the truth emerges in wisconsin fight

[tvashtarkatena]

FOX News did the same exact thing last night: exclude Fire and Police - political sacred cows for the Right, doncha know.

 

Teachers? Snow plow drivers? Linemen? Not as high on the 'necessary' scale, apparently. In other words, more likely to vote Left than Right.

 

It's an old, old game.

[rob]

so transparent. The real question is, why aren't his supporters like JayB demanding he include the fire department and police department to this legislation?

 

I mean, if they're all on board with the concept, shouldn't it apply to everyone?

[JayB]

Hey JayB, why isn't he trying to abolish collective bargaining for police and fire unions, if he feels so strongly this is the "right thing to do?" Do you think it's maybe because they supported his campaign? Strange that he would make an exception for them. Even stranger that he would offer generous tax breaks to businesses, which roughly equal the amount of money he's trying to pry from the teacher's unions.

 

Weird coincidences, arent' they?

 

The safe bet is that he had political reasons for doing so. Most likely because they supported him, possibly because he thought that cutting all collective bargaining rights for all public sector employees would be a bridge too far. No way to know for sure unless someone brings it up in an unguarded conversation, tapes it, and posts it on the internet, I suppose.

 

This is politics. People that have political motives for supporting particular policies that might be unpopular if they disclosed them tend not to. I suspect that he also believes that collective bargaining rights are a significant driver of cost growth in the delivery of public services, and that the state would be better off doing away with as many of them as possible.

 

I find it amusing that there are adults out there who are innocent enough to believe that Democrats are supporting collective bargaining rights for public sector unions only as a matter of principle and conviction. The state automatically deducts union dues from public sector employees and transfers the balances directly to their unions, who then use the money to elect politicians who use tax revenues to reward them with higher pay and benefits.

 

I'm sure that most Democrats honestly believe this system is fair and just, but it's impossible to determine the extent to which they're motivated by these convictions versus the political advantages that this patronage scheme confers up on them.

 

[JayB]

so transparent. The real question is, why aren't his supporters like JayB demanding he include the fire department and police department to this legislation?

 

I mean, if they're all on board with the concept, shouldn't it apply to everyone?

 

Something is better than nothing. If he called me and asked my opinion, I'd advise him to abolish all collective bargaining rights for public employees, and outlaw all public sector unions.

 

IMO civil service protections are more than adequate for public sector workers, which are much more robust than the average private sector worker is entitled to, and if they don't like their pay and benefits they're more than welcome to try their luck in the private sector.

 

If the people on this board are correct, they'll all get an instant pay raise the second they do so.

[Hugh Conway]

If the people on this board are correct, they'll all get an instant pay raise the second they do so.

 

I got 20% leaving the government sphere and that was choosing equity over cash. Could have easily been 30-40% < shrug >

[Hugh Conway]

Odd that Jay_B can't come up with a Democratic moneybags pulling the strings.

 

Wonder why that is?

[prole]

I find it amusing that there are adults out there who are innocent enough to believe that Democrats are supporting collective bargaining rights for public sector unions only as a matter of principle and conviction. The state automatically deducts union dues from public sector employees and transfers the balances directly to their unions, who then use the money to elect politicians who use tax revenues to reward them with higher pay and benefits.

 

I'm sure that most Democrats honestly believe this system is fair and just, but it's impossible to determine the extent to which they're motivated by these convictions versus the political advantages that this patronage scheme confers up on them.

 

This argument is really only compelling if public sector unions' advocacy is solely limited to increasing their own pay and benefits. It isn't. Workers providing public services have first hand experience with marginalized communities of service users and are the most knowledgeable citizens with regard to state of the institutions they work in, our infrastructure, our schools, etc. Far from simply cynically seeking their own "job security", unions and their members have been powerful advocates on issues they're dealing with on a daily basis, from school lunch programs to women's shelters. The political threat that these unions pose is that they're putting money behind issues and into campaigns and politicians that the Right oppose, working class issues and campaigns that unions and the Left historically champion. Public sector unions, the last American unions with substantial density, represent a concentrated economic bloc that systematically pushes the progressive agenda and pushes back against corporate power. You're right Jay, this is about politics. That's all this shit's about.

[JayB]

I find it amusing that there are adults out there who are innocent enough to believe that Democrats are supporting collective bargaining rights for public sector unions only as a matter of principle and conviction. The state automatically deducts union dues from public sector employees and transfers the balances directly to their unions, who then use the money to elect politicians who use tax revenues to reward them with higher pay and benefits.

 

I'm sure that most Democrats honestly believe this system is fair and just, but it's impossible to determine the extent to which they're motivated by these convictions versus the political advantages that this patronage scheme confers up on them.

 

This argument is really only compelling if public sector unions' advocacy is solely limited to increasing their own pay and benefits. It isn't. Workers providing public services have first hand experience with marginalized communities of service users and are the most knowledgeable citizens with regard to state of the institutions they work in, our infrastructure, our schools, etc. Far from simply cynically seeking their own "job security", unions and their members have been powerful advocates on issues they're dealing with on a daily basis, from school lunch programs to women's shelters. The political threat that these unions pose is that they're putting money behind issues and into campaigns and politicians that the Right oppose, working class issues and campaigns that unions and the Left historically champion. Public sector unions, the last American unions with substantial density, represent a concentrated economic bloc that systematically pushes the progressive agenda and pushes back against corporate power. You're right Jay, this is about politics. That's all this shit's about.

 

Agree that it's about politics.

 

If it were about altruism, we'd see public sector workers making sure that their pay and benefits ranked behind funding for delivering all of the services that the most vulnerable members of society rely on, they'd be leading the charge on cost efficiency so that the state could actually deliver more services to more people at a lower cost, etc.

 

Unfortunately for your thesis, we actually see precisely the opposite any time there's pressure on the budget. Zero movement towards cost efficiency, zero movement for focusing the governments priorities on the areas where they're needed most, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

Take an even closer look at the way they operate and you see things like work rules such as the Metro agreements that staff overtime with the most senior bus drivers so that they can use the overtime to spike their pension payouts, rampant pension spiking via other means, etc, etc, etc. The day that all of the above self-dealing that siphons resources away from other more legitimate public priorities is the day that you'll be able to claim that the public sector unions that actually exist operate in a manner that's consistent with the romantic vignette that you've offered up above.

[Hugh Conway]

Uh,non-union shops do the same kind of overtime spiking.There's also bonus spiking and all other kinds of nefarious means.... which happens with any system, people game it.

 

Sounds like some Soviet rant against the ways of man really

[tvashtarkatena]

non public unions also make political donations. Guess we should

'abolish' them.

 

Love that word, 'abolish'. So telling of what's inside the man, no?

[Nitrox]

I flipped on the TV here in the hotel last night and toggled between Fox and MSNBC. You've hit every talking point with the same emphasis.

 

 

[Nitrox]

I would like to premtively blame this entire situation on Sarah Palin.

[rob]

I'm teabagging for sarah.

[j_b]

Agree that it's about politics.

 

about real politics. Not corporate media or the circus-in-Washington politics.

 

If it were about altruism,

 

strawman. Public workers being the best able to assess the needs of their sector isn't about altruism.

 

we'd see public sector workers making sure that their pay and benefits ranked behind funding for delivering all of the services that the most vulnerable members of society rely on, they'd be leading the charge on cost efficiency so that the state could actually deliver more services to more people at a lower cost, etc.

 

typical dishonest regressive decoupling between wage and quality of services provided. What's terrible about your pablum (and shows your bad faith)is that you know very well that you get what you pay for.

 

Unfortunately for your thesis, we actually see precisely the opposite any time there's pressure on the budget. Zero movement towards cost efficiency, zero movement for focusing the governments priorities on the areas where they're needed most, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

regressive propaganda without supporting evidence

 

Take an even closer look at the way they operate and you see things like work rules such as the Metro agreements that staff overtime with the most senior bus drivers so that they can use the overtime to spike their pension payouts, rampant pension spiking via other means, etc, etc, etc. The day that all of the above self-dealing that siphons resources away from other more legitimate public priorities is the day that you'll be able to claim that the public sector unions that actually exist operate in a manner that's consistent with the romantic vignette that you've offered up above.

 

classic cherry picking to paint a bleak picture of the entire public sector when in fact abuses are the fact of a small minority of public workers.

[Nitrox]

J_b, I caught your segment on Lawrence O'Donell last night, you come off just as paranoid and kooky in person.

 

 

[prole]

I find it amusing that there are adults out there who are innocent enough to believe that Democrats are supporting collective bargaining rights for public sector unions only as a matter of principle and conviction. The state automatically deducts union dues from public sector employees and transfers the balances directly to their unions, who then use the money to elect politicians who use tax revenues to reward them with higher pay and benefits.

 

I'm sure that most Democrats honestly believe this system is fair and just, but it's impossible to determine the extent to which they're motivated by these convictions versus the political advantages that this patronage scheme confers up on them.

 

This argument is really only compelling if public sector unions' advocacy is solely limited to increasing their own pay and benefits. It isn't. Workers providing public services have first hand experience with marginalized communities of service users and are the most knowledgeable citizens with regard to state of the institutions they work in, our infrastructure, our schools, etc. Far from simply cynically seeking their own "job security", unions and their members have been powerful advocates on issues they're dealing with on a daily basis, from school lunch programs to women's shelters. The political threat that these unions pose is that they're putting money behind issues and into campaigns and politicians that the Right oppose, working class issues and campaigns that unions and the Left historically champion. Public sector unions, the last American unions with substantial density, represent a concentrated economic bloc that systematically pushes the progressive agenda and pushes back against corporate power. You're right Jay, this is about politics. That's all this shit's about.

 

Agree that it's about politics.

 

If it were about altruism, we'd see public sector workers making sure that their pay and benefits ranked behind funding for delivering all of the services that the most vulnerable members of society rely on, they'd be leading the charge on cost efficiency so that the state could actually deliver more services to more people at a lower cost, etc.

 

Unfortunately for your thesis, we actually see precisely the opposite any time there's pressure on the budget. Zero movement towards cost efficiency, zero movement for focusing the governments priorities on the areas where they're needed most, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

Take an even closer look at the way they operate and you see things like work rules such as the Metro agreements that staff overtime with the most senior bus drivers so that they can use the overtime to spike their pension payouts, rampant pension spiking via other means, etc, etc, etc. The day that all of the above self-dealing that siphons resources away from other more legitimate public priorities is the day that you'll be able to claim that the public sector unions that actually exist operate in a manner that's consistent with the romantic vignette that you've offered up above.

 

I never said it was all about altuism (a concept you're generally in conflict with anyway, no?). That unions represent the interest of their members is kind of a no-brainer but the notion that many public sector unions have been unwilling to make concessions is false. Link, link, link, link, link. Yes, many have resisted conceding hard-won gains. But it's not clear that they shouldn't since those concessions aren't going to amount to a squirt of piss in terms of addressing the cause of the crisis (the economy cratering/tax cuts) or the only real solution to it (stimulating economic growth). This is born out by the data that's emerging from countries experiencing the same austerity measures proposed here. If there's no real, rational, quantifiable reason for busting American unions then it's simply about undermining concentrated support for the liberal left and reviving the Rovian dream of permanent GOP majorities.

[j_b]

Uh,non-union shops do the same kind of overtime spiking.There's also bonus spiking and all other kinds of nefarious means.... which happens with any system, people game it.

 

Sounds like some Soviet rant against the ways of man really

 

what's really vile is the constant demonizing of teachers and nurses making middle class wages for honest work but not a word about the highest ever Wall Street bonuses afforded thanks to trillions in very low interest loans to the banskters and many corporations or the tax breaks to the wealthy who are paying as little tax as they ever did.

[rob]

what's really vile is the constant demonizing of teachers and nurses making middle class wages for honest work but not a word about the highest ever Wall Street bonuses afforded thanks to trillions in very low interest loans to the banskters and many corporations or the tax breaks to the wealthy who are paying as little tax as they ever did.

 

+1, well-said

 

Who got us into this mess in the first place? And now those same people want to make teachers and linemen pay the check, while fighting tooth-and-nail for tax cuts for the richest of the rich.

 

It's like reverse robin hood.

[G-spotter]

Let's bring in merit-based pay for politicians.

[prole]

Yeah, it's weird how we're trying to trying our damnedest to find ways to eliminate the middle-class gains of bus drivers and teachers while American corporations and finance capital are practically drowning in cash. Schizophrenia is mainstreaming.

[tvashtarkatena]

I flipped on the TV here in the hotel last night and toggled between Fox and MSNBC. You've hit every talking point with the same emphasis.

 

 

MSNBC must take my cue then...I don't watch it.

[tvashtarkatena]

what's really vile is the constant demonizing of teachers and nurses making middle class wages for honest work but not a word about the highest ever Wall Street bonuses afforded thanks to trillions in very low interest loans to the banskters and many corporations or the tax breaks to the wealthy who are paying as little tax as they ever did.

 

+1, well-said

 

Who got us into this mess in the first place? And now those same people want to make teachers and linemen pay the check, while fighting tooth-and-nail for tax cuts for the richest of the rich.

 

It's like reverse robin hood.

 

Good ole wealth concentration and asset stripping. Nothing new here.

 

Teacher's vote Dem. Bus drivers are all fat and black (who also vote Dem), so they don't really deserve anything over minimum wage (which should bottom out at $0/hour, of course). That would put these uppity negroes right back where they've belonged all along. As an interim measure, an 8% pay + benefit cut from an average of $50K/year should put them back in the ghetto. Next step: cotton fields.

 

Cops and Firefighters are HEROES...and they tend to vote R.

 

Yeah, this is an old, old conversation. You can dip it in white chocolate (fiscal responsibility! Share the pain!), but its still the same old turd.

 

Edited February 24, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

Certainly isn't new but the constant cherry picking, outright lies and moronic arguments ("schools don't make money so let's pay them shit") to demonize a set of people in order to pit them against other workers is reaching beyond nauseating level. I'd say the social Darwinists need to get punked!

[tvashtarkatena]

There is definitely a budget deficit problem across the states and state employee costs are at the center of it. If the Right had 'shared the pain' by rescinding at least some of the Bush era tax gimmes to the rich before taking a run at unions, that would have been reasonable...but they didn't. If the Right had steered clear of trying to destroy unions altogether, as in WI, their agenda would appear to be reasonable. But they didn't.

 

Too bad, because public sector compensation and the lack of public money to pay for it IS a real problem, although not as big as some states claim it is (INDIANA, for example, where the problem is minor).

[j_b]

There is a revenue problem (part of it by design as it is the starving the beast strategy), and some compensation abuse but there isn't a public sector compensation problem.

Edited February 24, 2011 by j_b