Publlic Employee Unions May Be On The Way Out

[Kathianne]

If this happens by the police in WI, I think it will bring an end to public sector unions:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/02/wisconsin-police-union-members-threaten.html


Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wisconsin Police Union Members Threaten Insurrection
There's a reason this blog is called Legal Insurrection. An insurrection by definition is illegal, but that is exactly what some police union members in Wisconsin have threatened in support of fellow public sector unions.

The video below show a policeman (presumably off-duty but wearing what looks like a police-issue sweater with insignia) who addressed the crowd of protesters inside the Wisconsin Capitol building on February 24, and threatened disobedience to state government. ...

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HVE_rLjxnfU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

If this happens by the police in WI, I think it will bring an end to public sector unions:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/02/wisconsin-police-union-members-threaten.html

If that ever happens it would do wonders to expand the US economy

However it would be a near fatal occurance for the Dem party. Without the unions, most of their funding would be lost

Two great benefits if the unions go away

[Palin Rider]

If that ever happens it would do wonders to expand the US economy

However it would be a near fatal occurance for the Dem party. Without the unions, most of their funding would be lost

Two great benefits if the unions go away

Sure, Burger King Kid, George Soros is a big union man. :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb022511dAPC20110225074517.jpg

[Palin Rider]

If a state government wants to break its employee unions, why not let the voters decide the question?

I wouldn't want some governor making a unilateral decision on this.

[Psychoblues]

If a state government wants to break its employee unions, why not let the voters decide the question?

I wouldn't want some governor making a unilateral decision on this.

I wouldn't want any single person or any part of the collective bargaining equation making that kind of a unilateral decision. That just isn't American.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

If a state government wants to break its employee unions, why not let the voters decide the question?

I wouldn't want some governor making a unilateral decision on this.

They did. The voters in WI elected Republicans on an agenda to cut spending and massive deficits

[Kathianne]

They did. The voters in WI elected Republicans on an agenda to cut spending and massive deficits

Now, that's the correct answer. The voters vote every so often for 'representatives' just so they can do what they do. Otherwise we'd live in a pure democracy, we don't.

[fj1200]

If a state government wants to break its employee unions, why not let the voters decide the question?

I wouldn't want some governor making a unilateral decision on this.


I wouldn't want any single person or any part of the collective bargaining equation making that kind of a unilateral decision. That just isn't American.

Psychoblues

So you two DON'T understand the republican form of government and the bicameral legislature with an elected head of the executive branch?

Weird.

[Palin Rider]

Now, that's the correct answer. The voters vote every so often for 'representatives' just so they can do what they do. Otherwise we'd live in a pure democracy, we don't.

Then while we're at it, let's have the president revamp the Constitution.

As long as he's a white Republican, of course! :laugh:

[logroller]

I've heard that as a way to avoid public unions, public services are contracted out to private companies (waste management is a nationally recognized company, and locally in my city and county this is the case as well). I wonder what might happen if public unions were no longer a factor. Would these contracts not be renewed, leading to decreased privatization?

[fj1200]

^ Why do you think they fight vouchers, charter schools, and any hint of privatization with such a vengeance?

[Palin Rider]

I've heard that as a way to avoid public unions, public services are contracted out to private companies (waste management is a nationally recognized company, and locally in my city and county this is the case as well). I wonder what might happen if public unions were no longer a factor. Would these contracts not be renewed, leading to decreased privatization?

That would depend on how easy or difficult it is to get a contract with the government in question.

[red states rule]

http://slapblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/anti-union-protest-sign.jpg

[red states rule]

That would depend on how easy or difficult it is to get a contract with the government in question.

Your post should be:

That would depend on how easy or difficult it is to get a contract with the taxpayers in question

[Palin Rider]

Your post should be:

That would depend on how easy or difficult it is to get a contract with the taxpayers in question

Sure, if most of the taxpayers bothered to vote.

[red states rule]

Sure, if most of the taxpayers bothered to vote.

They did, Dems lost, and now Dem are the ones running

Running away that is

[Palin Rider]

They did, Dems lost, and now Dem are the ones running

Running away that is

Wrong again. Voter turnout last November was nowhere NEAR 50%.

[Missileman]

Wrong again. Voter turnout last November was nowhere NEAR 50%.

Actually, it was a record, very close to 50%. But even if the current state government had been elected by 30% of the populace, they are the duly elected government and can do whatever they wish within the state's laws and constitution until their term is up.

[Palin Rider]

Actually, it was a record, very close to 50%. But even if the current state government had been elected by 30% of the populace, they are the duly elected government and can do whatever they wish within the state's laws and constitution until their term is up.

Of course they can. I said only that "the taxpayers" aren't exactly "the government" when I majority of them don't vote.

[bullypulpit]

Just remember kids, as go the unions, so goes the middle class. So, y'all keep votin' against yer own best interests.

[Kathianne]

Of course they can. I said only that "the taxpayers" aren't exactly "the government" when I majority of them don't vote.

The way our system works is through individual choice. Vote or don't, your choice. Even when you fail to, you have the right to complain about the choices you didn't make.

http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/11/03/high_turnout_caused_.php

Many in WI did make choices in 2010, whether others like them or not.

[Missileman]

Just remember kids, as go the unions, so goes the middle class. So, y'all keep votin' against yer own best interests.

Riiiiggghhhhtttt! Tell us BP...what percentage of the private work force is union? The unions aren't in in for the workers' interests anymore.

[Palin Rider]

Riiiiggghhhhtttt! Tell us BP...what percentage of the private work force is union?

Doesn't follow that if a larger percentage of that work force were union, the middle class wouldn't be financially better off.

[Missileman]

Doesn't follow that if a larger percentage of that work force were union, the middle class wouldn't be financially better off.

That wasn't the proposition. BP argues that the end of unions equals the end of the middle class. Since the vast majority of the middle class ISN'T union, it follows the the unions don't have much to do with the survival of the middle class.

[Palin Rider]

That wasn't the proposition. BP argues that the end of unions equals the end of the middle class. Since the vast majority of the middle class ISN'T union, it follows the the unions don't have much to do with the survival of the middle class.

Except that there would never have been a middle class after the Industrial Revolution without unions.

[Missileman]

Except that there would never have been a middle class after the Industrial Revolution without unions.

A notion that you couldn't even begin to prove...sorry.

[Kathianne]

A notion that you couldn't even begin to prove...sorry.

Not to mention even infer given the coal and clothing industries as examples of worst offenders.

I wouldn't presume to say that the beginnings of unions in the US were unjustified or unnecessary. Working conditions, company owned stores and housing, etc., begged for the worker being protected.

However, with or without them there was a substantial middle class and it would continue to grow, with or without unions.

Truth is, in the US the unions have never represented a large segment of the middle class, nor any group for that matter, even at their peak.

[Gaffer]

Unions were necessary when they first formed in the 20's and 30's. Since the 60's they are no longer needed. Laws have been put in place to protect the workers. Unions are now just leeches with the union bosses making 10 times what the highest paid union worker makes and their salaries are paid by the workers.

[Palin Rider]

Not to mention even infer given the coal and clothing industries as examples of worst offenders.

I wouldn't presume to say that the beginnings of unions in the US were unjustified or unnecessary. Working conditions, company owned stores and housing, etc., begged for the worker being protected.

However, with or without them there was a substantial middle class and it would continue to grow, with or without unions.

Truth is, in the US the unions have never represented a large segment of the middle class, nor any group for that matter, even at their peak.

Does even one academically credible historian say any of these things (besides what's in the second paragraph)?

[KarlMarx]

Public sector unions are sucking the life out of the Middle Class. Many municipalities, including the one I live in, are cutting back on necessary services, e.g. snow removal, garbage pickup, road repair, in order to meet the benefit and pension requirements that they foolishly agreed to with the public sector unions. In the meantime, taxes keep sky rocketing.

Plus public sector unions, like all unions, are *tax exempt* organizations (501(c)(5) organizations according to the IRS). The fact that the public sector unions are demanding more of taxpayers' money while not contributing a cent in revenue themselves strikes me as the height of gall. Also, 501(c)(5) organizations are supposed to limit the amount of their involvement in political activities.... something that doesn't seem to be happening these days.

So, how do unions protect the interests of the Middle Class?

[Kathianne]

Does even one academically credible historian say any of these things (besides what's in the second paragraph)?

Do a bit of reading from some credible historians on the Gilded Age.

[Palin Rider]

Public sector unions are sucking the life out of the Middle Class. Many municipalities, including the one I live in, are cutting back on necessary services, e.g. snow removal, garbage pickup, road repair, in order to meet the benefit and pension requirements that they foolishly agreed to with the public sector unions. In the meantime, taxes keep sky rocketing.

Plus public sector unions, like all unions, are *tax exempt* organizations (501(c)(5) organizations according to the IRS). The fact that the public sector unions are demanding more of taxpayers' money while not contributing a cent in revenue themselves strikes me as the height of gall. Also, 501(c)(5) organizations are supposed to limit the amount of their involvement in political activities.... something that doesn't seem to be happening these days.

So, how do unions protect the interests of the Middle Class?

I'm not at all convinced that public sector unions are helpful to the middle class. I was referring only to the private sector here.

[Palin Rider]

Do a bit of reading from some credible historians on the Gilded Age.

I have, in the past. Nothing I saw there had anything in common with your recent remarks.

[red states rule]

Good news for America, and bad news for the Dem party





As Barack Obama stood on that frigid inaugural stage in 2009, labor leaders could envisage the glorious future awaiting them. Here, at last, was a President determined to help unions rebuild their sagging ranks by supporting a "card check" bill that would change the way unions are allowed to organize workers. Here was a President who openly criticized fellow Democrat Bill Clinton for signing the North American Free Trade Agreement. And here was a President who would put government health care for the uninsured at the center of his agenda.

Two years later card check is dead, Obama is out promoting free-trade deals, and his health care reform plan -- passed without a government option -- faces an uncertain future in the courts. And now a costly new front has opened in labor's struggles: the states, where budget-cutting governors are targeting union salaries, benefits, and even collective-bargaining rights.

Not even the most union-friendly President in three decades can soften this harsh political terrain -- a problem sure to vex his 2012 reelection bid.

Unions spent $80 million on behalf of Obama and other Democrats in 2008. Combined with a sharp increase in direct contributions to campaigns, this independent money gave union-backed candidates a big edge, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Now, even as union membership continues to decline -- reducing the member dues available to siphon into political campaigns -- labor is being forced to spend millions to defend its ground at the state and local levels. That means less money available for the President and his allies in 2012.

Indeed, Obama remains popular with unions even though he hasn't delivered on his promises to them. His problem is that unions are increasingly unpopular with Americans. According to a new Pew Research poll, 41% of Americans say they have an unfavorable opinion of unions, and their support is at the lowest level in a quarter century.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/09/news/economy/unions_failing.fortune/