Unions and Government

[dgs49]

The Federal Government - now in hock to the SEIU, AFLCIO, and assorted Government Employee Unions - has a long and consistent history of favoring union labor (in a broad sense, to include skilled labor, and "professions") to the detriment of non-union labor.

In its most grotesque manifestation with the bailouts of GM and Chrysler, the Government's patronage of "organized labor" also includes the Davis-Bacon Act, and its constant coddling and support of the NEA, supporting its absolute refusal to allow evaluation of teachers based on results. The current NLRB is almost shocking in its kowtowing to Organized Labor, and threatens an outrageous assault on Boeing for having the temerity to build a manufacturing facility in a right-to-work state.

In a perverse bit of irony, for its own employees the Federal Government has never seen fit to pass enabling legislation for GS employees to have true collective bargaining along with its intrinsic "right" to strike. So Congresspersons - usually with Democrat majorities in both houses - have persistently watched as state after state undertakes the suicidal initiative of permitting their employees full collective bargaining, seen the folly of it all, and refused to take this simple measure in Washington, D.C.

Here in Pennsylvania, we have a perverse, archaic, and anachronistic system of selling wine and liquor through a network of state-owned liquor stores, on the theory that only the State can be trusted to keep the Devil's Brew out of the hands of our impressionable, vulnerable children. The "State Stores" are totally organized, and totally entrenched. Both the Governor and the legislature are determined to end this bizarre monopoly, sell the State Stores to private entrepreneurs, reap a one-time windfall as the franchises are sold - and all without losing a dime in tax revenue from the sale of wine and spirits. But the unions have thus far been able to thwart this eminently reasonable initiative with the single justification that they are well paid, confortably benefitted, and belong to a union, and the franchisees will mainly - if not exclusively - employ a non-union workforce.

There will be just as many employed Pennsylvanians in the privately-owned liquor stores - maybe more - but they will be paid as store clerks and not as Gub'mint teat-suckers.

The question is this: Is there any legitimate government interest in promoting union labor?

I submit that there is no such legitimate government interest, and the government's support of organized labor is entirely political, to the detriment of the U.S. (and state) taxpayers.

Take Davis-Bacon as a case in point (NOTE, D-B does not overtly require union labor, but, as interpreted, it requires that contractors on government construction projects pay union wages). What is the benefit to the taxpayers of having union labor? I submit there is no legitimate government interest in Davis Bacon. The project should go to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Period. It's a principle that guides all other federal procurement (don't laugh), except in the rare cases where competitive bidding is not feasible.

History buffs might be interested to know that Davis-Bacon was mainly born in racism. Congress was pissed off because local government construction projects were being won by contractors employing teams of itinerant so-called "Negros," rather than the local workers in the Congressional district. To prevent the "niggers" from getting all the work, they passed a law saying that Federal government construction contractors had to pay the prevailing wages in the locality, regardless of where the workers were from, or were willing to accept as wages. Succeeding Democratic administrations have made this a de facto requirement to pay local union wages, regardless of whether there are more union than non-union workers in the locality. It have personally seen instances where union contractors made up only 15% of the local contractors, but their wages were the ones demanded by the NLRB.

[quaddriver]

So what happened at the lickker store that you didnt like today?

[loCAtek]

Funny

[dales]

Perhaps the old boy was carded?

[dgs49]

The ONLY time I go into a liquor store is when forced to by my wife. My personal experiences in PA's State Stores has always been satisfactory.

The only consumer "complaint" with PA's liquor stores that I'm aware of is that people who want a particular bottle of wine may not be satisfied. The state decides which products to carry, and if you want something that is not on their List, tough luck. My former boss, a native of Luxembourg, used to favor a white wine produced there (Moselle?), and he used to purchase it by the case and have it shipped to a friend's house in West Virginia. Illegal as hell, don't you know.

The theory is that private liquor stores would be more accommodating.

My only point is that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shouldn't be in the retail liquor business, and the only reason they remain in the retail liquor business is the influence of the union that represents the liquor store employees. As I said, state or private, the same number of Pennsylvanians will be employed in the business, so there is no legitimate state interest in the matter.

[Jarlaxle]

The theory is that private liquor stores would be more accommodating.

They're damn right! I work in that industry...PLENTY of stores stock a particular beer or wine for ONE customer! (Offhand, one place has had one guy as their ONLY buyer of Anchor Steam Beer for 15 years.)

[rubato]

A little research would be very good for you:


http://www.lcb.state.pa.us/portal/serve ... ures/17500


It has more to do with the $105,000,000 in profits (over and above sales and liquor taxes) which they made for the state treasury. Plus $26,000,000 transferred to other state agencies.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Yeah, and all those fat-cat union workers making $22,000 /yr (starting, 1/8 jobs turns over each year).

Putz

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/...pt/... ... s-2010_pdf

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

And all those fatcat union benefits so you can $pend that fatcat $22,000 salary in Bemuda: 7 whole days vacation!

Up to 3 Years:
Annual Leave will 52.5 Hours
be earned at the (7 days)
rate of 2.70% of all
Regular Hours Paid
Over 3 Years to 15 Years Inclusive:
Annual Leave will 112.5 Hours
be earned at the (15 days)
rate of 5.77% of all
Regular Hours Paid
Over 15 Years to 25 Years Inclusive:
Annual Leave will 150 Hours
be earned at the (20 days)
rate of 7.70% of all
Regular Hours Paid
Over 25 Years:
Annual Leave will 195 Hours
be earned at the (26 days)
rate of 10% of all
Regular Hours Paid

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance ... rp1644.pdf

[Guinevere]

At the state and local level, the only union employees that are truly fat and happy are the cops and firemen -- but since they are public safety and sacred cows no one complains.

The rest of the employees -- not so much. My library staff, all of whom have bachelors degrees, one of whom has a masters, makes $18-$24 per hour, are limited to no more than 30 hours a week, no overtime, and get small longevity payments -- about $1500/year for a 15 year employee.

None of them are taking expensive vacations, driving fancy cars, or living outrageous lives. All of them are dedicated employees who spend endless amounts of time dealing with shortages, broken equipment, and budget cuts, when demand for library services has never been higher.

[Scooter]

But in Dave's world, a library could by run using staff who only have a grade five education and earn minimum wage. It would then resemble the library in St. Olaf described by Rose in The Golden Girls, having only three books in its collection and not yet having had anyone in town who had read all of them.

[Guinevere]

I would hazard a guess that in Dave's world there wouldn't even be libraries . . .

[Sue U]

I would hazard a guess that in Dave's world there wouldn't even be libraries . . .

Why should government be in the book-reading business? Let market work its magic!

[dgs49]

My God, what a bunch of delusional, misguided responses.

In no particular order:

One of the most idiotic statements ever posted here: "At the state and local level, the only union employees that are truly fat and happy are the cops and firemen..." I wonder if the school janitors in New York making $120 grand + OT are included in that bit of wisdom. Teachers at $100k (as in my school district)? Everyone posting here knows that the list of possible examples of state & local unionized employees making dramatically more than their counterparts in the private sector is endless.

And I also wonder if the poor librarians have unions and the right to strike. I can only imagine what those bachelor's degrees are in.

Rube (you idiot), is it your position that it is acceptable for the Commonwealth of Pennsyvania to maintain its monopoly on wine and liquor sales as long as it is profitable? Would that thinking expand to a monopoly on, say, truck tires? Underwear? Brussels Sprouts? Is it acceptable because the store clerks don't make $100 grand?

In "Dave's World" (that is to say, the real world) government employees would be compensated on the same bases as the other 90% of the people in the country: the value of their skills and the relative availability of others who could do the same thing. And oddly enough, in Dave's World, when people believe they are not earning as much as they "should," they can look around and try to find something that provides better compensation. And when they don't or can't, then you pretty much can assume that they are doing the best they can, all things considered. Even if it means they are working part time in a city library for $20/hr. Gotta figure that that's about what they are worth, in economic terms.

Unless, of course, they have a union and are working for the government, in which case all bets are off. "You want me to pay something for my healthcare? Faggddaboudit!" Layoffs? Get serious. Pay cuts? Are you kidding? It's only in the past year or so, with cities and towns facing bankruptcy, that any of these common private sector possibilities could even be considered among unionized government employees. And even now its more hysterical ranting than reality (see Wisconsin).

Public sector unions are a cancer and it's incredible that so many people posting here are blind to it.

[Liberty1]

Public sector unions are a cancer and it's incredible that so many people posting here are blind to it

Even FDR, the prog messiah beleived that.


Teachers and librarians go into their training and career knowing they will not become rich doing that job. and those in private schools make even less so as to not have to deal with unions and more government BS.

[Guinevere]

Dave, don't let the facts get in the way of your rant. Yes, those library employees are unionized. The vast majority of municipal employees in MA are union members. And those degrees are in literature or library science.

When was the last time *you* negotiated a union contract Dave? You are seriously ignorant about the process and the results. I'm currently in negotiations with a police union on the next contract, and arbitration over the last contract (bemanagement didn't fold and give them more raises). I've got every current contract for one client town in my office. I don't know the janitor rates off the top of my head, but I will post tomorrow.

[rubato]

Even when the facts and supporting links are given to him dave insists on being an ignorant jackass.

At the end of prohibition a lot of states saw legal alcohol as a source of state revenue and many, in addition to state excise taxes, used state liquor stores as a way of creating revenue without "taxing". Something like 17 states still do this in various forms.

I hate to break it to you, dumb-bunny, but this has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with economic and social history.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Public sector unions are a cancer and it's incredible that so many people posting here are blind to it

Even FDR, the prog messiah beleived that.


Teachers and librarians go into their training and career knowing they will not become rich doing that job. and those in private schools make even less so as to not have to deal with unions and more government BS.

Those in private schools make even less because private schools don't require a teaching credential and have no minimum standards for education.


yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

Every time I think I have seen the STUPIDEST THING POSSIBLE posted...Rube opens his mouth again. Ye gods.

[Sean]

Those in private schools make even less because private schools don't require a teaching credential and have no minimum standards for education.


yrs,
rubato

That cannot possibly be true.

Unless of course you are referring to home schools as private schools...