Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Wow, no crows near you with a whole field of strawmen like that.

Who has argued that the decline in union membrership has strengthened workers' bargaining power? Who has argued that right to work states ought to have lower unemployment?

The only issue I recall being brought up recently in this thread boils down to: teachers' unions are effective at getting governments to overpay/overbenefit teachers compared to the quality of the results delivered.

Teachers unions may be effective at advocating for their clients. That's different than "they're bad". Its their job to get the best deal they can, much like its the job of in this case the municipality to extract concessions. That sort of give and take isn't a problem nor is it "overpaying". Its the product of negotiations. Your company could very well be overpaying you, based on how you negotiated your salary in some people's eyes. Does that make you a bad person? No. Its a give and take and people mostly on the right need to stop whining about it.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The problem with anti-unionism ... is that it makes no sense.

There is a big difference between "anti-" unionism and saying that unions have changed for the worse.

Our company's employees would reject a union today because unions today deliberately place limits on individual success. If you work "too hard" the union comes down on you because you make the rest of the union members look bad. More significantly, unions today oppose incentive pay because in their view it pits employees against each other in a competition...yet in our firm everyone really likes incentive pay and we work together in a collaborative manner to increase incentive pay for everyone.

I'm not "anti-" union in that I do recognize how valuable unions have been over time to stop the very real exploitation of workers who had no voice. Times have changed; many (not all) employers are more enlightened today than they were in the past, realizing that a healthy productive well-adjusted workforce adds to their bottom line better than a browbeaten discouraged exploited one does. Many employers today also recognize that employees closest to the action also have the best ideas on how to make process improvements, and so they seek them out and reward them.

Meanwhile, at one time, "union made" was a sign of pride. A union electrician or union plumber had to pass certification exams, and often it was worth the extra money to hire union contractors for the assurances you'd get that they knew how to do the job right. I'm not sure what happened to change that perception.....

By saying that people are "anti-" union, you overlook the very real problems union leaders have brought upon themselves by emphasizing maximum dues over worker quality. It is in union members' best interest to have that 5% of membership that are slackers disciplined so that the perceived quality of union work is upheld. However public-sector union leaders are adamant against any workplace discipline unless it is actually criminal. Again, I've seen cases in which people point out to supervisors how slackers are making the jobs harder for everyone else, yet the whistleblowers are subject to harrassment and threats, while the slackers remain undisciplined and unpunished.

I know we all overweight our anecdotal experience and draw inferences more broadly than perhaps they are warranted, but merely to brush aside these episodes by dismissing them, rather than provide a thoughtful response, does not help the union cause at all.

Public sector unions have overreached and would be better served to adjust rather than resist.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The only issue I recall being brought up recently in this thread boils down to: teachers' unions are effective at getting governments to overpay/overbenefit teachers compared to the quality of the results delivered.

Bingo! Well put.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

When I think of the overpaid professions of this country, the first one that pops into my head is teaching.

Remember: Teachers who earn $50K/year are rich beyond your wildest dreams; lawyers who earn $250,000/year are poor individuals who need a helping hand from the government.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Remember: Teachers who earn $50K/year are rich

when you factor in the value of their pensions, current health insurance coverage, and retiree health coverage. When you add up these fringe benefits, most teachers will retire as millionaires (it takes about $750K to provide each one of them their retiree pension and another $250K to provide each one with retiree health coverage).

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

When I think of the overpaid professions of this country, the first one that pops into my head is teaching.

When I think of one profession in this country that is producing excellent results and is globally competitive, the first one that pops into my head is teaching.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

when you factor in the value of their pensions, current health insurance coverage, and retiree health coverage. When you add up these fringe benefits, most teachers will retire as millionaires (it takes about $750K to provide each one of them their retiree pension and another $250K to provide each one with retiree health coverage).

Yeah, I know a lot of millionaire teachers.

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

when you factor in the value of their pensions, current health insurance coverage, and retiree health coverage. When you add up these fringe benefits, most teachers will retire as millionaires (it takes about $750K to provide each one of them their retiree pension and another $250K to provide each one with retiree health coverage).

The millionaires comment is ridiculous, but beyond that doesn't your scenario apply to most people? With SoS, Medicare, etc etc - the govt may very well be spending that on you or your loved ones. I don't believe teachers get Social Security if they're getting a pension, so that's a wash. Why should this profession be held to a different standard?

Regarding your other post, unions in 2012 have the problem the Democratic party did 10 years ago. They're allowing their opponents to define it while sitting back and expecting people to see through that on their own. Take the crying about political activity. How are unions any less politically active than the Chamber of Commerce? Where's the righty angst over that organization as they are a mirror image of the unions.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

When I think of one profession in this country that is producing excellent results and is globally competitive, the first one that pops into my head is teaching.

It should. Almost 100% of the students that graduate from high school lead a productive life.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

How are unions any less politically active than the Chamber of Commerce? Where's the righty angst over that organization as they are a mirror image of the unions.

there isn't any since Citizens United because the conservatives are content with equal treatment under the law. The "angst" was only about laws that allowed unlimited union contributions while limiting corporate ones. The only thing conservates wanted was a level playing field.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

My dad was a career teacher and union member, though not by choice as all teachers were forced to be members. He really disliked the union. He basically said they'd take members' money and use most of it for political purposes he didn't agree with. Even when problems came up, he said the union officials were pretty useless.

I suspect your dad wasn't alone with those opinions.

There are two principal benefits to unions. First is the added difficulty of firing someone, or what is known as the "for cause" standard as opposed to "at will", which most of the rest of us work under. Unfortunately all this has done is made it more difficult to terminate some really crappy workers, or just plain crazy employees. Candidly, even union members recognize this as one of the "minuses" of the existence of their union, until of course they're the one about to get fired.

The second benefit is lobbying on a national scale for the network of employment regulations that most employers are required to follow. Without lobbying power (and the dollars behind them) of national union organizations, regulations dealing with medical leave, wage and hour issues and the like would certainly have been much slower in coming, if at all. There is no question this has placed a greater financial burden on employers, but it has also added a level of protection for employees that in many ways minimizes the need for "union protection" on a local level.

Unionization works well so long as the members understand the limitations to their power. In the words of Lewie Anderson, a union representative in the meatpacking industry, the union's job is to get the company to open it's corporate vault a crack, run in and grab as much money as possible before it closes, and get out. When the union wants to take the additional step of running the company, it doesn't work.

The primary problem I've had with respect to unions is the public vs. private debate. With a private company, it's their money the union is trying to get. Union negotiations work really well because it comes down to how much financial pressure the union can bring to bear on the company through collectively withholding their labor.

With a public union, there is no financial pressure. The State isn't going out of business. The pressure gets changed into political pressure, and there isn't a public official alive who doesn't cave to political pressure. That's where the unequal bargaining power is derived.

As an added thought, I've always thought that it's incredibly hilarious that those unions that are most successful are those that represent employees who are probably least in need of the protection -- professional athletes. Of course, their success is derived from the fact that none of us want to watch replacement football players again, so the threat of withholding labor is much more significant than some schmuck working for Crystal Sugar up in northwestern Minnesota.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

It should. Almost 100% of the students that graduate from high school lead a productive life.

Okay then. No more hand wringing about how we need to do more to encourage more achievement, identify kids from poor backgrounds who could become super-achievers, improve our test scores relative to other industrialized nations, etc.

Yes, sir - when it comes to education in the USA: Mission Accomplished.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Riding on the train yesterday, I notice that some of those "shovel-ready" projects from 2009 are finally underway....from my observational experience, most of the "stimulus" money in our area went to highway contractors and concrete suppliers. in our town we spent $4 million on a parking lot, or $18,500 per space...for 10 jobs. we also are spending $70 million to widen a railroad bridge....for about 40 jobs. i notice another multi-million highway project going on along the route as well.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Okay then. No more hand wringing about how we need to do more to encourage more achievement, identify kids from poor backgrounds who could become super-achievers, improve our test scores relative to other industrialized nations, etc.

Yes, sir - when it comes to education in the USA: Mission Accomplished.

That's exactly what I said. Kudos!

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Riding on the train yesterday, I notice that some of those "shovel-ready" projects from 2009 are finally underway....from my observational experience, most of the "stimulus" money in our area went to highway contractors and concrete suppliers. in our town we spent $4 million on a parking lot, or $18,500 per space...for 10 jobs. we also are spending $70 million to widen a railroad bridge....for about 40 jobs. i notice another multi-million highway project going on along the route as well.

Try looking up the national and local effects of the stimulus on Recovery.gov

Also, remember that over half the money budgeted into the stimulus are tax credits/cuts that you aren't able to see as you pull into your new parking space.

ETA: Also, how much of that money for the parking lot was spent on the land on which the parking lot sits? Colorado State University recently expanded the parking lot at the library at a cost of just over $14,000 per space, but they also already owned the land where the new spots were placed. Clark County in Nevada is adding 20 spots to the existing 10 parking places around the famous Las Vegas sign at a cost of $25,000 per space. $18,500 doesn't seem like a huge amount of money...

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The second benefit is lobbying on a national scale for the network of employment regulations that most employers are required to follow. Without lobbying power (and the dollars behind them) of national union organizations, regulations dealing with medical leave, wage and hour issues and the like would certainly have been much slower in coming, if at all. There is no question this has placed a greater financial burden on employers, but it has also added a level of protection for employees that in many ways minimizes the need for "union protection" on a local level.

This sounds a lot like the paradox that medicine leads to a reduction of disease which erodes the perceived need for medicine.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

pensions do not cancel your Social Security. unrelated.

a kid enters the armed forces at 18. retires at 38. works at the post office til 65. he'll draw retirement funds from the military, the post office AND get his Social Security.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Try looking up the national and local effects of the stimulus on Recovery.gov

mostly likely the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives. liberals believe what the government tells them.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

mostly likely the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives. liberals believe what the government tells them.

You had no problem believing what the government told you a few years ago and I doubt you will when the next Republican takes the oval office.

And just where do you get your information if not from the government?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The millionaires comment is ridiculous, but beyond that doesn't your scenario apply to most people? With SoS, Medicare, etc etc - the govt may very well be spending that on you or your loved ones. I don't believe teachers get Social Security if they're getting a pension, so that's a wash. Why should this profession be held to a different standard?

Math is ridiculous? Don't let Scooby hear you say that!!

The net present value of a pension to life expectancy is not that hard to calculate, or to approximate. One can easily get commercial annuity quotes to value a pension for life as well. For example, $100,000 buys a 62-year old female $457 per month for life with American General; or $750,000 buys $41,130 annualized for life.

So, that's a "ridiculous" statement? Seems to me you failed the burden of proof on that score!!



And are you really that ignorant of how Social Security works, or are you merely being reflexively oppositional without thinking first?

A person's Social Security benefit is directly related to the Social Security taxes they paid in during their working life (see ssa.gov). So the government collects money from me (by force of law) while I am working with a promise to pay that very same money back to me again after I retire....at a very low rate of return....on top of which, while they were supposed to set aside that money in a trust fund, they actually spent it elsewhere instead, so that it might not even be available. Were any private company to do that, they'd be facing criminal charges!

how do you equate money I paid in with a promise to be repaid in the future, to a pension for which the pensioner directly contributed nothing (beyond the general income tax payment made by everyone which was insufficient to fund said pension in the first place?)

I'll trade in my 401k in which I bear all the investment risk and all the longevity risk myself, to which I personally contribute 3/4 of the money directly (and indirectly contribute the remaining 1/4 by enhancing my employer's profitability so as to earn the discretionary match) for a pension to which I personally contribute nothing directly, bear no investment risk, and bear no longevity risk.

If you are offering that trade to people in general, they'll take it. If we all want it and can't get it, then by definition the public sector union members are getting preferential treatment relative to the rest of us, at our expense.