patrick.net

+1

Y.K.Y.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/4XEaeOxqy_4
Who governs gubmint ?

This is a well put argument. I would also add that the tax payer is not necessarily represented when public sector union contracts are negotiated. The politicians have been typically more than willing to give out generous benefit increases to garner union support for there next election. The union hierarchy and members clearly get monetary benefit. The private citizen gets to pay the cost and presumably not complain. It was easy to hide government largess for the last 30 or 40 years. Many of the benefits given out were in the form of retirement and health benefits which the public would not feel the fiscal bite of for many years. This made sense for the politician since he or she was looking mainly to win the next election. Well, many years have passed and here we are.

Although, I can't give you too much credit for the article. The idea wasn't yours; FDR put it forth quite a while back.

I agree.

EconPete says

Since money is stolen from tax payers

How can you claim that the money is "stolen" from taxpayers if the tax rates don't change yet the union members get a wage increase? If you are paying 9.3% marginal on your state taxes, does it really matter? It's not as though they raised taxes to say 10% marginal to fund public union wage increases.

First thing to do. Remove all Republicans,Teabaggers & Libertarians from these public unions. They are living off that nasty tax dollar & getting retirement that I can't. LEECHES

+1

- I've always thought that private unions were OK, as long as they don't interfere w/ 'right to work' laws. If they can prove that their product/productivity commands a premium, let them prove it on a level playing field, with real competition.

How can you claim that the money is "stolen" from taxpayers if the tax rates don't change yet the union members get a wage increase? If you are paying 9.3% marginal on your state taxes, does it really matter? It's not as though they raised taxes to say 10% marginal to fund public union wage increases.

Perhaps, Econpete, if 50% of the tax revenue was not going to Union pension and health benefits, the marginal rates could be lowered to something more reasonable.

Pretty simple in my world.

Math trumps Left/Right theology?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=208109

An acquaintance of mine recently praised the LA Teacher's Union on her Facebook page. I pointed out that, while unions have benefits, that her union was actively lobbying to restrict the ability of the LAUSD to fire pedophiles upon the presentation of actionable evidence.
She completely lost her mind and her friends joined in, calling me "stupid, ignorant" etc. Yet this is literally what the union was aggressively fighting for. They recently won the right to keep laws that make it virtually impossible to fire teachers even when presented with clear evidence that they are fiddling kids or dealing drugs to their students. These examples are not exaggerations. The LAUSD paid a teacher who is being prosecuted for molesting dozens of kids to retire because the difficulty of firing him was too great. The odds of conviction appear to be close to 100% but this is not enough to get canned in the LAUSD system.
Any call to reign in the 1% (and this lady bashed the 1% in her post) are not credible when so much of the rest of the population acts exactly the same in their own lives. In fact, they seem to behave worse. Goldman Sachs would run miles from any perceived involvement with pedophilia but the LA Teacher's Union could not care less about the kids that get molested due to the "it's too hard to fire him" rules. Goldman dumped its investment in Backpage.com within hours of a journalist pointing out that Backpage.com has ads for hookers and that Goldman was a shareholder.
The simplest argument against public unions is that they have no natural enemy. Public unions are simply another form of rent seeking behavior. Someone should tell Joseph Stiglitz.

Spokaneman says

How can you claim that the money is "stolen" from taxpayers if the tax rates don't change yet the union members get a wage increase? If you are paying 9.3% marginal on your state taxes, does it really matter? It's not as though they raised taxes to say 10% marginal to fund public union wage increases.

Perhaps, Econpete, if 50% of the tax revenue was not going to Union pension and health benefits, the marginal rates could be lowered to something more reasonable.

Pretty simple in my world.

The answer is very simple: debt. California fulfills its promises by borrowing. Your confusion shows why governments borrow rather than increase taxes every time they spend more - people would understand the linkage between their taxes and the services provided and would not like it.

Debt is the reason people vote for insane policies like "No new taxes! Better roads!".

-1

If you want to argue that there should be no goverment jobs, such as police, fire dept, postal (I know that's shrinking), or public schools, that would be a different argument. Perhaps you think these should all be done by haliburton?

But if you accept these public sector services, then by definition, they don't have direct competition. Although they do in a way fro UPS, private schools etc.

What I really hear you saying is that private sector jobs sure have gotten shit on in the last 30 years.

30 Years ago, when public unions were fighting to get wages and benefits that were almost as good as the private sector, people weren't complaining as much. They probably understood that decent compensation would help keep the jobs competitive to bring in quality people.

Yes, here we are.

Your overlords would have you believe that our economic situation is the fault of the public unions. That simply is not true.

The truth:

1) Now the economy sucks with high unemployment and high underemployment, making public sector benefits seem too good. (Truth is though we have taken pay cuts since 2008). And our compensation (teachers) never was too good, considering the commitment involved.

But maybe the public unions have to be destroyed, which might help the private sector take over these functions. Who cares, as long as public sector misery comes down to private sector misery level.

2) People don't understand pensions or the public sector pension problem. But they know they don't have a pension and that's all they need to know.

When America was prosperous we were a great country, or at least it was easier for us to believe that we are.

Now ?

I guess my point could be - be careful what you wish for. What the hell. Maybe even try to understand what it is you are wishing for.

HEY YOU says

Math trumps Left/Right theology?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=208109

1) All public pensions can't be lumped together.

2) People don't understand what unfunded liabilities are.

They need to be addressed, through reform and by making gradual increases in what employees pay in to their fund and yes what the employers pay in.

When they put a number on unfunded liabilities, they are projecting way in to the future comparing what it will cost to pay all current employees from retirement to death, to what will be in retirement funds based on many assumptions.

I will grant you, being a govt worker in California, where we don't know how to solve problems is kinda scary.

100% of all pensions will fail. its a guarantee. basic math really.

All they can hope for is that the entity they are parasitizing off lives longer than they do, the same dream of the tapeworm.

PockyClipsNow says

100% of all pensions will fail. its a guarantee. basic math really.

All they can hope for is that the entity they are parasitizing off lives longer than they do, the same dream of the tapeworm.

They won't necessarily fail. Even in private sector, pension funds model based on expected returns given asset allocation. I am sure, they don't expect to fail, so why should public sector pension administrators assume failure?

m1ckey6 says

I pointed out that, while unions have benefits, that her union was actively lobbying to restrict the ability of the LAUSD to fire pedophiles upon the presentation of actionable evidence.

Source please.

m1ckey6 says

The simplest argument against public unions is that they have no natural enemy.

It would seem that ignorance is their natural enemy. Public education is definitely doomed without unions. But then that is the wish of those feeding you the BS.

m1ckey6 says

I pointed out that, while unions have benefits, that her union was actively lobbying to restrict the ability of the LAUSD to fire pedophiles upon the presentation of actionable evidence.

http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/02/14/lausd-paid-utla-union-pedophile-teacher-to-resign/

This guy is going to go to jail for a long time. LAUSD made a command decision to pay him (cut a deal) 40K severance to get him to leave immediately.

This was cheap and efficient compared to follwing union procedures and CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS (not lobbying).

You are as ignorant as those people on facebook said. Teachers have contracts, and the union has the job of representing the teachers side of that contract. It's law.

This is kind of analogous to crying because when someone is arrested (with evidence) of a heinous murder, why can't we just execute them immediately, or sentence them to life in prison immediately ?

The union is a boogeyman !!!

By the way, given the few recent instance of disgusting sexual abuse in LAUSD, you can be sure that the next version of the contract will have provisions for immediate dismissal under certain circumstances.

I think they are already in the contract, but now they will probably circumvent all due process in certain situations. But it's tricky if you think about it, because usually it's one persons word against another's. There needs to be a process, because remember public schools have all type of students even the occasional sociopaths that could make a false accusation.

Do teachers who commit their lives to teaching deserve any protection whatsoever from this ?

Contrary to what you might believe, the instances of teachers doing these things is very low. Probably way less than 1 in 1000 teachers sexually abuse kids.

marcus says

I will grant you, being a govt worker in California, where we don't know how to solve problems is kinda scary.

CA is complacent. Everyone kicks the can down the road until the system collapses. I don't see any private sector future here.

Many residents of CA already believe that education costs are not worth the result they are getting, that state has way too many problems with illegals, and a pension system it can't sustain, while economy is tanking.

At least being in government you are guaranteed a very cushy retirement, being in private sector there are no guarantees. And either way I think the state is doomed.

marcus says

What I really hear you saying is that private sector jobs sure have gotten shit on in the last 30 years.

What happened to our country? We used to see people doing "better" than us, and that made us ask, why can't we be like them? Now, we see people doing "better" than us, and now all we can do is kneecap them and claw them down to our level.

I think it's a type of class warfare that corporate America has incited, framing yet another "us" vs. "them" pitting us vs. the public workers. If nobody has collective bargaining rights, the rest of us workers won't get any bright ideas to speak up and fight for them to get them back.

Enough name-calling. Police, firefighters and teachers are public workers. They are not villainous scoundrels who scheme to exist solely to live on the taxpayers largess, they are ORDINARY PEOPLE with lives and families who chose that line of work, who show up every day and do their jobs just like you and me.

And if you think they have it so good, there's nothing stopping you from taking one of these cushy jobs and living large like they do...

+1

JonnyDanger says

What happened to our country? We used to see people doing "better" than us, and that made us ask, why can't we be like them? Now, we see people doing "better" than us, and now all we can do is kneecap them and claw them down to our level.

This is about fair competition. Who wants to play the game when it's rigged for you to lose? The feelings of many is that public sector is accountable to no one, they just buy politicians in exchange for benefits... the way corporations lobby Congress. It's a crony system that needs to be changed out.

Government unions simply got too strong, and every power has only one desire to grow itself. That power must be kept in check before it consumes all under it's own gluttony and greed.

JonnyDanger says

I think it's a type of class warfare that corporate America has incited, framing yet another "us" vs. "them" pitting us vs. the public workers. If nobody has collective bargaining rights, the rest of us workers won't get any bright ideas to speak up and fight for them to get them back.

You're exactly right. The only part that's amazing is all the FWs of the world that eat up the "race to the bottom" propaganda.

JonnyDanger says

And if you think they have it so good, there's nothing stopping you from taking one of these cushy jobs and living large like they do...

Yep.

JonnyDanger says

Enough name-calling. Police, firefighters and teachers are public workers. They are not villainous scoundrels who scheme to exist solely to live on the taxpayers largess, they are ORDINARY PEOPLE with lives and families who chose that line of work, who show up every day and do their jobs just like you and me.

Thank you.

PockyClipsNow says

100% of all pensions will fail. its a guarantee. basic math really.

All they can hope for is that the entity they are parasitizing off lives longer than they do, the same dream of the tapeworm.

No, it's not basic math. Basic math on pensions is very easy to work out. What basic math doesn't take into account is that public union pension funds are an irresistible honey pot that politicians can't keep their fingers out of. Most of the states and cities that are really in trouble simply stole the money from the pension funds frequently including the money put in by public workers as well. NJ would be a good example of this. What a mess.

The scumbag politicians are now playing the blame game to keep their own asses out of the line of fire. Look at all those greedy teachers, police, firefighters. They expect to be paid the money we agreed to pay them, but spent buying votes instead. What ingrates.

I'm not saying public unions are blameless or should even exist. Public unions bear a lot of blame, however they are doing what they exist to do. Getting the best deal for union members. The basic fact is that our elected representatives made this mess for their own personal gain knowing full well that for the most part the shit would hit the fan after they were gone.

Look, the ALL WILL FAIL. 100% of them. Guaranteed.

Are you guys assuming the united states of america or our fiat currency or our current political system will last for 10,000 years? 1,000 years? How about 100 years? when does it fail and we 'start over'. We dont know.

But we DO KNOW that everything dies. The pension wagon will run off the road at some point and that generation of people depending on it will get a lesser or zero return than promised.

Eventually in 65b years the sun will go supernova and destroy the earth also.

The only reason pensions are legal is that the entities promising them normally do live longer than the people they promise to take care of. Like when you adopt a cat.

But parrots live 30 years. Who here can promise a parrot he can take care of him that long? I cant.

PockyClipsNow says

The only reason pensions are legal is that the entities promising them normally do live longer than the people they promise to take care of. Like when you adopt a cat.

This shows a severe lack of understanding. The pension isn't simply guaranteed.

Here's how it works. The entities promising them actually promise this.
We will provide for a pension as follows:

*Part of your monthly pay, instead of going directly to you will go to a pension fund (I see these deductions from every pay check). We will do this for every year you work for us. And we will match your contribution and possibly the state throws in an additional percent or 2 of salary more.

*If you work in this job at least to the age of X_1, then you may retire and recieve a pension based on a formala (number of years worked)*(some factor),
if you work to age X_2 then the formula will be the same, with a higher factor. Usually the highest factor kicks in somewhere between 62 and 65 (but is different for police and Fire because of the danger and risk taking involved in the work).

There are 2 main differences between this and a 401k with matching.

1) The contributions of the employee to the pension fund are not optional.

2) Benefits are guaranteed, meaning that the employer (indirectly the state) has liability if the investment performance doesn't get the fund up to the level for payout as guaranteed.

By the way, if you were to look up my pay, which is public knowledge. The figure you would see is my pay before my pension contribution is deducted.

I find complaints about public sector compensation to be off base. Many people who complain in the past worked in "high risk high reward" tech/sales professions where they were thinking that they were going to get all these stock options to exercise and become rich in the process. I guess they forgot about the "high risk" part of the tradeoff. At the same time, people who work in unionized environment "public and private" decided to forego the "high reward" part by lessening the risk and prioritized health and retirement benefits. During the dot com days no one complained about unionized compensation. Now that some people in tech, sales and even small biz people got burned, they take out their frustration on unionized employees. However, if they were to honestly assess the situation, they would realize that everyone had a choice what career track to take. To complain when "high risk" choices don't work out and one gets burned is unethical. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

bob2356 says

Public unions bear a lot of blame, however they are doing what they exist to do. Getting the best deal for union members.

Which is what this article is about. There is no market regulation on this. They get to do what they do in a most inefficient manner with no accountability or free market system. And CA has some of the highest taxes in the nation, and the services we get suck! We priced out.

The system doesn't work if you work for 20 some years and receive full salary benefits for another 30. It's why Greece collapsed, they ran out of money doing just that.

If public pensions were agreed on by taxpayers in a vote, not by just politicians making backroom deals in exchange for votes, the system would be more credible.

http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/
Plenty of people are retiring early with high salaries and benefits.

dublin hillz says

To complain when "high risk" choices don't work out and one gets burned is unethical. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Excellent point. It's almost the little guys version of moral hazard.

FortWayne says

here is no market regulation on this. They get to do what they do in a most inefficient manner with no accountability or free market system.

This is almost entirely bluster and misinformation. Actually this great recession has put immense pressure on schools not only to do things more efficiently, but to take class sizes up in to the 40s, sometimes the 50s.

YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Yes, it's true, that on top of everything else they've done, they could lower our compensation (more than they have already).

Your emotional thinking goes something like this. I'm already paying more than I want in taxes. So damn it, I refuse to pay more for the things that we want our government to do. I know, I'll argue that it's the very concept of public education and other public services that's the problem. The private sector could do it better.

"The truth is I know that I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I'm grasping at straws. All I really know for sure is I don't want to pay higher taxes. And listening to talk radio helps me focus my anger on an imaginary boogeyman."

FortWayne says

And CA has some of the highest taxes in the nation, and the services we get suck! We priced out.

The amount we spend per student on public education ?

http://putourkidsfirst.com/kidsfirst/nat_money.asp

marcus says

FortWayne says

And CA has some of the highest taxes in the nation, and the services we get suck! We priced out.

The amount we spend per student on public education ?

http://putourkidsfirst.com/kidsfirst/nat_money.asp

Um, this is very old information! Look at the bottom of the page; it is over 10 years old. Multiply each dollar amount by about 1.5 to adjust for inflation! WI pays about $12,000 a year for a public education. Who can afford that after income taxes? If you have 3 kids, you would need an income of $50,000 to just pay for schooling and nothing else.
These costs are not viable and therefore represent inflated public pay because the money comes from stolen taxes and not voluntary transactions by willing participants. If individuals had to pay out of pocket the cost per pupil would be forced to be market driven and would be a lot less, where people could actually afford it.
This is a similar problem as the healthcare industry; insulate people from the high cost of the service and they won’t be deterred from consuming because they are not paying directly out of pocket. These are market distortions that lower everyone's standard of living on the consuming end and gives the "producers" more than is otherwise justifiable.

marcus says

m1ckey6 says

I pointed out that, while unions have benefits, that her union was actively lobbying to restrict the ability of the LAUSD to fire pedophiles upon the presentation of actionable evidence.

Source please.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers-20120629,0,4652915.story

"The current process is so time-consuming and expensive, he said, that L.A. Unified School District chose to pay $40,000 to Mark Berndt, the former Miramonte teacher charged with 23 counts of lewd acts on children, to retire rather than take him through the dismissal process."

Yes, I already addressed this ( that is, after asking for your souce - rather than wait I just looked it up and posted link)

here:

marcus says

1) Now the economy sucks with high unemployment and high underemployment, making public sector benefits seem too good. (Truth is though we have taken pay cuts since 2008). And our compensation (teachers) never was too good, considering the commitment involved.

But maybe the public unions have to be destroyed, which might help the private sector take over these functions. Who cares, as long as public sector misery comes down to private sector misery level.

It's CTA propaganda that has convinced teachers (and many in the public) that "teacher pay" is relatively low. The problem, however, lies in lumping all teachers together. The REAL truth is that elementary school teachers probably are not paid enough, but secondary teachers (jr. high and high school) are paid WAY TOO MUCH, relative to similarly-educated professions.

I teach high school. Here's how my pay breaks down: I teach 2 lessons a day (some years, it's been just one a day), and I repeat one of them several times throughout the day (I teach 5 periods). However, teaching the same subject year after year, "planning time" is now minimal, as I only make minor tweaks to lessons where I don't like how something went. Grading? I have T.A.'s do most of the day-to-day grading. So, my day starts around 7:45 and ends at 3:00. With a 50 minute prep period, a 50 minute "professional learning community" period, 10 minute break, 35 minute lunch, and passing periods, I only "work" 250 minutes a day (4 hours and 10 minutes).

This past year, due to furloughs, our contract called for us to work 175 days. I get 11 sick/personal days (ELEVEN!!!) So, for simplicity sake, not reducing any time for the 18 minimum days I have throughout the year or rally schedules, I essentially "work" 683 hours per year, if I exhaust my sick days every year. This past year, I made a hair under $60,000. Again for simplicity, just salary alone (not benefits, pension, etc.), works out to about $88.00 per hour. Project that over other occupations that have the standard 40 hour work week, 50 weeks a year, and just my salary would equal about $176,000 per year. Can you say 1%?!? As a high school teacher, I think I am justified in saying that CA public high school teachers are grossly overpaid. But hey, I'll take it. : )

The experience of elementary school teachers is different. It's very difficult to do the same lesson the same way year after year. Moreover, elementary teachers teach upwards of 8 lessons once a day (i.e., 4 times the number of lessons a high school teacher teaches). So, there is daily planning. Also, grading is more of an art, and there are no "T.A.'s" to help with grading. And, elementary teachers not only do not have prep periods or passing periods, they are also required to fulfill certain after-school duties on a regular basis. While I am not in a position to work out the math for elementary teachers' pay as I can for secondary teachers, I am confident that their "hourly pay" is FAR lower than that of high school teachers. (It surprises me that nobody ever talks about the difference between different levels of teaching.)

So, unless you are an elementary teacher, you are overpaid to start with. Then, add on the 8.25% that the district is required to kick in to my pension (another common CTA trick is to argue that "teachers pay into their pensions". Correct. We do...8%. However, that's a lot easier to swallow than one might think when it becomes known that teachers do NOT have money withdrawn for social security.), the benefits, etc., and teaching is a pretty sweet gig, financially-speaking...at least for high school teachers.

marcus says

m1ckey6 says

I pointed out that, while unions have benefits, that her union was actively lobbying to restrict the ability of the LAUSD to fire pedophiles upon the presentation of actionable evidence.

http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/02/14/lausd-paid-utla-union-pedophile-teacher-to-resign/

This guy is going to go to jail for a long time. LAUSD made a command decision to pay him (cut a deal) 40K severance to get him to leave immediately.

This was cheap and efficient compared to follwing union procedures and CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS (not lobbying).

The only place this "contractual right" to get paid after there is credible evidence that you have molested children is in teacher's contracts - in other words the absolutely worst possible place they could exist.
It is really scary that anyone would justify paying a pedo to step down.

"This is kind of analogous to crying because when someone is arrested (with evidence) of a heinous murder, why can't we just execute them immediately, or sentence them to life in prison immediately ?". No it is analogous to a teacher being credibly accused of a heinous murder and the LA Teacher's Union fighting for them to keep their job. This is currently a fact of life here in LA.
I love that your response is to call me stupid by the way in your posts. Ideology on both the right and the left is a scary thing. People seem to literally have no ability to think beyond their narrow self interest. I'm not even anti-union yet you immediately go to personal abuse because there is something I don't like about a specific union. Sad.