulting from the arrogance and ignorant actions of irresponsible and draconian individuals and their actions. (Who by sheer coincidence happen to be republican! Imagine that!)

Both incidents have resulted in inciting irresponsible and emotional responses from those targeted.

And again, you ascribe meaning(s) to a statement(s) that was (were) not inferred. I never said I thought it was right or wrong. I just said what the hell would anyone expect when things like this are taking place?

The death threats you quoted are yet another example as to how NOT to conduct ones self in public office and within a professional capacity.

Just how likely do you think it is that the state of Wisconsin is going to go to the republicans next election? They've cut their own throats, and I dare say, dragged some undeserving individuals down into the sewers along with them. (Referring to local elections with that statement specifically) Republicans are going to take a HUGE hit nationwide over this.

You rattle the cage of a sleeping lion and then stick your arm inside, what do you think is going to happen?

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 05:07:02 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 05:02:24 PM
Just how likely do you think it is that the state of Wisconsin is going to go to the republicans next election? They've cut their own throats, and I dare say, dragged some undeserving individuals down into the sewers along with them. (Referring to local elections with that statement specifically) Republicans are going to take a HUGE hit nationwide over this.

I say there will be even MORE republican elected......when it's economy gets restored, it's educational system is restored...the very folks the voted for Walker will be voting him again....plus some.

we will see....in a year or two

with all of that said, have a great weekend.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 05:09:01 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 05:07:02 PM
I say there will be even MORE republican elected......when it's economy gets restored, it's educational system is restored...the very folks the voted for Walker will be voting him again....plus some.

we will see....in a year or two

with all of that said, have a great weekend.

Wow. . . I'm speechless. . .

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 07:57:53 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 05:07:02 PM
I say there will be even MORE republican elected......when it's economy gets restored, it's educational system is restored...the very folks the voted for Walker will be voting him again....plus some.

we will see....in a year or two

with all of that said, have a great weekend.

Tell me Fhawk, what did your Republicans do during the EIGHT (8) years of George W. Bush. They broke America. That's what they did. Your memory of George W. is sure short. :rolleyes: :razz:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Nighthawk on March 11, 2011, 10:15:43 PM

Quote from: The Troll on March 11, 2011, 07:57:53 PM
Tell me Fhawk, what did your Republicans do during the EIGHT (8) years of George W. Bush. They broke America. That's what they did. Your memory of George W. is sure short. :rolleyes: :razz:

First 2 years of his presidency Dems controlled the Senate. Last two years they controlled both the house and the senate. But it's all Bush's and the Repubs. fault??

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Sandy Eggo on March 11, 2011, 10:24:24 PM

Quote from: Nighthawk on March 11, 2011, 10:15:43 PM
First 2 years of his presidency Dems controlled the Senate. Last two years they controlled both the house and the senate. But it's all Bush's and the Repubs. fault??

I don't think "controlled" is the correct term. Interestingly enough, there's a world of difference between "controlled" and "majority". Even more interesting is the way Bush saved his power to veto until the Dems were in majority. :smile:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 10:28:02 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
Wow. . . I'm speechless. . .

obviously... :rolleyes: but, I'm sure you will muster up something..... ;)

If you are speechless now, wait until the next election... :yes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Nighthawk on March 11, 2011, 10:38:04 PM

In reality, unions should have never been allowed into the public sector. Or at the very least collective bargaining should have never been allowed. It is impossible for the public sector unions to be able to fairly bargain with public sector employers because the employers are us, the taxpayers.

Before anyone says that our elected officials represent the taxpayer at the bargaining table think of this. The Republicans don't want unions because they contribute to Democrat campaigns. The democrats want the unions for this very reason. If the unions are dealing with republicans they won't get near what they want and if they deal with democrats they get more than they want. Neither of these instances are good for the employer (taxpayer).

So, is it possible for an elected official of any party to fairly represent and bargain for the taxpayer? I don't think so.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 10:41:37 PM

Nighthawk, your voice of understanding and logic is so welcome here, I cannot begin to tell you how much you are appreciated.

You have asked a wonderful question that all on here need to ask themselves....honestly.

Thanks NH.... :yes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 10:42:47 PM

Circular logic. . . Wow. . .

I will admit one thing though; it is going to be amusing to see how you folks spin this when the private sector demands the very same "concessions" and get it. And don't think they won't.

They've got 99% of government on their payroll, and the SCOTUS as well. . .

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Nighthawk on March 11, 2011, 10:44:27 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 10:41:37 PM
Nighthawk, your voice of understanding and logic is so welcome here, I cannot begin to tell you how much you are appreciated.

You have asked a wonderful question that all on here need to ask themselves....honestly.

Thanks NH.... :yes:

Thanks :biggrin:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 10:48:01 PM

If logic was at all involved here we would NOT be in the mess we are in now....

Logic left the trainstation years ago....I think, thanks to the tea party movement....logic is making a return.... ;)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 10:51:49 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 10:48:01 PM
If logic was at all involved here we would NOT be in the mess we are in now....

Logic left the trainstation years ago....I think, thanks to the tea party movement....logic is making a return.... ;)

Again. . . speechless. . .

I cannot BEGIN to understand the thought process that brought you to such a conclusion. . .Nor am I sure I even want to acknowledge that it would exist; for doing so would mean the abjectness of millions of years of evolution. . .

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Nighthawk on March 11, 2011, 10:52:39 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 10:42:47 PM
Circular logic. . . Wow. . .

I will admit one thing though; it is going to be amusing to see how you folks spin this when the private sector demands the very same "concessions" and get it. And don't think they won't.

They've got 99% of government on their payroll, and the SCOTUS as well. . .

You already know I don't like the private sector unions either. This is because I think they have WAY too much power.

Now, if they could figure out a way to neuter these guys and get them back to what they originally stood for then I would probably support unions.

Maybe get rid of the huge, national unions and let each company/factory's employees create their own mini-unions that bargain with the local management for what is best for both the company and the employees. No union dues, no big union bosses getting rich off the employees and less possibility for corruption.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 10:59:45 PM

Quote from: Nighthawk on March 11, 2011, 10:52:39 PM
. . .

Maybe get rid of the huge, national unions and let each company/factory's employees create their own mini-unions that bargain with the local management for what is best for both the company and the employees. No union dues, no big union bosses getting rich off the employees and less possibility for corruption.

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 10:51:49 PM
Again. . . speechless. . .

I cannot BEGIN to understand the thought process that brought you to such a conclusion. . .Nor am I sure I even want to acknowledge that it would exist; for doing so would mean the abjectness of millions of years of evolution. . .

Yeah. . . as if such would carry any kind of sway or fair bargaining power against a phalanx of corporate lawyers and the mega-corporation. . . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

My but you guys are so full of yourselves as to project the endorsement of the delusional state as a desirable one! :spooked:

Clearly neither one of you have been corporately raped and are both virgins. But not to worry, your time approaches and that right soon! (Even if you own your own business).

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Nighthawk on March 11, 2011, 11:16:21 PM

Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2011, 10:59:45 PM
Yeah. . . as if such would carry any kind of sway or fair bargaining power against a phalanx of corporate lawyers and the mega-corporation. . . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

My but you guys are so full of yourselves as to project the endorsement of the delusional state as a desirable one! :spooked:

Clearly neither one of you have been corporately raped and are both virgins. But not to worry, your time approaches and that right soon! (Even if you own your own business).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have seen first hand what unions can do to people and businesses. One union stole my money under the guise of union dues and flat told me they wouldn't represent me in any manner. One kept rotten employees employed so the company couldn't produce a good product and the factory closed as a result. Neither one of these unions did me or any of the 1000+ other people any good.

Apparently there are two choices left. Either drastically cut union power so corporations can become competitive again or completely do away with unions.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 11:17:51 PM

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117764004.html?blog=y (http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117764004.html?blog=y)

Please don't say this is just what you get when you stick your arm in a lions den...

This is the ruination of America when, the "teamster" mentality starts to try to run this country....it is THIS type of crap that makes me sick to my stomach....when a Governor, who was "elected" by the people to carry out a campaign promise, and does so...then our public get's this kind of threat?

I can say with all my heart, I HATE UNIONS!!! Now more than ever...they are SCUM!! at least the people that are attached to this THREAT!!!

I say it is go time!!!! :rant:

That's a nice business you got ther (http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0310/0310wppa.pdf)e. Pity if anything were to happen to it if, say, you didn't toe the line and denounce Governor Walker like we're asking nice-like.
March 10, 2011 Mr. Tom Ellis, President Marshall & Ilsley Corporation 770 N. Water Street Milwaukee, WI 53202 SENT VIA FASCIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL Dear Mr. Ellis: As you undoubtedly know, Governor Walker recently proposed a "budget adjustment bill" to eviscerate public employees' right to collectively bargain in Wisconsin. .. As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support. The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker's efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities. In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table. Wisconsin's public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal. In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer, at 608.273.3840. Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you soon. James L. Palmer, Executive Director Wisconsin Professional Police Association Mahlon Mitchell,President Professional Professional Fire Fighters Jim Conway, President International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311 John Matthews, Execuctive Director Madison Teachers, Inc. Keith Patt, Executive Director Green Bay Education Association Bob Richardson, President Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association Dan Frei, Prersident Madison Professional Police Officers Association

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Y on March 11, 2011, 11:25:50 PM

Why don't you 'Hawk' brothers just admit you don't know shite from shinola about either unions or contract law and that your 'opinions' about both are nothing more than your prejudices based in ignorance?

Y'all could at least be truthful about things. :yes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 11:28:28 PM

Quote from: Y on March 11, 2011, 11:25:50 PM
Why don't you 'Hawk' brothers just admit you don't know shite from shinola about either unions or contract law and that your 'opinions' about both are nothing more than your prejudices based in ignorance?

Y'all could at least be truthful about things. :yes:

and THIS is why I have no time to waste here....how do you argue with this?

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Nighthawk on March 11, 2011, 11:37:07 PM

Quote from: Y on March 11, 2011, 11:25:50 PM
Why don't you 'Hawk' brothers just admit you don't know shite from shinola about either unions or contract law and that your 'opinions' about both are nothing more than your prejudices based in ignorance?

Y'all could at least be truthful about things. :yes:

This from the guy who is going to "show us the error of our ways"????? :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Y on March 12, 2011, 12:02:26 AM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 11:28:28 PM
and THIS is why I have no time to waste here....how do you argue with this?

You can't because it's obviously the truth.

You and your brother 'Hawk', from your own words:

1) have given anecdotal crapola - yes crapola, because none of it can be demonstrably proved true or false, and that makes them worthless as both evidence or a basis to build on, but it is evidence of y'all's prejudices.

2) have shown you don't understand how unions work by blatantly and deliberately ignoring the fact that all union contract agreements with companies must have two agreeing parties at the time of signing - also evidence that neither of you understand contract law - in order to be valid.

3) have shown that you don't understand contract law by pretending contracts aren't negotiated between companies and unions, and ignoring the fact that contracts are legal instruments - Gov. Walker and the WS. State Legislature have stepped in deep doo-doo by trying to circumvent legal and binding contracts negotiated between the unions and the state entities with legislative action.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: me on March 12, 2011, 05:14:11 AM

Unions use bullying tactics to get their way and it is showing up more and more each day. Look what's happening in Wi. People are being bused in by the union to cause disruption and chaos and bully to get what they want. The union is trying to bully Wal-Mart into signing with them. Unions bully employees into agreeing to fighting to get them in the work place. Yes, companies sign contracts but how many are signed under duress?

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: followsthewolf on March 12, 2011, 05:48:46 AM

Signed under duress?????

REALLY????

Imagine that. Whoda thunk??

And I'm sure all these wonderful altruistic corporations would just freely heap raises and benefits on the employees that make the corporations rich, without being under duress.

It's just the nature of those corporations to be generous with their huge profits and share them with the peons that work for them.

Oh, ummm.....right after the CEO and CFO and......whoever else up there.......buys their 13th home on the Riviera for $4.8 million.

OK. Nice fantasy. Let's try a dose of reality now.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Nighthawk on March 12, 2011, 08:26:54 AM

Quote from: Y on March 12, 2011, 12:02:26 AM
You can't because it's obviously the truth.

You and your brother 'Hawk', from your own words:

1) have given anecdotal crapola - yes crapola, because none of it can be demonstrably proved true or false, and that makes them worthless as both evidence or a basis to build on, but it is evidence of y'all's prejudices.

I could care less if you believe what I say. Dismissing it out of hand shows that you are stuck in your own little world and nothing will sway you from it. Besides, if you would care to look at my posts I have presented verifiable facts.

Quote from: Y on March 12, 2011, 12:02:26 AM
2) have shown you don't understand how unions work by blatantly and deliberately ignoring the fact that all union contract agreements with companies must have two agreeing parties at the time of signing - also evidence that neither of you understand contract law - in order to be valid.

Show me exactly where I 'ignore' that a contract is an agreement between two parties. In fact I do believe that just a few posts ago I acknowledged this fact.

Quote from: Y on March 12, 2011, 12:02:26 AM
3) have shown that you don't understand contract law by pretending contracts aren't negotiated between companies and unions, and ignoring the fact that contracts are legal instruments - Gov. Walker and the WS. State Legislature have stepped in deep doo-doo by trying to circumvent legal and binding contracts negotiated between the unions and the state entities with legislative action.

Actually, I haven't read Wisconsin's law yet but I was told the same about Indiana's law and it was not true. Indiana's law would not effect any contracts that are in effect on or before June 30, 2011. I would bet that Wisconsin's is the same. These are law makers and they would NOT do anything that blatantly illegal as to jeopardize the law being struck down on something that simple.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Palehorse on March 12, 2011, 09:12:14 AM

Quote from: Nighthawk on March 12, 2011, 08:26:54 AM
. . .
Actually, I haven't read Wisconsin's law yet but I was told the same about Indiana's law and it was not true. Indiana's law would not effect any contracts that are in effect on or before June 30, 2011. I would bet that Wisconsin's is the same. These are law makers and they would NOT do anything that blatantly illegal as to jeopardize the law being struck down on something that simple.

Wisconsin's law was the basis for my position until Indiana was interjected. . .

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 12, 2011, 11:13:36 AM

Quote from: me on March 12, 2011, 05:14:11 AM
Unions use bullying tactics to get their way and it is showing up more and more each day. Look what's happening in Wi. People are being bused in by the union to cause disruption and chaos and bully to get what they want. The union is trying to bully Wal-Mart into signing with them. Unions bully employees into agreeing to fighting to get them in the work place. Yes, companies sign contracts but how many are signed under duress?

Well, for one thing I am tired arguing with a bunch of total dumbasses about the unions. For two years I worked for a glass bottle maker and the GBBA union and 38 years for Ford Motor Co. under the UAW. All good unions. I know what a good union is.

I am tired of hearing from Scabs who know nothing about the unions. "ME" first husband an Iron Worker made good money and had good benefits and "ME" you know ;she sucked all all that she could out of that.

Then we have the Fhawk boys. Who fathers were a blue collar kind of a guys and their boys where raised off the milk of the union benefits. Sucking the lives out of their old dad's.

I would like to hear from their dads on how they feel about the unions and I don't see how these baby boys are such scabs.

With thousand of workers in the streets wanting their union freedoms, we have these punks screaming. We want these over paid, rich, with millionair's benefits teachers to lose their freedom of collective bargaining. Go figure. :jesters:

I done arguing with you scabs, you absolutely know nothing. :finger2:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 12, 2011, 11:22:27 AM

Quote from: me on March 12, 2011, 05:14:11 AM
Unions use bullying tactics to get their way and it is showing up more and more each day. Look what's happening in Wi. People are being bused in by the union to cause disruption and chaos and bully to get what they want. The union is trying to bully Wal-Mart into signing with them. Unions bully employees into agreeing to fighting to get them in the work place. Yes, companies sign contracts but how many are signed under duress?

Bullying Walmart. The largest corporation with the largest number of employees in America. Who all so treat their employees like shit. With a turnover of 53% of their workers through firings or quits each and every year. A union is going to bully them. You are out of your freaking mind. Just totally brain dead. :knife: Why would I want to argue with total stupidity. :yes:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 12, 2011, 11:29:50 AM

News flash, Master Lock is returning their combination lock business from China to the United States.

The main reason for leaving China, is China is raising their labor cost and the cost of shipping is hurting Master Lock bottom line.

whoooooo, does that mean that if we have a level playing field, America workers can compete with slave wages. :biggrin:

Just think how many jobs were lost under George W. Bush. :mad:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: me on March 12, 2011, 05:08:39 PM

Quote from: The Troll on March 12, 2011, 11:29:50 AM
News flash, Master Lock is returning their combination lock business from China to the United States.

The main reason for leaving China, is China is raising their labor cost and the cost of shipping is hurting Master Lock bottom line.

whoooooo, does that mean that if we have a level playing field, America workers can compete with slave wages. :biggrin:

Just think how many jobs were lost under George W. Bush. :mad:

Ya, that 4% unemployment was bad.....damn, if it hadn't been for him the unemployment might have been 0%.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 12, 2011, 06:46:30 PM

Quote from: me on March 12, 2011, 05:08:39 PM
Ya, that 4% unemployment was bad.....damn, if it hadn't been for him the unemployment might have been 0%.

Your post doesn't make sense and silly at most. :rolleyes: :razz:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: me on March 12, 2011, 08:49:47 PM

Quote from: The Troll on March 12, 2011, 06:46:30 PM
Your post doesn't make sense and silly at most. :rolleyes: :razz:

You are the one who said jobs were lost under Bush I was just saying what the unemployment rate was then and what it might have been if he hadn't lost so many jobs.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: dan foster on March 13, 2011, 09:48:40 PM

Unions gave America a middle class. Nothing else. So, with the wealthy taking all the money from the middle class over the last 40 yrs, unions were the last thing to stop them. Reagan started the demise of the unions, current actions will complete the downfall. Sure, some greedy bastards in union leadership hurt the cause, but without them, now, the middle class can kiss it all goodbye. We are now exactly where we were before the last great depression; the wealthiest few holding most of American wealth. The top 5000 families in this country now have more wealth than the bottom 100 MILLION. Unchecked capitalism is just as bad as any other ism, maybe worse.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 14, 2011, 09:10:20 AM

Quote from: dan foster on March 13, 2011, 09:48:40 PM
Unions gave America a middle class. Nothing else. So, with the wealthy taking all the money from the middle class over the last 40 yrs, unions were the last thing to stop them. Reagan started the demise of the unions, current actions will complete the downfall. Sure, some greedy bastards in union leadership hurt the cause, but without them, now, the middle class can kiss it all goodbye. We are now exactly where we were before the last great depression; the wealthiest few holding most of American wealth. The top 5000 families in this country now have more wealth than the bottom 100 MILLION. Unchecked capitalism is just as bad as any other ism, maybe worse.

Just this morning I heard an economy expert say that we have had a stagnate middle class wage since 1976. The problem all of the money that is coming in is going to the top 2%, the Super Rich. Guess what, there is no trickle down. Yes Alice, there is no trickle down. :biggrin:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 14, 2011, 12:05:02 PM

bump

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2011, 02:48:11 PM
Here is a great explanation of why I am agains PUBLIC Unions....

http://www.youtube.com/v/QyxuUjgHkgs

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Sandy Eggo on March 14, 2011, 12:22:54 PM

Henry, why do you keep bumping this? I think we've all seen it. ;D

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 14, 2011, 12:27:29 PM

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 14, 2011, 12:22:54 PM
Henry, why do you keep bumping this? I think we've all seen it. ;D

just making sure, because if you watch it, I just don't see how anyone could possible support public unions.....

this is not an attack on private unions...just PUBLIC ones.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 14, 2011, 03:33:11 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 14, 2011, 12:05:02 PM
bump

Restore fiscal sanity and restore power and restore power to the people. That is what it said at the end. Do you really believe the Republican Party is gong to do this. After 8 years of George W.. WE all can see where you have received your knowlogy. Heritage Foundation, Fox News, Glen Beck and Rush Limpbag.

After reading all of you past posts. We can all say you are a know it all. :flap: :flap: :biggrin:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 14, 2011, 03:55:26 PM

Quote from: The Troll on March 14, 2011, 03:33:11 PM

Restore fiscal sanity and restore power and restore power to the people. That is what it said at the end. Do you really believe the Republican Party is gong to do this. After 8 years of George W.. WE all can see where you have received your knowlogy. Heritage Foundation, Fox News, Glen Beck and Rush Limpbag.

After reading all of you past posts. We can all say you are a know it all. :flap: :flap: :biggrin:

we can ALL say or just YOU? :rolleyes:

Are you the spokesman for the zone liberals? :spooked: :confused: :razz:

If YOU can Troll, show where that video is wrong, with some supportive facts, not just your good ol boy word for it. ;)

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 14, 2011, 04:17:50 PM

Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 14, 2011, 03:55:26 PM
we can ALL say or just YOU? :rolleyes:

Are you the spokesman for the zone liberals? :spooked: :confused: :razz:

If YOU can Troll, show where that video is wrong, with some supportive facts, not just your good ol boy word for it. ;)

Well, I know I can't find any thing on it from a Republican foundation or a Republican blog. Are you saying the the Heritage Foundation isn't a Republican frog. Croaking everything Republican.

The base of the whole tape was a lie. It's as just truthful as saying that the Super Rich and the corporations Lobby's payments to our congressman is not buying them.

You wouldn't believe the truth if you were God Smacked. I am not wasting my time to prove to you any thing. You mind is closed.

I wonder if you dad is as anti-union as you. When he get his UAW pension check, his eye glass, hearing aid, lawyer and of all things his medicine benefits, Democrat Medicare and Democrat Social Security. Or does he speak with a forked tongue like you, his baby boy. Sure don't know where you get it. Maybe you were dropped as a baby. :biggrin:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Henry Hawk on March 14, 2011, 04:46:21 PM

My Dad is very grateful for all that he has. I too, am grateful, like you said, I was a receipeint of his labor, and I am happy for my father, that he is able to enjoy his retirement years. It still does not dispute what happened to Anderson and other like cities. I have shared with you my first hand witness of some extremely wrong doings by the Union and it's officials. There were way too many who took advantage of a good thing for some very decent people.

Troll, I am not against ALL (PRIVATE) unions. Like I have shared with you about the IBEW. They are a great union, who supplies us with some very well trained electricians. There are very well paid, and they deliver an excellent product. But, the UAW, did NOT supply an excellent product for the amount of money that they were given, IN MY OPINION. IF, they had a hall of workers for the owner to work from, I bet we would have seen a different picture. If a worker was not willing to do an assigned task that was agreed upon by the UAW and Owner, then he could be replaced by another UAW worker. I say that we STILL would have an auto industry in Anderson had we had that option. But, we didn't and we got a lot of crappy work, by some crappy workers, who drew an excellent check. Again, that is my opinion.

This is my last attempt to explain, but as far as a Public Union, there was no lies or distortion in that video. NOT ONE. if there is please point it out to me.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: Nighthawk on March 14, 2011, 07:55:03 PM

Quote from: The Troll on March 14, 2011, 04:17:50 PM

You wouldn't believe the truth if you were God Smacked. I am not wasting my time to prove to you any thing. You mind is closed.

Translation:

He doesn't have any facts to present so he'll just insult you.

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: me on March 14, 2011, 08:09:55 PM

Quote from: Nighthawk on March 14, 2011, 07:55:03 PM
Translation:

He doesn't have any facts to present so he'll just insult you.

Talk about hitting the nail on the head. :biggrin:

Title: Re: Public Unions & Collective Bargaining Thread....right or wrong?
Post by: The Troll on March 14, 2011, 09:54:22 PM

Quote from: Nighthawk on March 14, 2011, 07:55:03 PM
Translation:

He doesn't have any facts to present so he'll just insult you.

Well, it's just like the Christians believe that it the sun come up, there is a god. It just like the Republicans, trust us. Just look at the 8 years under George W. which Nightsquawk and Henry Fhawk voted for twice. Just look at what the fast fair trade deals, the banking mess, the stock market robbery. Well, it is just plain rape of America and the middle Class worker.

I sure don't have to prove anything to you two Tea Baggers :koolaid: Stamp out rape, stamp out the Republican Party. :4th2: and every other day in America :biggrin:

The Unknown Zone - proudly an American forum!

The Unknown Zone © Forums => The Rough House © (Unmoderated Open Forum) => Topic started by: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 12:03:10 PM