Gov. Scott Walker - Un-American?

[dgs49]

One of the remarkable things about the brouhaha in Wisconsin these days is the fact that the public employee unions (and the unionists generally) have been able to get away with implying (or saying) that the Governor’s initiative to curtail collective bargaining for some of the State’s employees is somehow unpatriotic or “un-American.” But literally, nothing could be further from the truth.

Unions are a manifestation of socialism. They are antithetical to the American ideal of individual responsibility and one hundred eighty degrees divergent from the American ideal of “meritocracy” that we all – especially teachers(!) – profess to hold in highest regard. What teacher doesn’t encourage her students to try to be The Best at what they do?

But in utter and complete contravention with the ideal of rising or falling on one’s merits, Unions aggregate the best performers with the worst, dispensing any cash and benefits that can be extorted from the Employer equally, regardless of one’s worth or performance. In fact, unions are MOST VALUABLE to the most worthless of the employees, and a detriment to the best.

It is advanced by the (demonstrably not sick) protesters that it would be “unfair” of The Government to “take away” their collective bargaining “rights,” but consider that fully 93% of American private sector workers come to work every day with absolutely no “right” to their jobs, paychecks, or benefits, and face the prospect of being disciplined or fired at any time when their employer finds that they are not earning their compensation or otherwise causing a problem in the workplace. Indeed, we must justify our economic existence constantly, and if we believe that the employer is not paying us “what we are worth,” we try, individually, to negotiate more money and/or benefits for ourselves, or go and find another employer to get what we think we are worth. NINETY-THREE PERCENT of us work under this cruel paradigm! Un-American? Hardly.

What sort of a person seeks out a Union job? Ironically, it’s the same sort of person who seeks a Government job. It’s someone who wants to put in forty hours (or less) at work every week, doing as little productive work as possible – the kind of person who might say at the local tavern, “They can make me come to work every day, but they can’t make me work.” And, while prepared to make only that minimalist contribution to the mission of his or her employer, the Union worker expects to be guaranteed: (1) a perpetual job, (2) a good wage, with regular increases but no additional work or responsibility, (3) the protection of The Mob if he fcuks up on the job, and (4) an early and generous retirement.

What sort of person shuns a Union job? Someone who has the confidence that s/he can EARN a good wage & benefits, who is not concerned about problems relating to poor performance or disciplinary actions by an employer, and who WANTS to be compensated on the basis of his or her own productivity.

These caricatures are obviously not true in all cases. Some worthwhile careers (soldiers, policeman, prosecutor, etc.) only exist in government, so there really isn’t any choice. Some great workers are stifled by union and Government constraints (I used to be one of them). And in some labor markets the non-union jobs at the bottom levels are horrible, and one would be foolish not to try to work for a unionized employer, if one can be found.

There was a segment on NPR yesterday in which a college professor was trying to make the case that when “the highest level of education” is considered, Government workers make only 75% of what their private counterparts earn. But to those whose eyes are not blinded by partisanship, there is no real comparison. The degreed individuals who work for Government are greatly skewed toward humanities degrees and the “social sciences” – subjects with minimal academic rigor, and even at that they tend to come from the bottom of their graduating classes. The historically low SAT scores of teachers has long been documented and known. In addition, hundreds of colleges and universities have bottom-feeder “Masters Degree” programs that are targeted at the nation’s hundreds of thousands of public school teachers – who have to have a number of graduate credit hours to get permanent credentials anyway – and provide an “advanced” degree with no thesis or comprehensive examinations, and few substantive requirements.

And in the more quantitative fields of expertise, the number of PE’s and CPA’s in government is a fraction of their proportionate numbers among engineers and accountants in the private sector. And who can doubt that Government furnishes a cushy resting place for those lawyers in the bottom half of their graduating classes, whom no respectable law firm or corporation would even consider hiring? (I’m one of them, too).

Let’s be honest. Not only is collective bargaining in the public sector an economic abomination, pitting self-interested “management” with nothing truly at stake, against monopolistic workers having nothing to lose, but it is un-American and unpatriotic, to boot.

A pox on all those demonstrators. And they should fire the bastards who called in sick so they could go a-demonstrating. Imagine what would happen to them in the Real World.

[Andrew D]

Among the many problems with that tirade is the idea that the opposite of unionized collective bargaining is meritocracy. In truth, when management has unfettered discretion to decide who gets promoted and who does not, merits are only one factor. And that factor is often overwhelmed by others. Getting ahead by kissing the boss's ass is often much easier and much more likely than is getting ahead by doing a good job.

[Gob]

Being anti American [sic] I have to agree with Dave.

The sooner the working class American has no collective rights, and no ability to better their living conditions, unless granted so by a benevolent managerial class, the better.

[Long Run]

Public unions have only recently been allowed the right to collectively bargain. According to a New Republic article I found, Reagan signed the law in 1968, and the movement to allow public employee bargaining arose in the mid-50s to mid-60s (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/838 ... -negotiate). As a result, we are not talking about some long-standing right, but a fairly recent development that was supported by both parties.

The other thing is that public unions are inherently different than private sector unions. The key difference is that public unions have no one with a vested financial interest on the other side of the table. In fact, if the public union is successful in its political work, it will have very friendly compatriots on the other side of the table (which at that point cannot be called a "bargaining table" since no real give and take will occur). I often wonder how private union members feel about paying high taxes to support successful public unions who have friendlies on the other side of the table.

This is one reason why private unions have declined -- almost victims of their own success in bringing up wages for all workers. In contrast, public unions have flourished and I have seen many studies which show how successful they have been in increasing compensation for public employees (e.g., this is why many here agree that while the teachers of our youth were likely lowly paid, most teachers of today receive fair compensation).

I don't know if the Wisconsin solution is the way to go. But given the advantages of public unions, it seems a fair compromise between taxpayers and employees, that the public employee unions should be allowed to either collectively bargain or to engage in political activity, but not both.

[dgs49]

Politically, the ugly truth is this: The nation's Democrat politicians have been engaged in a 30-year campaign to buy the votes and loyalty of all government workers with taxpayer money. Even in the Federal sector, where the right to strike does not exist, it has been Democratic administrations that have advanced the pay and benefits of federal employees to a point where they have no doubt which side of the bread is buttered.

Government employees have become the backbone of the Democrat party, with their other traditional constituencies following their lead. As I mentioned above, if you look at government employees and their dependents as a voting Bloc, their influence is huge, and it requires a super-majority of "everyone else" to overcome their influence.

The complicity of the MSM, in reporting these recent stories with great deference and sympathy for the already-over-compensated government unionists is disgraceful.

With the overwhelming advantages held by the Dems in all elections, last November's results were the clearest mandate for "change" that has come out of the electorate in a long time. One can only hope that the R's will have the balls to stay the course, and END collective bargaining for wages and benefits in the public sector.

Andrew, I don't know if you are gainfully employed or ever have been, but EVERYPLACE I have worked, and where I work now, we are "employees at will," and Management is free to discipline us or fire us for any reason at all - other than those reasons that are clearly and legally proscribed (race, age, religion, gender, etc). The advantages of "ass kissing" have never been all that important in the places where I've worked. Often, less dedicated and less competent employees attribute the success of others to ass-kissing, but it's usually just a matter of bringing a better work attitude to work, versus a more lethargic one.


But Unions are the antithesis of meritocracy.

[rubato]

If getting rid of unions was the road to paradise then we've been on it for 35 years.

During which the average wage of a man has gone down vs inflation, social mobility has nearly petrified, the middle class have sunk ever-deeper financially as the upper 5% get an ever-larger share of national income.

As unions have become less significant the hysterical, shrill,RW rhetoric against them has grown ever louder. We will know that unions have disappeared completely when the mindless qvacking against them becomes ear-shattering.

yrs,
rubato

[quaddriver]

Politically, the ugly truth is this: The nation's Democrat politicians have been engaged in a 30-year campaign to buy the votes and loyalty of all government workers with taxpayer money.

well it aint working. The military are gov't workers, and the military overwhelmingly do not support democrat candidates.

I cannot speak for every single agency, but anti democrat support ran so high last election that if you recall I reported on a finding issued by the commissioner, handed down from the whitehouse that as i put it, was the most liberal interpretation of the Hatch Act ever - they forbade us specifically from voicing our opinions in any public forum. Would it have stood had someone disobeyed and got fired? Dunno. Feds dont have a state level arbitration board to pretest to - OPM backs the pres at every turn.

Even in the Federal sector, where the right to strike does not exist,

when you take the oath (the exact same one the military does) you are instructed that you serve at the discretion of the sitting president, or whomever he has lawfully selected to oversee you. This is not a new development. You have a command and control structure similar to the military, only without guns. The rules of service are for the most part the same. of course you cannot strike. that is willful desertion, gross insubordination etc.

it has been Democratic administrations that have advanced the pay and benefits of federal employees to a point where they have no doubt which side of the bread is buttered.

bwahahaha. Simply put, you do not know or understand the pay and benefits structure of the fed.

[dgs49]

I have nothing against unions. They are entirely appropriate under some circumstances and in some economic markets.

But they have no business in government or public utilities.

A good illustration of the effect of unions is in the American auto industry. We have two American auto industries, one unionized and one non-union. The unionized industry went bankrupt (Ford is also bankrupt but has hung on by hocking all of its assets) because the UAW wages,benefits and work rules rendered them unable to compete.

Government bailed them out, cheated their bondholders and stockholders out of millions of lifetimes of savings, and now with most of their debts cancelled and the UAW still in power, they are ALMOST competitive again. Still, they depend too much on large, inefficient vehicles for the Lion's share of their profits, so any blip in oil prices (which is inevitable) will send their stock prices crashing down again.

A union shop should be able to be competitive with a non-union shop. The higher wages & benefits should allow the union shop to be more selective in whom it hires, and the stability should allow the employees to become better at their jobs.

But union "bosses" often see their role as adversarial, fighting tooth and nail for employees who should be disciplined or fired, promoting work rules that guarantee inefficiency, and doing little or nothing to work with the employer on quality and productivity initiatives. The whole game, to them, becomes one of maximizing union dues.

[quaddriver]

I have nothing against unions.

Im having a little trouble swallowing that one...but anyways

Ford is also bankrupt but has hung on by hocking all of its assets).[/quote]

Dont tell ford that...

taking a loan against assets and proceeding to have perhaps the most profitable year in 10 years.

Alan Mulally is doing a great job, even with the unions, which should not construe I am a blind supporter of organized labor.

[Gob]

Oh, Brokelahoma: slash and burn season in the US


February 26, 2011

Americans could be forgiven for being galled by the cover illustration of a recent edition of the British-owned Economist magazine that displayed a map of the 50 US states with tricked-up names testifying to the true State of the Union - that is, near-broke, debt-laden.

For Iowa, read I.O.UWA; for Idaho, read Doh! And on it went - North Debtquota, Califoreclosia, Brokelahoma … the cheek!
....


.....The Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington reports that over the past two years, 46 states and the District of Columbia have been forced to cut spending in state services, including healthcare (31 states) and services to the elderly and disabled (29). At the same time, a swathe has been cut through education, the sector that Barack Obama nominates as critical to America ''winning the future'' in an increasingly competitive global economy. Thirty-five states cut their kindergarten to year 12 funding, 43 cut into higher education.

Texas plans the biggest cut in education spending since World War II, preparing to remove $US4.8 billion from its schools over two years. The Lone Star state is not alone. Detroit, Michigan, plans to close up to half of its 140 public schools over the next two years. Providence, Rhode Island, is culling about 2000 teachers and expects to close schools too.

In some cases, states are waging war, too, on public sector workers' benefits led by the newly elected Republican Governor of Wisconsin.

But Scott Walker, whose Madison headquarters has been besieged by thousands of protesters, is no lone maverick. At least 10 other states, including New Jersey, are also threatening to raise workers' health insurance contributions, while forcing them to pay a bigger portions of their salaries into pension schemes. Unionists say it would amount to a 17 per cent pay cut for some.


http://www.smh.com.au/world/oh-brokelah ... 1b8l6.html

[Long Run]

The article starts by noting the public debt in America as a bad thing, then segues into a criticism that state governments are avoiding debt by reducing spending (and not noting the examples where states have increased taxes). The reported reductions in spending have no relevance, and cannot be characterized as "slash and burn" since the reporting does not include any discussion of the percentage reduction in spending or the recent-period increases in spending, or any analysis of whether any of the reductions are actually long overdue. For example, as painful as school closures can be, if a school district has 100 schools that were built for a school census of 50,000 children, and the number of children has dropped to 40,000, a good argument can be made that some school closures are a budget requirement and do not reduce the quality of education below the level that existed when the district had 50,000 students.

The Economist names were pretty good -- couldn't find the list in a quick search.

[rubato]

Interesting the Gov Scott Walker exempted all of the public safety unions, the most overpaid unions in most states, for political reasons while screwing everyone else even after they had conceded 100% of the financial items leaving only collective bargaining.

He's a lying toad.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

Mark Shields said on today's Newshour that there are nine States in which public-sector employees have no collective-bargaining rights. The indebtedness of those States is worse than that of the States in which public-sector employees do have (at least some) collective-bargaining rights. Maybe the public-sector unions are not really the problem after all ....

[Lord Jim]

I'd like to see Shield's source for that....

The two states that have for years, (even before it became a national problem) chronically had the biggest budget deficit problems are California and New York, which also have the strongest public sector unions in the country.

They also have amongst the highest state income tax rates.

[Long Run]

MARK SHIELDS: There are nine states where there's no collective bargaining at all, none. They have a higher indebtedness than the states who have collective bargaining, OK?

DAVID BROOKS: Right. That's right.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics ... 02-25.html

Like LJ, I don't know what this means, though on some measure it must be true. This article from the Cato Institute provides more in-depth information and shows that the spending is higher where there are public unions: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_61.pdf. 31% higher wages and 68% higher benefits. Of course, the cost of living in the union vs. nonunion would be a large factor in this difference, if there is a cost of living difference.

All public employees have collective bargaining:
The 26 states: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont,
Washington, and Wisconsin.

Some public employees have collecitve bargaining:
12 states: Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

From 2001 GAO Report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02835.pdf (pages 8 and 9)

[rubato]

The CATO institute stopped being an honest proponent of libertarian ideas and became instead a factory for poorly supported right-wing sound bites back in the 1990s.

A pity, but that's whoredom for you.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Regardless, for reasons that should be obvious (1) public employees should be reasonably compensated, and (2) collective bargaining in the public sector is folly.

[Gob]

How come every other country has it then, in fact far stronger than in the USA, and without the problems you seem to face, Dave?

[dgs49]

Gob, the economic folly of a huge overcompensated public sector will be manifested everywhere in time. The only question is, "When will the bankruptcy occur?"

Greece, France, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland are just the beginning of the tsunami that will eventually bankrupt the European Union.

Metaphorically, one can speak of a "ratcheting" effect - that is to say that it turns but can only turn in one direction. In the case of the public sector's drain on the overall economy, consider the following: (1) The public sector produces nothing. No goods, and few services or capital assets with economic value. The economy of any country (or cluster of countries) must produce valuable goods and services in order to survive. (2) Government always gets bigger and never gets any smaller, whether measured in absolute terms or relative to population. (3) The total compensation of those who work for government always increases and never decreases. Salaries and benefits improve incrementally, but they never retreat.

In good times, the growth of Government can be tolerated and is often celebrated. Here in the U.S., we celebrate new programs for college grants and loans, new programs helping The Poor with housing, medical, food, and other necessities. But when the economy inevitably goes through troughs, the burden of the gargantuan public sector is magnified by the reduction in revenues caused by the economic downturn. The burden stifles the cyclical recovery that would normally recur and it becomes a death spiral.

It's just a matter of time.

Ironically, Europe has been able to forestall a lot of the suffering by exploiting immigrant or "guest" workers from Portugal, Turkey, Africa, and the Middle East. These immigrants pay taxes in Europe, but often are denied citizenship or some of the other benefits of permanent residence. How long can this continue? None of the European countries has a native population that is even sustaining itself, let alone growing. Who is going to pay the retirement benefits for today's 30-year-old Germans? Certainly not their children. There simply aren't enough of them.

It is not a pretty picture. I'm glad I'm old.

[dgs49]

And dare I say it, Western Europe until now has had a better work ethic than the U.S.?

Although they have come to have the infamous Entitlement Mentality (which will ultimately kill them), I think Europeans at all levels are more inclined to take pride in their work than are Americans. You can see it in the clean streets, the well-kept business establishments, and the exemplary mass transit systems. Even in eateries. The people who wait on you are "professionals" who take their work seriously, not people who are working at minimum wage, with a chip on their shoulders.

Just my impression.