We have been warned - no government worker unions

greg334

Veteran Expediter
From the NYT

F.D.R. Warned Us


James Sherk is the Bradley fellow in labor policy at the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation.


“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”


That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.


The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.



George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government. But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. The influx of dues and members quickly changed the union movement’s tune, and collective bargaining in government is now widespread. As a result unions can now insist on laws that serve their interests – at the expense of the common good.


...



Governor Walker’s plan reasserts voter control over government policy. Voters’ elected representatives should decide how the government spends their taxes. More states should heed the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Executive Council’s 1959 advice: “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress — a right available to every citizen.”

Read the entire article click on the link above.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The unions and the rest of the left want to control the people. They want to rule US!!

The governor is correct, cut the power of the unions. NO government employee should be allowed to strike. If I understand it correctly the teachers in WI have a no strike clause. What they are doing is a "STRIKE". You can't call in sick and then show up at the capitol and claim you were sick. Doctors are handing out false documents. I wonder how they would answer questions about those made up sick slips in court or would they pull a "Clinton"?
 

simdog20

Seasoned Expediter
they dont need the goverments permission to bargain together. just like truck drivers if the pay dont cut it dont haul it. if they dont want to pay the teachers what they feel is right than dont go to work. it sucks for the kids and parents but that not all. we still a free country. i say shut down the goverment if they all feel they not getting paid. i dont see the governor paying for his health care. what about his retirement benefits? he needs to throw his in there with them if he wants them to make sacrifices.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
they dont need the goverments permission to bargain together. just like truck drivers if the pay dont cut it dont haul it. if they dont want to pay the teachers what they feel is right than dont go to work. it sucks for the kids and parents but that not all. we still a free country. i say shut down the goverment if they all feel they not getting paid. i dont see the governor paying for his health care. what about his retirement benefits? he needs to throw his in there with them if he wants them to make sacrifices.


From what I understand the teachers in WI only pay 5% of their health care costs. Why so low? Most Federal employees pay 40% of the cost. They pay nothing for their pension, why not? Federal employees pay 7%.

When just about everyone in the private sector pays FAR more than those state workers why should the state workers pay less? When their employers, us, the taxpayers, are earning less how can they ask for more? Where is it going to come from?

It is a free country and the flip side of their strike is for the taxpayers to fire everyone who took part and hire new teachers/state workers etc.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
I just wonder how that got into the law. It reminds me when the famous Pelosi statement was made " We have to pass it in order to to know what is in it."

One of the many problems with our process is that they make them so complicated so that they can tuck little things like this in bills and only the politicians and lobbyists know that it is there. They should make a law that requires every provision of a bill have listed who wrote that part and why putting it into the bill improves the bill. Seems odd that we have union bureaucrats writing provisions into law that protect fellow union people.



WASHINGTON -- Budget referees and transportation officials in Wisconsin have informed Gov. Scott Walker (R) that if he were to pass his controversial anti-union legislation into law, he could be forfeiting tens of millions of dollars in federal funds for transportation.

Under an obscure provision of federal labor law, states risk losing federal funds should they eliminate "collective bargaining rights" that existed at the time when federal assistance was first granted. The provision, known as "protective arrangements" or "Section 13C arrangements," is meant as a means of cushioning union (and even some non-union) members who, while working on local projects, are affected by federal grants.

It also could potentially hamstring governors like Walker who want dramatic changes to labor laws in their states. Wisconsin received $74 million in federal transit funds this fiscal year. Of that, $46.6 million would be put at risk should the collective-bargaining bill come to pass -- in the process creating an even more difficult fiscal situation than the one that, ostensibly, compelled Walker to push the legislation in the first place.

The governor is certainly aware of this. While the potential loss of funds may have escaped the attention of many observers, sources familiar with the state's transportation policy tell The Huffington Post that Walker's office has been informed of the relevant legal language. Moreover, in an a nearly unnoticed report filed by the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the non-partisan budget scorekeeper, the stakes are laid fairly bare.

"According to information from the U.S. Department of Labor, the proposed changes in collective bargaining rights included under SS SB 11 could impact the ability of unionized transit systems in the state to receive existing federal transit aid, unless actions are taken to protect the collective bargaining rights of their employees," the memo reads. "If the federal Department of Labor makes the determination that the changes under SS SB 11 affect the continuation of collective bargaining rights, and protections of transit employee's wages, working conditions, pension benefits, seniority, vacation, sick and personal leave, travel passes, and other conditions of employment, the Federal Transit Authority could not provide federal transit funding under there provisions." (See the full document below.)

A call to Walker's press shop was not immediately returned. A local report said that the governor's office felt SB11 would meet all the requirements necessary to continue receiving federal aid, though their reasoning isn't entirely clear. The state could conceivably void the projects that were dependent on the federal money. It could also try to privatize those projects.

Another option would be to petition the Department of Labor to grant a pass for the changes in collective-bargaining laws in state; that, however, would be dependent on a Democratic administration being willing to, more or less, turn a blind eye on the measure aimed at unions. The Department of Labor cannot force states to adopt collective bargaining agreements for transit workers by withholding federal funds for transit projects. But it can exert its influence on those states that seek to eliminate them.

Gov. Walker Informed That Bill Targeting Unions May Cost State $46 Million In Federal Funds
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
The govenor is not trying to cut wages and he is not asking them to give up their healthcare or pension..just contribute...as for the cutting of their right to "collectively bargain"...again, that has nothing to do with wages, just the healthcare and pension isuues...

There are 24 states that already do not allow collective bargaining on healthcare and pensions with gov union employees...before the end of the yr there will be a bunch more..

As for them striking..let them go for it...the Wisc teachers asso. has said they have been overwelmed with applications from people from all over the country to fill the jobs without the union representation.....go for it teachers, please go for it....:D
 

simdog20

Seasoned Expediter
well i wont complain about the teachers only paying a small percent when the guy proposing this bill pays nothing for his. like oboma health care that does not include him.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The "guy" that is paying the bill for all of this is laid off, taking huge pay cuts, losing his house. The "guy" paying for all of this is the taxpayer, mainly private sector workers, who have been taking it in the ear for far too long.

I buy 100% of my health insurance for both my wife and myself. So can those state workers. They earn more than we do.

I pay 100% of my pension plan, are they better than me?

This is nuts.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
simdog wrote:

well i wont complain about the teachers only paying a small percent when the guy proposing this bill pays nothing for his. like oboma health care that does not include him.

OVM wrote:

The "guy" paying for all of this is the taxpayer, mainly private sector workers, who have been taking it in the ear for far too long.

See this is the "public sector", people that are paid with taxpayer dollars, not from the profits of a corporation. That means that "we the people" are paying for their wages and benefits....so you feel that these" public sector employees" should have better benefits than most of the people that "pay for them"...including maybe yourself ??
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
well i wont complain about the teachers only paying a small percent when the guy proposing this bill pays nothing for his. like oboma health care that does not include him.
Would you mind posting a link for the governor's pay and benefits? I hadn't heard that he had all of his benefits provided for free.
 
Top