Originally Posted by Posh 08

Why is public sector different? OK for us to work Holidays for nothing extra? What makes a Teamster anything better? Having been on both sides of the negotiating table with Teamsters I mostly heard whining from them.

Only talking about negotiating in different economic realities. Private sector unions have to negotiate in the reality that the businesses their members work for have to turn a profit to remain in business, and if the business fails, so do the members employed.

This is not the reality of a public union's negotiations. It's plain and simple and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

I not speaking to workplace protections, just the stark realities of negotiating with one union have much to lose in over demanding, and one union where this is a remote consideration.

Originally Posted by buggyone

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john...taxpayers.html




I guess John Stossel copied RichieLion's ideas. Don't leave, Richie! Please stay!

First of all, this ISN'T FROM FOX NEWS!!

Second of all, there is no mention of my primary point in comparing the negotiating for contracts in the different worlds of public and private sector unions.

In other words, you failed, and might I add, miserably so.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

First of all, this ISN'T FROM FOX NEWS!!

Second of all, there is no mention of my primary point in comparing the negotiating for contracts in the different worlds of public and private sector unions.

In other words, you failed, and might I add, miserably so.

... I do not think so. I will take that ice-cold Yeungling next time at the watering hole.

Hit them long, straight, and not too often.

Originally Posted by buggyone

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john...taxpayers.html




I guess John Stossel copied RichieLion's ideas. Don't leave, Richie! Please stay!

It wouldn't open for me. Pray tell.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Only talking about negotiating in different economic realities. Private sector unions have to negotiate in the reality that the businesses their members work for have to turn a profit to remain in business, and if the business fails, so do the members employed.

This is not the reality of a public union's negotiations. It's plain and simple and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

I not speaking to workplace protections, just the stark realities of negotiating with one union have much to lose in over demanding, and one union where this is a remote consideration.

at least private unions still have the opportunity to bargain collectively...unlike some public unions - nj, wi, ct, etc.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Only talking about negotiating in different economic realities. Private sector unions have to negotiate in the reality that the businesses their members work for have to turn a profit to remain in business, and if the business fails, so do the members employed.

This is not the reality of a public union's negotiations. It's plain and simple and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

I not speaking to workplace protections, just the stark realities of negotiating with one union have much to lose in over demanding, and one union where this is a remote consideration.

When the pension program changes out of the blue and workers have less than they started with, that's a problem that all workers should have sympathy for IMO.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

When the pension program changes out of the blue and workers have less than they started with, that's a problem that all workers should have sympathy for IMO.

That definitely is true. Some years ago, one of the major airlines went bankrupt and out of business. It was Eastern, I think. Some of their retired pilots were getting about $6,500 per month in retirement pay. Not too shabby, if you ask me. However, when the company declared bankruptcy, the pensions were cut back to around $1,000 per month. That would be a shock to go from $78,000 per year to $12,000 per year.

Interesting conversation and for me enlightening.

I hope I present this correctly, but my question revolves around the public and private factors with unions.

In the private sector, a company who begins to "bleed", suffer losses, or whatever that might effect the workers need to address the WHY and HOW of that loss and if necessary share with the workers and negotiate whatever needs to be negotiated.

In the public sector as with the current situation where government spending is just going through the roof, and ANY adjustments to be made, whether it is raising taxes OR cutting costs, the union members will be effected. They need to pay higher taxes, if that would be the response, etc.

Does this attitude of a county, state, whatever being able to pay forever because profit and loss is not an issue become part of the bargaining on either side ? Meaning if a union pushes for higher pensions than the private sector, do they not realize that it will only be a matter of time or do they look at the entity with which they are negotiating as a body that can do it forever...any realities set in ?

This is an honest question...I tried to frame it so that no bias would be apparent. It appears to me that the government is looked upon as somebody to whom the private problems can not ever happen ???

Originally Posted by Bucco

Interesting conversation and for me enlightening.

I hope I present this correctly, but my question revolves around the public and private factors with unions.

In the private sector, a company who begins to "bleed", suffer losses, or whatever that might effect the workers need to address the WHY and HOW of that loss and if necessary share with the workers and negotiate whatever needs to be negotiated.

In the public sector as with the current situation where government spending is just going through the roof, and ANY adjustments to be made, whether it is raising taxes OR cutting costs, the union members will be effected. They need to pay higher taxes, if that would be the response, etc.

Does this attitude of a county, state, whatever being able to pay forever because profit and loss is not an issue become part of the bargaining on either side ? Meaning if a union pushes for higher pensions than the private sector, do they not realize that it will only be a matter of time or do they look at the entity with which they are negotiating as a body that can do it forever...any realities set in ?

This is an honest question...I tried to frame it so that no bias would be apparent. It appears to me that the government is looked upon as somebody to whom the private problems can not ever happen ???

Public sector has management just like private sector. Those managers need to watch spending (GSA, Presidential Vacations, Layers of Management) easily come to mind. Those workers that have been promised things need to be budgeted for and new expenditures need to be curtailed if not paid for.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

Public sector has management just like private sector. Those managers need to watch spending (GSA, Presidential Vacations, Layers of Management) easily come to mind. Those workers that have been promised things need to be budgeted for and new expenditures need to be curtailed if not paid for.

Ok....now I never worked in the public sector, and I assume that any pensions or long term liabilities are included in any deficit numbers, and I also understand how you would plan on a pension that was promised....what kind of attitude then do you have when you see deficits and spending just going through the roof ?

When I peruse candidates who spend but also support unions, they get the endorsement. Is that not counter productive ?

Again, not trying to set anybody up....just trying to come to grips with this as if I were a public union member, and saw spending just going through the roof along with deficits, it would bother anyone but a public union member should even be more moved by those occurences...Yet, that does not seem to be the case with union backing ?????

Good question. Sure, if taxes are raised, government union employees would have to pay higher taxes.

Salaries of government workers are not part of union negotiations. Federal government unions are mainly for employee protection in promotions, demotions, and prohibited personnel actions.

I do not know all the details since I never was a labor relations specialist and I never belonged to one of the unions since I was in personnel.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Ok....now I never worked in the public sector, and I assume that any pensions or long term liabilities are included in any deficit numbers, and I also understand how you would plan on a pension that was promised....what kind of attitude then do you have when you see deficits and spending just going through the roof ?

When I peruse candidates who spend but also support unions, they get the endorsement. Is that not counter productive ?

Again, not trying to set anybody up....just trying to come to grips with this as if I were a public union member, and saw spending just going through the roof along with deficits, it would bother anyone but a public union member should even be more moved by those occurences...Yet, that does not seem to be the case with union backing ?????

Management change comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

Management change comes to mind.

Management changes as in elected officials who are doing the spending?

Originally Posted by Bucco

Management changes as in elected officials who are doing the spending?

Of course, and their friends from Academia Land.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

My only guess is that the Unions, after getting the requisite number of signed cards to force an election, want the opportunity to send correspondence to all the employees to rally them to their cause with solid information of the issues of employee importance, and not just the rumors that are normally abundant. An advantage a company has over the unions.

I don't think Union reps should be blind visiting employees, but I see no harm in providing addresses for the purpose of mailings, especially if it’s after the requisite number of employes have signed on to legally force a representative vote.

I don’t think this is too much to ask for.

The government in years past has made it more and more difficult for Unions to organize labor for better wages and benefits. They've forced the Unions to organize piecemeal, meaning each separate company location, instead of company wide referendums as was the way it was done in the past. This makes it easy for corporations to divide and separate it's employees by threatening to close a location that dares to entertain the idea of organizing, all the while knowing the rest of the company can hum along regardless of what the employees of the targeted location do.

The issue of “card check” is always only reported from the side of the corporate entities. The Unions are depicted as “thugs” who may violently prey on employees of companies that have employees seeking union representation.

Nobody ever depicts the corporate entity as thuggish as it threatens employees who are tired of being underpaid and overworked and under appreciated with the loss of their livelihood if they as so much as consider voting for union representation.

I’ve been involved in elections for union representation, and there’s no end to the dirty tricks and labor violations a company will commit in order to halt an election or terrorize it’s employees in advance of a ratifying vote.

Card Check would have gone a long way to eliminating bullying tactics by avaricious corporations.

IMHO, This is an outstanding post!