Originally Posted by Bucco

FDR was opposed to these public unions and for good reason !!!

...and Reagan said, in 1980, that when workers are not allowed to collectively bargain, tyranny is found.

Originally Posted by djplong

...and Reagan said, in 1980, that when workers are not allowed to collectively bargain, tyranny is found.

“But we cannot compare labor management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide, without interruption, the protective services which are governments’ reason for being.”

Ronald Reagan, 1981

I just find it astounding the double-standard here.

Like I said, I'm no fan of unions because of every experience I've had with them (granted much of that was second-hand, having to deal with peeling my ex-wife off the ceiling from the stress that she got from the postal unions which she refused to join).

On the one hand, when the workers band together and demand better wages and benefits, this is bad. (My personal belief when it comes to public unions is that you could fix a lot of the problem if you simply made it less impossible to get rid of do-nothing or incompetent employees - there used to be a guarantee of quality when you 'bought union')

On the other, when you get the logical result of the "race to the bottom" wages, people scream that workers aren't being paid "a living wage". Worse yet, someone in China or Mumbai might do the work for pennies on the dollar.

This is a fundamental problem with unskilled labor. Where is the middle ground? We're no longer in the position we were in the 1950s when we were the only industrialized nation that hadn't had it's base bombed back to the Stone Age.

By no means would I want everyone replaced with minimum wage drones. "Back in the day", minimum wage was a place to START your career. You weren't expected to be able to afford everything (like your own 2BR apartment or something like it) on that money (as many so-called "advocates" would have you believe). When I worked for minimum wage, I had this thing called "a roommate". Apparently, due to the financial crisis, this forgotten concept is coming back into vogue - like some paleontologist just rediscovered it..

Rubicon, very good reply to my post.

No progress!!

btk

IowaParkersburg -

Lou,
Federal government employees have the right to join a union. Look at National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) and American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). They represent their members and even non-members for violations of hiring practices, unfair labor practices, unfair promotion practices, illegal terminations, and other issues. They are a necessary force as a go-between for labor and management.

Federal union officials also testify before Congress when it is time for salaries and wages to be discussed. This is for the entire Federal workforce but union officials make their viewpoints known.

Federal unions do NOT have the right to strike.

You, as a contract officer, did not have the right to be a union member since you were considered management. However, your employees had that right.

Originally Posted by Tbugs

IowaParkersburg -

Lou,
Federal government employees have the right to join a union. Look at National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) and American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). They represent their members and even non-members for violations of hiring practices, unfair labor practices, unfair promotion practices, illegal terminations, and other issues. They are a necessary force as a go-between for labor and management.

Federal union officials also testify before Congress when it is time for salaries and wages to be discussed. This is for the entire Federal workforce but union officials make their viewpoints known.

Federal unions do NOT have the right to strike.

You, as a contract officer, did not have the right to be a union member since you were considered management. However, your employees had that right.

This is one area where, unbelievably it may seem to others in this forum, where we are in agreement.

The number of people, especially those that were in blue collar positions, who discount the value of the union to the working man is mind boggling.

I'll always say that the true power in this country is money. Those that have the money have the power. There is only one challenge to that power, and that is the power of the workers to organize. Of course, those with the money are fighting tooth and nail to undermine this challenge to their power and their allies are the Republican Party and the conservative media.

I understand that the public unions are totally different to the private unions, but we are all going down the drain together.

I am usually sympathetic to the argument that the public unions drain the money of the taxpayer who doesn't have the same compensation as the public union worker, but then in arguing this the conservative broadcaster can't resist lumping in examples of private union problems as in the case of General Motors.

Now, General Motors union employees had a lucrative deal, there is no denying that. The point is that the company, General Motors, negotiated this deal with the UAW and did not put one red cent into a fund to finance this deal. Then when General Motors began to fail and the bill became due to pay their contracted workers, they didn't have the money. Duh!!!

All you hear from the great Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like, who I admire by the way, is that the unions killed the golden goose. I can agree that the union had a deal that might have been too lucrative, but the corporation agreed to this. Not one mention is made of the startling fact that the company didn't have a fund in place to pay for their contracted agreements. It's reported that the fault is totally with the union and that is just plain old American bull crap.

If the pension fund had been with the UAW this would never have happened. And that is because the Union would have been in the position of having to maintain the fund and it would have been their responsibility to do so. GM though didn't want to actually have to pay a set amount of money to anybody to maintain the fund and when the bill had to be paid and their pockets were empty they and their allies blamed the greed of the union.

I could go on, but this post is getting long enough

Richie-
You actually agreed with me on something? I am both happy and amazed. Let's try to keep it that way.

The real behind the scenes battle in Wisconsin for the teachers and public employees is not for the members but for lost union dues. More than $35,000,000 in dues from teachers alone and a large commission rake off on the union controlled health insurance plan which all goes to the fat cat leaders whose top salaries have been reported at from $380,000 to $250,000, and who knows what else they spend their millions on. When have you ever seen an audited report on the financials of a union, even if you belong to one?
Anyway, if the public workers aren't happy with the new order they can always quit and work for the ultra high union wages and benefits at Schlitz, Blatz, AC Delco, Delphi, Wisconsin Motors, Chrysler Engine Plant, GM Janesville Assembly Plant----oops, they all seem to have disappeared.

to blame only the unions for the closures is simply not true.You paint this as a one-way street.Please do not forget corporate greed. You mention union salaries but what about corporate salaries and their golden parachutes? They dont share the blame? Heard someone say if you enjoy your weekends thank the unions. I want to thank them now. Unions have done far more for me than some million dollar CEO who runs a company into the ground then gets a million dollar severance package and on the way out the door has the audacity to blame the union.

Wasn't this about public unions? Which with teachers have been getting away with sticking it to the tax payers for years.Here in Il we once had a meeting with one of my sons teachers who couldn't teach we confronted her about this and she began to cry and say how she was their for the kids.Well we thought it would be best to drop the course,to do this we had to meet with the principal.He begged us to stay in the class and try to put up with her but gave in to are demand.he said his hands were tied and couldn't get rid of her.Today she is still at that school making about 125k a year and still worthless. In the public sector they just can't kid rid of the poor performers.
I have a friend of mine who is a union boss for rail road workers and he will not put up with any crap.If workers screw up he tells the rail road to fire them.He reasons they make about 100k they should work for it and if not goodbye.thats the way it should be in the public sector but here in chicago they all laugh of not doing any thing half the time I guess thats the chicago way let the tax payers pay.

125k a year as a teacher??? I do not believe it.

Originally Posted by waynet

125k a year as a teacher??? I do not believe it.

don't know where your from but in chicago area salarys are printed in the paper.Are band teacher at our high school makes more then 125 and superindendants of school dists, can make 200 t0 300 k one of them gets a pension of more then 350k a year.In Il we have more then3500 teachers getting pensions of more then 100k

I'm telling you.. If it were possible to fire bad teachers, this would NEVER have become an issue.

CORRECT