patrick.net

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (a fiscal conservative) recently pointed out that Ohio Turnpike toll booth operators start out at $52,000 plus benefits. On average, toll booth operators make $66,000 per year due to overtime .... plus benefits. All that for a job that requires literally no skill other than to make change and hand over a ticket stub. Although the Turnpike has been paid for many times over, it is now operating at a deficit. Just one of thousands of examples that can be cited to illustrate that government, on all levels, is out of control.

shrekgrinch says

Please re-read what I wrote

Actually, I caught what you wrote. And my comment in response was intended to inform two or three of of John and Jane Q Public, and maybe you as well.

We will see if it's too late. Maybe it temporarily is, at least in Wisconsin. But I don't see why it should be impossible for a majority of the people to learn what is actually happening.

Are you one of those who believe that the media is now so overly controlled by the right wing that all liberal policies and agenda are henceforth doomed ?

shrekgrinch says

Wisconsin is but the vanguard of what will sweep the nation with regards to states getting out of their unfunded pension and employee benefits messes

We'll see. It is true that the baby boom bubble in health and pension benefits is a problem that can only be solved by significant GDP growth or combinations of cuts and increased pay in by employees. But using this temporary situation that also coincides with a huge recession as an excuse to destroy unions is basically cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Interesting to me that the right wing sheep, envious of what are now good pay and benefits that state employees receive (because our standard of living per person (not per household with 2 wage earners) has dropped so much), want to see those union employees lose out. Don't they see it's just a step in the wrong direction for everyone ? And not just because your descendants or friends may one day work for the government. It's also because it lowers the salary bar for other jobs. I wish I could say that it's deflationary, but it is only deflationary relative to salaries.

RayAmerica says

Does that count as an answer? I really, really hope so. I anxiously await your answer.

No.

Let me try again.

When Lincoln jumped out a window to break quorum, was he wrongfully blocking the rightful "constitutional proccess"?

And now we see buried WAY down in the Union-Killer Bill.....

a hidden freebie for the billionaire Koch Brothers:

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-less-discussed-part-of-walkers-wisconsin-plan-no-bid-energy-assets-firesales/

Things can't actually end up with a single monopolist. That situation results in the people killing the monopolist and taking what is his (hopefully I don't have to enumerate all the instances of this happening in the past...)

You also have upstarts that can take a "fighting the big bad man" angle.

Now, if the rule of law doesn't exist, that upstart can't come into existance. At that point you don't have a free market though, so it's a moot point.

shrekgrinch says

Zlxr says
Without workers rights, without collective bargaining and all - there will not be a precedent anymore for what constitutes a safe and fair working environment.
Cry me a river and move to some third world country to see how workers are truly abused. I mean, really.

Lovely. Got any more 3rd grade arguments? Well, as long as we're not as bad as Somalia...

shrekgrinch says

Lincoln ended up doing far, far worse things regarding blatant defiance of the Constitution..so you sure you want to continue on with the Lincoln Analogy with regards to this topic?

Hello Ray....errr Shrek,

I wasn't speaking of those things. Specifically breaking quorum, is that always when people "Unite Against the Democratic Process" even if they happen to be Republicans?

The whole process stopped being "Democratic" when supreme court allowed unlimited capital to flow into elections allowing those with more money to influence the outcome.

If corporations have collective bargaining, why shouldn't the unions? After all we shouldn't (in my opinion) apply the laws differently to different people based purely on their connections to the current ruling party.

"if unions are such hot shit, then why do they have to depend on forcing workers to join them like good little comrades at the local soviet collective in order to be a going concern, eh?"

Largest corporations do that now by exercising their collective bargaining. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right. My argument here is that if we do not allow unions to collectively bargain than we have to take away corporate lobbying collective bargaining or we'll simply end up tipping the scale in favor of feudalism.

shrekgrinch says

ChrisLA says

Largest corporations do that now by exercising their collective bargaining.

Then I guess I didn’t get the context of ‘collective bargaining’ made with regards to corporations (because it is an alien term made in context of corporations, really). I thought it had to do with how they funnel political contributions because that was what was originally bitched about in the posting where this originally appeared.
Unions ‘collectively bargain’ for wages, benefits, etc. not to make political contributions. Public sector unions should NEVER be making political contributions as that is the taxpayer’s money being used against the taxpayers interest (more taxes and more spending…no matter what!).
And like I said, what corporations do is voluntary on their part. That is their money they are contributing from earnings, not salaries and if workers really, really don’t like it, they can quit and go work for a competitor…whereas most states that have unions also force workers to join said unions and force them to pay union dues whether they want to join or not…simply to hold a job in that field (try and find another state employer other than your state if you want to work as a public sector employee at the state level).
So I ask again, if unions are such hot shit, then why do they have to depend on forcing workers to join them and pay the dues? All other attempts at collective bargaining amongst individuals — grocery co-ops, for example — are voluntary. Individuals freely join or leave them based upon their own determinations of value they derive/don’t derive from membership.
But not when it comes to unions who want national card check scams to force workers to join and pay up. Such blatantly anti-American concepts is what they are all about..and why the public is against them.

I just like you do not like how corporations or unions do political contributions, I really dislike this system. Because it is not honorable, and it really just screws everyone who is not in the union or has a big daddy in Federal Reserve.

But I still think both should be addressed.

shrekgrinch says

It has been widely documented.

Ahh. The old widely documented. The last defense of a poster that knows he's wrong.

It's so widely documented that you were able to post 0 links to anything, huh?

Workers in states where unions were demolished, make about $5,000 less.

It's pretty clear the game here is part of the "divide the peasants" policy so a billionaire can buy another mansion with matching Rolls Royce.

Just say No.

Vicente says

Workers in states where unions were demolished, make about $5,000 less.

The cost of living in those state is also lower and companies are moving FROM the union states to the right to work states, creating jobs for the working class in the process. What was the point you were trying to make?

RayAmerica says

The cost of living in those [Union hostile] state is also lower

Oh REALLY?

According to the Cost of Living Calculator.....

If $50K in Madison, WI is your "living wage", you'll need $59K to live in Phoenix Arizona.

And why is unemployment higher in Arizona?

Vicente says

And why is unemployment higher in Arizona?

I wonder if illegal immigration, which is much higher in AZ than Wisconsin, might have a little something to do with it?

Vicente says

If $50K in Madison, WI is your “living wage”, you’ll need $59K to live in Phoenix Arizona.

I have a funny feeling that housing expenses alone would be much higher in Phoenix, AZ than in Madison, WI. Does anyone actually live in Wisconsin?

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

And why is unemployment higher in Arizona?

I wonder if illegal immigration, which is much higher in AZ than Wisconsin, might have a little something to do with it?

Why would illegal immigration have anything to do with it?

I thought you made it clear it was crushing UNIONS that were the difference in making a great economy. If we tar & feather them surely the Horn of Plenty will shower us with good things.

Thus Arizona should have low unemployment and higher salaries, and lower cost of living. Yet it does not.

Obviously your simple relationship, is wrong, once you start having to reach for other factors to explain it's plain failure.

Also ran into this little factoid:

Winsconsin SAT scores 2nd in the nation

http://blog.bestandworststates.com/2009/08/25/state-sat-scores-2009.aspx

I have to wonder about the people running down Wisconsin teachers as lazy Union turds just killing time between vacations and deliberately getting sick so they can use up all the healthcare. I suspect the ones saying this were the ones flunked out of school. Or perhaps never finished college because they were asked to leave like gov walker.

Next up on Fox News.... Outrage of the day! We have "heard it said" that Wisconsin female teachers get taxpayer-funded first class flights to EVERY spring break in Cancun, doing drugs and molesting our boys until they get knocked up, and return to Wisconsin to get taxpayer-funded abortions.

shrekgrinch says

By historians and economists. I am not going to be your Google Bitch because YOU remain stubbornly uneducated of both. Perhaps if you had an open mind

I love it. Shrek can write novels on here but can't take the time to do a simple google search to find any of the "widely documented" evidence.

Vicente says

Next up on Fox News…. Outrage of the day! We have “heard it said” that Wisconsin female teachers get taxpayer-funded first class flights to EVERY spring break in Cancun, doing drugs and molesting our boys until they get knocked up, and return to Wisconsin to get taxpayer-funded abortions.

I shoulda been a teacher. ;)

RayAmerica says

Pretty amazing that the same school district in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where the PRIVATE average income is only $19,000, public school teachers make with benefits, over $100,000. Talk about greed! I guess that’s what you get with collective bargaining.
http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/03/average-mps-teacher-compensation-tops-100kyear/

Some unions should be a lot more reasonable with taxpayer money. This is kind of a lot.

ChrisLA says

Some unions should be a lot more reasonable with taxpayer money. This is kind of a lot.

It's not about MONEY, the unions and Democrats both made it clear they would compromise on money. GOP changed it's tune and said that wasn't enough, they wanted the unions crushed. It's funny people are so quick to engage in "class envy" when it comes to teachers making "too much", however if you talk about taxing a billionaire hedge fund manager at more than 15% they cry CLASS WARFARE HOW DARE YOU! Divide & conquer, working according to plan.

Vicente says

ChrisLA says

Some unions should be a lot more reasonable with taxpayer money. This is kind of a lot.

It’s not about MONEY, the unions and Democrats both made it clear they would compromise on money. GOP changed it’s tune and said that wasn’t enough, they wanted the unions crushed. It’s funny people are so quick to engage in “class envy” when it comes to teachers making “too much”, however if you talk about taxing a billionaire hedge fund manager at more than 15% they cry CLASS WARFARE HOW DARE YOU! Divide & conquer, working according to plan.

I think the taxes on them should be raised too. Vincente we both know that in US whoever can get the money rolling to politicians gets the worlds best policy kickbacks. Very wealthy people pay very little taxes compared to their income, labor unions get treated very well (not all, but many are treated like better citizens).

I simply do not agree with the way our system works. I really do not believe any "Group" of people should be able to influence politicians with money. Unions or Corporations. Because as a taxpayer who is a non union worker or part of the too big to fail club I'm only stuck in the middle with no voice.

As far as collective bargaining goes. Years ago when I just graduated high school I applied to work at Vons. Its a major grocery store chain. I worked part time, about half my paycheck went to pay the union dues for the first month. I didn't care to be a part of the union, it was a very temporary affair for me. And yet I had to, I couldn't decline if I worked there. I really did not like that.

Some things unions ask for are reasonable, but just like any other group... given a chance many people become opportunistic. So I don't see this as a class warfare. I just see this as fixing some level of opportunism and corruption which is very widespread anywhere where money is available.

ChrisLA says

Some things unions ask for are reasonable, but just like any other group… given a chance many people become opportunistic. So I don’t see this as a class warfare. I just see this as fixing some level of opportunism and corruption which is very widespread anywhere where money is available.

And yet plainly it IS class warfare. Unions are a vanishing species. Domestic & FOREIGN Corporations have been recently made "people" and have ever-expanding influence. And your move is... to assign false moral equivalence and stand idly by, while we complete our transition to an outright plutocracy. Much like the Native Americans fighting amongst themselves while a tide sweeps over them.

It's clear that states with better unions, even non-union workers make more too. So if you are looking for a "zero sum" case where they are enriching themselves and therefore impoverishing everyone else, it's yet to be clearly made.

Vicente says

Also ran into this little factoid:
Winsconsin SAT scores 2nd in the nation

Another interesting little factoid: Millwaukee public schools graduate a whopping 68%. They sure are getting their money's worth from those $100K collective bargaining teachers!

OH man this is awesome! Prank caller pretending to be billionaire David Koch, calling Governor Walker to check in on how his stooge is handling his Wisconsin "crush the union" project. Clicka-da-pic:

Not just a spectacular imitation of a lackey reporting to his boss, it's also real:

WP: Governor Walker's office confirms prank Koch call

Vicente says

ChrisLA says

Some things unions ask for are reasonable, but just like any other group… given a chance many people become opportunistic. So I don’t see this as a class warfare. I just see this as fixing some level of opportunism and corruption which is very widespread anywhere where money is available.

And yet plainly it IS class warfare. Unions are a vanishing species. Domestic & FOREIGN Corporations have been recently made “people” and have ever-expanding influence. And your move is… to assign false moral equivalence and stand idly by, while we complete our transition to an outright plutocracy. Much like the Native Americans fighting amongst themselves while a tide sweeps over them.
It’s clear that states with better unions, even non-union workers make more too. So if you are looking for a “zero sum” case where they are enriching themselves and therefore impoverishing everyone else, it’s yet to be clearly made.

It is plutocracy, and it has always been. It's a capitalistic society, capitalism leads to plutocracy.

I know what you are saying. And I do not disagree with a lot of that. I'm just not easy about how everything is turning out lately. Both political sides have valid arguments for and against.

In Democratic society it should be a democratic vote on the budget and spending. Instead the only democratic part of it is voting for the candidate given to us by whatever party. Which means bribes, donations, etc...

And because of that I do not have a clear choice here:
Unions aren't exactly there because they have everyone else's interest at heart. I don't agree with the fact that they can bribe and bargain much better deals than an average person on the street can afford, while an average person does pay for their deals.

And large corporate interest couldn't care less if we all starved on the streets either as long as their profit margins are up. They get the same advantages with government and lobbying.

And another thing I don't understand is why would Republicans stage class warfare? I don't see any benefit to them out of it. Maybe this is simply being misinterpreted.

And because I cannot logically see a clear right side, there is too much unknown here, I can only stand by.

I really cannot justify collective bargaining by one group, while not providing it to the other. Until government is completely transparent and everything is democratically voted on (not by just the elected representatives) we'll have corruption and lobbying by special interest which I still disagree with. (I know I'm digressing a bit)

Vicente says

My favorite bit was just the ending (2nd recording). Walker was not a busy servant of the people, he was willing to jawbone with Boss Hogg all day, Until Boss was the one who said he was done.

Koch: [Laughs] Well, I tell you what, Scott: once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time.

Walker: All right, that would be outstanding. [* Ethical violation much? *] Thanks for all the support…it’s all about getting our freedoms back…

Koch: Absolutely. And, you know, we have a little bit of a vested interest as well. [Laughs]

Walker: [Blah] Thanks a million!

Koch: Bye-bye!

Walker: Bye.

elliemae says

shrekgrinch says

And they are a minority..a minority of envied ‘rich’ people in an era of very hard financial times.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/12435289/i-team-public-trust-water-authority-salaries?redirected=true
On the right, about 1/3 of the way down, there’s a box with links to the salaries of different agencies of public workers in the Vegas area. It’s outrageous.
Being a social worker, I know many public workers who aren’t able to quit because they’ll never be paid even close to what they’re earning now. They have a union contract. I believe that unions were necessary at one point, but that now it’s a way to ensure that the workers will make a hell of a lot more than the private sector.
Legal secretaries who make $128k? Social Workers who make $85k (after 20 years, but in the private sector it would be about half of that). This is one of the reasons that the public sectors are in the red and are full of layers of people who should have retired or been fired long ago…
The construction industry is a bit different - there’s a union, but because the workers are independent contractors, at least the union offered some benefits. But in Clark County now, unions don’t mean shit for the workers, only for the union reps.

Elliemae,

You illustrate well the false argument against the unions and the decently paid public workers.

Since unions in private corporations are almost completely extinct, busted, and workers are bullied into not being able to organize, workers in the private sector have no rights or bargaining power. The private sector unions were destroyed a long time ago and since then wages have remained stagnant and declined (in real dollars) in the private sector. Coincidence? I think not.

Those of us who aren't public employees who have the protections our fathers and mothers once had in the private sector are being manipulated into being jealous of and hateful toward public workers who are organized and actually have decent work conditions and make livable wages.

It's not that unions are bad for labor or business. Unions are bad for capitalists (those with all the money and resources). If the private sector had strong unions we workers would have similar wages and benefits that the public sector enjoys.

The super rich want us workers to fight one another and to be jealous of one another. This is a false argument. The super rich want you to hate unions and hate public workers for making a decent living and having real benefits because they don't want to pay the workers in their own private corporations an actual living wage with benefits and healthy work environments. The super rich want sweat shops. They've made that clear by exporting all of our manufacturing to sweat shops overseas.

Really, if the majority of Americans, those of us who must work for a living, were to organize, the rich wouldn't have been able to amass such glutonous disparities of wealth.

We who aren't in public jobs with strong union representation should be fighting tooth and nail to preserve the power of those unions and emulating the way public workers have organized themselves.

No, those of us in "employment at will" states and jobs (in California) are jealous of those who have rights, real living wages, and real benefits at the public sector.

Guess what? We could have that too if we organized and demanded that we be paid what we are actually worth since productivity has exponentially increased over the past 30 years while wages have been stagnant or declining for all but the top level of management.

Stop bitching about what others have and start organizing and demanding what they have for ourselves! It's time we seize the opportunity to turn this around before the last workers who actually have living wages, full worker rights, and healthy work environments are crushed into the dust bin of history.

This generation is too young and uneducated to remember the lessons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when rober barons killed workers over organizing so that they could have a 5 day work week and actually be paid in real dollars instead of company "scrip" that would only be good at company stores so that workers were shackled to their jobs in order to survive.

No instead we listen to the propaganda of the super rich on the right and blame others who have organized themselves properly and protected their rights for not having what they have.

That's sad...

Thanks Simcha, and good job breaking it down.

I think it's irrational. This may seem off the subject, but I recall many years ago when I was about 30, and a friend of my sister's, a person who was very together in many ways, was telling me how she really couldn't even talk to my sister at that time because my sister was very happy in her relationship (to a guy that she has now long since been married to). The reason was that my sister's friend was not then in a good situation with her love life.

I thought that was so strange. I still do really. She loved my sister, and was happy for her, but at the same time was so emotionally challenged by the happiness my sister had that she didn't have. Ultimately it would have made her happier (at least in a way) if my sister broke up with her boyfriend and became unhappy like she was.

This must be a variation on the concept "misery loves company."

How is it that people think that salaries (in real dollars) go up or go down ? Do they think it happens for everyone all at once ?

Logically if you understand that everyone's pay can't go up at once then you should be willing and even happy to see the pay of others (especially if it's in your profession), go up. The only chance you have of your profession getting paid better is for some to start being payed better, others then follow and so on.

Of course what's going on here is the opposite. It's one more group's pay being reduced. Hey , maybe eventually everyone will be paid equally bad, and then we can start the next step down...

I know this is unique in that it's we the tax payers who indirectly pay the salaries of public workers. But I don't see people doing a deep analysis of how much of state's deficits are directly related to public workers salaries. Do you all remember that back in the 80s when "shrinking federal government" was the big GOP mantra, and that part of how that was (not) done, was by shifting more responsibilities to states ?

In the short term, maybe there needs to be some minor adjustments in benefits for state workers. But that is no excuse for trying to long term set the workers back by taking away union rights.

Zlxr says

just like they helped themselves to our Social Security Money.

That money's still there. It's a current and future obligation of the US taxpayer, and, in the words of the Heritage Foundation:

the top 20 percent pay 86.3% of all Federal income taxes

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/seven-myths-about-taxing-the-rich

So, basically, the top 20% of the country owes the bottom 90% TWO TRILLION DOLLARS -- ~80% of the current $2.6T FICA surplus.

The middle class will only lose this two trillion if they buy into the bullshit that this money is "gone" and the rich are now too broke to pay it back.

I'm just glad I don't have much money lost to FICA for my age [in fact, my mom has been drawing more than I'm putting in now, so I'm kinda golden]. I fully expect the PTB to screw the middle class out of their social security savings.

Anytime you have to spend like 6 paragraphs explaining why a framing is false (like above), you're not going to win the argument : )

Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th

Meanwhile ground zero of the union battle, Wisconsin, is ranked 2nd in the country.

http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-teachers-unions-are-illegal-2011-2#ixzz1EqY2s793

Having worked for both public & private agencies, I think there's good & bad on both sides. But I do believe that the workers at some of these agencies are overpaid. Public agencies often pay lots more than the private sector - and I get that - but the reality is that many of the people in the article I mentioned are overpaid and underqualified.

In Clark County Nevada, it's not what you know, it's who you blow to get the best jobs. It's always been that way.

But there are arguments for, and against, unions. I've not had good experiences - but then again, I was in Vegas at the time.

Vicente says

shrekgrinch says

Lincoln ended up doing far, far worse things regarding blatant defiance of the Constitution..so you sure you want to continue on with the Lincoln Analogy with regards to this topic?

Hello Ray….errr Shrek,
I wasn’t speaking of those things. Specifically breaking quorum, is that always when people “Unite Against the Democratic Process” even if they happen to be Republicans?

It seems that you're attempting to trap some conservatives and/or Republicans in hypocrisy by pointing out what Lincoln did and expecting them to defend him - because he was a Republican. But they're not playing with you - at least two of them are saying that they think Lincoln was even worse than that. I'll add to it: He was in my opinion wrong to jump out of a window and deny quorum. I would not go so far as to say he was a "traitor" to the US Constitution for that incident (what you first tried to get people to admit), but I would agree that he contributed to denying his state's "constitutional process," assuming that when their constitution was written, denying quorum was never intended to be a legitimate political tool.

Vicente says

Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

Check your link again....

First, using 2007 data vs. 1999 data, GA is 26 and VA is 25.

Second, this appears to NOT be a ranking of the states' SAT/ACT scores or averages, but a ranking of the states based on the % of students who score in the top 20 percentile of these tests. This is very different than more general "SAT/ACT rankings." It is also less meaningful.

Even Shep Smith on Fox News, has to admit:

THERE IS NO BUDGET CRISIS
THE KOCH BROTHERS SUPPORTED WALKER TO GET HIM TO BUST LABOR UNIONS

It's all about exterminating unions. 7 of the top 10 donors to political campaigns go to Republicans. The Koch Brothers want to ensure they eliminate the other 3 which go to Democrats, so they can turn the USA firmly into a corporotocracy with the Koch Brothers of course at the top of the heap and their stooges in all the places of power that matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuuUV94bOW0

Paralithodes says

Democrats were looking to possibly eliminate the filibuster and it was all over the news… something seemingly quiet and not covered as much now.

With the Republicans controlling the House it makes no tactical sense for the Democrats to eliminate the extra-constitutional Senate filibuster rules. The Republicans can just stop Senate legislation in the House now.

I assume you believe that the Republicans were totally right and justified in their talk of a “nuclear option?”

Of course. The rules can be changed. What matters is how the electorate views the evolution.

Such is politics.