patrick.net

Every worker has a voice. With at-will employment he is free to resign at any time. This is an important thing to have.

Workers in Europe have to give a long notice. Lame ducks periods are bad for everyone.

And just for the sake of educating some of the more ignorant right wingers around here (from a column by the same author Jonathon Chait):

Not to spoil a great argument, but I have news for both sides: It was already illegal to force workers to join a union. Seriously! Don’t trust my word on this; trust the rabidly anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which explains, “You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.”
So the difference here is that, in non-RTW states, unionized workers have to pay some kind of agency fee to unions that bargain on their behalf, but they don’t have to join the union (or pay for things like the union’s political activity). In RTW states, they don’t have to pay the agency fee either. The reason this matters is a collective action problem. Workers may enjoy the bargaining power of the union, but they have no individual incentive to pay to support it if they can get the same benefit for free.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/everybody-misinformed-about-right-to-work.html

For example in my school in California, I know of anti union teachers (republicans) who just pay the minimal agency fee to the union, rather than the full membership fee (that most of us pay (about $50/month)).

Peter P says

Every worker has a voice. With at-will employment he is free to resign at any time. This is an important thing to have.

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds ? You have no meaningful point that I can see. At will employment ? Wtf ?

Okay, yes. I'm glad that I don't have to work on a prison chain gang, and I feel blessed that I am not literally a slave.

The real power of a worker is with his choice. For each person, either the compensation is good enough for a job or it is not. If not, then perhaps another job will pay better.

Your feet is your best bargaining chips.

Public union busting is really all about doing what's right. The last thing the taxpayer needs is yet another special interest group commanding political privileges.

Marcus. You live in California and you really think public unions have no political power? Are you freakin serious?

Also, taxpayers are the counter-party of public unions. More people need to know this. If public unions have more power, YOU pay more in the end.

Meccos says

You live in California and you really think public unions have no political power? Are you freakin serious?

Show me where I said or implied that unions have no political power ?

Individual workers are more powerful than they think. Many people still have the mentality of lifetime employment. It undoubted subjected the workers to exploitation.

marcus says

Meccos says

You live in California and you really think public unions have no political power? Are you freakin serious?

Show me where I said or implied that unions have no political power ?

Um...
marcus says

Because you know,...labor,..the typical worker,.. has way too strong of a voice in today's political landscape.

Unless I misunderstood the tone of your written words

How is it that you are "followed" by 2 and yet Bellingham Bill is followed by nobody?

Marcus.

Just to get it straight....the point of your original post was that public union workers do not have enough political power correct???

marcus says

How is it that's you are "followed" by 2 and yet Bellingham Bill is followed by nobody ?

How is it that Justin Bieber is followed by millions?

Meccos says

Unless I misunderstood the tone of your written words

7% of private labor is represented by unions. Yes, a much more significant
percentage of public workers have unions. The real motive beind these arguments about people being forced to be in unions is that republicans want to decrease union's political power.

My tone and my point is that once you kill public unions, who will be the political voice of labor ? And if republicans are correct that unions need to be killed, it must be true that their voice is way too strong, and that we are being collectively screwed by the impact of unions.

Sure there are isolated examples of excess. Why not remedy those, rather than using those examples as an excuse to kill practically the last little pocket of political power that workers do have ?

marcus says

How is it that's you are "followed" by 2 and yet Bellingham Bill is followed by nobody ?

How is it that you are ignored by only one!?

marcus says

The real motive beind these arguments about pewople being forced to be in unions is that republicans want to decrease their political power.

Exactly, people are forced into unions. Why is that right? If unions were so great perhaps people should have the FREEDOM to join them. marcus says

My tone and my point is that once you kill public unions, who will be the political voice of labor ? And if republicans are correct that unions need to be killed, it must be true that their voice is way too strong, and that we are being collectively screwed by the impact of unions.

Limiting union powers is one thing, "killing" them is another. Any attempts to weaken unions seem to be portrayed as "killing" unions by any union members. Now answer my original question... did you or did you not imply public unions have very little power in your original post.

marcus says

Sure there are isolated examples of excess. Why not remedy those, rather than using those examples as an excuse to kill practically the last little pocket of political power that workers do have ?

Isolated examples? You live in California, the state that has the most excessive abuse by public unions. A remedy to that was prop 32 which was blocked by unions.

Certainly you cant argue that unions have "the last little pocket of politcal power". are you freaking kidding. Public unions RUN this freakin state!

Meccos says

Exactly, people are forced into unions.

Already explained above.

marcus says

And just for the sake of educationg some of the more ignorant right wingers around here (from a column by the same author Jonathon Chait):

Not to spoil a great argument, but I have news for both sides: It was already illegal to force workers to join a union. Seriously! Don’t trust my word on this; trust the rabidly anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which explains, “You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.”
So the difference here is that, in non-RTW states, unionized workers have to pay some kind of agency fee to unions that bargain on their behalf, but they don’t have to join the union (or pay for things like the union’s political activity). In RTW states, they don’t have to pay the agency fee either. The reason this matters is a collective action problem. Workers may enjoy the bargaining power of the union, but they have no individual incentive to pay to support it if they can get the same benefit for free.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/everybody-misinformed-about-right-to-work.html

For example in my school in California, I know of anti union teachers (republicans) who just pay the minimal agency fee to the union, rather than the full membership fee (that most of us pay (about $50/month)).

Marcus.

Do we really want to sit here and talk about how limited the public union political power is, especially here in California?

We can probably sit here for hours and list all the abuses of public unions and how they have literally bankrupted our state because of the clout they have in politics.

But why are workers forced to pay union fees in non-RTW states but not Peter P fees?

Marcus,

instead of copy and pasting articles why dont you respond to my questions and comments?

Meccos says

Exactly, people are forced into unions.

People can pay the minimal agency fee l

The argument is silly, because why would say a cop prefer to have the choice of not paying that fee, when he knows that the pay, and benefits, and ongoing contractual negotiation that comes from the union is more than worth that minimal agency fee (way less than membership fee).

I suppose he is supposed to think something like this:

"Well, I'm not really qualified to be a member of this police force. Given their good benefits there will be many more able people applying for those jobs. But damn it, if only there was no union, and the pay was MUCH MUCH lower,...why then I could possibly get a job as a policeman yeah. Yeah, that's the ticket ! I hate those freaken unions !"

Peter P says

Also, taxpayers are the counter-party of public unions. More people need to know this. If public unions have more power, YOU pay more in the end.

The destruction of unions in the USA has created 30yrs of wage stagflation! Outsourcing and less union membership has created jobs with lower wages and you can forget about benefits without a union.

We need inflation on wages! NOW!

Meccos says

Marcus,

instead of copy and pasting articles why dont you respond to my questions and comments?

Between what I've said and what I've quoted, I've done the best I can right now to share my point of view. Even if you wist to disagree, you should now be able to understand my point of view.

I get that you have a rather extreme opposition to the existence of unions, and that even if I am correct and "took you to school" as well as is possible, YOU ARE NOT ABOUT TO EVEN COMPREHEND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT .

Meccos says

Do we really want to sit here and talk about how limited the public union political power is, especially here in California?

Again. I never implied that.

What I said was this:

marcus says

Sure there are isolated examples of excess. Why not remedy those, rather than using those examples as an excuse to kill practically the last little pocket of political power that workers do have ?

121212 says

Peter P says

Also, taxpayers are the counter-party of public unions. More people need to know this. If public unions have more power, YOU pay more in the end.

The destruction of unions in the USA has created 30yrs of wage stagflation! Outsourcing and less union membership has created jobs with lower wages and you can forget about benefits without a union.

We need inflation on wages! NOW!

It may have something to do with the rise of emerging economies like China and India. Technology has made certain jobs easier to outsource.

Personally, I don't think the growth of these new economies is sustainable. On the other hand, American workers can get better wages by changing jobs.

I have a feeling that much software (and other) outsourcing will fail. COmpanies are already bring back work from the overseas.

marcus says

I get that you have a rather extreme opposition to the existence of unions, and that even if I am correct and "took you to school" as well as is possible, YOU ARE NOT ABOUT TO EVEN COMPREHEND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT .

Marcus,

Take me to school please... and explain again how public unions have little political power.. Please please please help me to understand this.

I suppose this lack of political power is the reason why teachers cant be fired for feeding sperm to kids, perhaps this lack of political power is the reason why nearly 70% of city budgets are paid to the wages and benefits of fire and police ALONE. Perhaps this lack of political power is the reason why Prop 30 was passed and 32 failed. Perhaps this lack of political power is the reason why public worker wages keep rising while the private sector wages are stagnant.

marcus says

Meccos says

Do we really want to sit here and talk about how limited the public union political power is, especially here in California?

Again. I never implied that.

What I said was this:

marcus says

Sure there are isolated examples of excess. Why not remedy those, rather than using those examples as an excuse to kill practically the last little pocket of political power that workers do have ?

No what you said was this. marcus says

Because you know,...labor,..the typical worker,.. has way too strong of a voice in today's political landscape.

Which was you being sarcastic and implying there was little political power in public unions. Clearly this was the purpose of you starting this thread.

Meccos says

You live in California, the state that has the most excessive abuse by public unions. A remedy to that was prop 32 which was blocked by unions.

Certainly you cant argue that unions have "the last little pocket of politcal power". are you freaking kidding. Public unions RUN this freakin state!

How is it that school funding on a per student basis ranks California 47th in spending per student ?

California is broken, I think in part because of prop 13.

You were for prop 38 and against 30. Because you wanted spending on schools to go even lower (than 47th in the country) because we public education people needed to be taught a tough and painful lesson ?

Wtf ? If unions run this state, and the state spending on education ranks us 47th, I can only assume that it's because all the other unions that won out over the teachers unions?

marcus says

How is it that school funding on a per student basis ranks California 47th in spending per student ?

Problem with you union phonies is that you quote statistics about money per classroom, yet you fail to mention that california has the top or second highest pay for teachers.

You union guys always preach more money to classrooms, yet the fights you engage never have to do with money to classroom, but rather money into your pockets. Prop 30 vs prop 38 is a great example. Teachers unions promoted prop 30 although there is no guarantee money to classrooms. Yet you voted against prop 38 even though this was a guaranteed money to classrooms. WHy? Because you had to pay for prop 38 and you didnt have to pay for prop 30.

Its BS that you try to blur the lines between classrooms getting money and teachers getting money. There is a very distinct line.

If you really wanted money to classrooms and not into your wallet, you should have been arguing for prop 38. You know it and the unions know it.

The funny thing is marcus. I actually dont think you teachers get paid that well. HOnestly 60-65k average for a teacher is decent if not low for the amount of education and bullshit you guys go through.

With that said, cops having an average salary of 131k with extra 49k into pensions is BS.

Fire makes even more....

http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/

take a look at the website and look up the CHP as an example. Pay and benefits this great was begotten because of powerful unions.

Meccos says

Which was you being sarcastic and implying there was little political power in public unions

I see one of your issues.

To sarcastically say their political power is too high (the republican point of view), is not the same as saying that it's too low or that it needs to be higher.

I am against unions being killed which is the direction things are moving in several states. The trend is toward softening their voice.

At least admit that you think unions have too much power and that they need to be done away with all together, and that you think this is the way toward a great long term future for America.

Certainly there are two sides to this and frankly the argument is odd.

Basically in a right to work state there is nothing to compel an employee to contract with a union for terms of work

What the unions contest though is frankly the amount of freeriders. When a contract is signed often times the same benefits are given to non union members then union (hence the name).

So in their mind by enabling this even more it gives less of a reason to join the unions and thus anything they contributed to them is pretty much a waste of time.

But here's the thing. If a state is not a right to work state then it means that the unions are using the government to REQUIRE that members join as part of the agreement to work.

I'm neutral on unions but frankly why rely on the government to gain members via monopoly? Meanwhile I know of other unions such as the IBEW that are confident enough to actually advertise their services and receive customer endorsements.

Private and public unions vary dramatically. Government unions cannot go on strike (legally). In Mass the situation is odd because it takes nearly one week of a strike to convince a judge that they are on strike. Private can go on strike although much of the time it is largely anticipated.

I'd also note that there's not much of a correlation of higher government spending in public education and better results. I live in Massachusetts and frankly if a school system does bad...REALLY bad then the state takes it over and as a incentive throws money at teachers to work there. Spending per student skyrockets but it doesn't *really* solve the problem. I'm not in a teachers union but it doesn't take one to know that parents are really key to much of the performance. If students cannot study in a good area, if the only food they had in a day was school lunch, if they get mugged on the way home etc.

BTW I'm no expert on California but eventually I think prop 13 is going to have to go, it's only a matter of time.

marcus says

Meccos says

Which was you being sarcastic and implying there was little political power in public unions

I see one of your issues.

To sarcastically say their political power is to high (the republican point of view), is not the same as saying that it's too low or that it needs to be higher.

I am against unions being killed which is the direction things are moving in several states. The trend is toward softening their voice.

At least admit that you think unions have too much power and that they need to be done away with all together, and that you think this is the way toward a great long term future for America.

No its not my issue. you have the issue. Reducing union powers is not the same as "killing" them.

Why cant unions play by the same rules as everyone else. Why do unions automatically get money deducted from people and placed into their accounts, especially since this is eventually used for political influence.
Why cant people in the unions decide on their OWN to contribute? Essentially this was what prop 32 was about correct?

Why not let union members decided for themselves?

If you had corporations deducting money from their workers automatically and used for political influence peddling, people would be rioting.

mdovell says

'd also note that there's not much of a correlation of higher government spending in public education and better results. I live in Massachusetts and frankly if a school system does bad...REALLY bad then the state takes it over and as a incentive throws money at teachers to work there.

Yes but this is an extremely limited inference.

Sure, if a school is in a terrible impoverished neighborhood, where attendance not to mention general physical and emotional health of the children is in question, then increasing spending may have a limited impact.

This is a far cry from concluding that no matter how little you spend, and how overcrowded classes are, it just doesn't matter.

In a middle class neighborhood school there is an optimal amount to spend per student, and it might be slightly above the level that diminishing returns kick in.

But it's also true that some districts spend money more eficiently than others, with higher percentages going to the front lines (so to speak) and less going to beurocrats, consultant and so on.

Meccos says

Reducing union powers is not the same as "killing" them.

Again, what I said, was...

marcus says

which is the direction things are moving

It's towards reducing their voice.

Meccos says

Why cant unions play by the same rules as everyone else. Why do unions automatically get money deducted from people and placed into their accounts, especially since this is eventually used for political influence.

I didn't say it, because I'm trying not to be rude, but your issue is open mindedness and comprehension.

Regarding: "especially since this is eventually used for political influence."

HEre just the relevant part. Maybe you will be willing to read and comprehend (you can if you want to !!)

It was already illegal to force workers to join a union. Seriously! Don’t trust my word on this; trust the rabidly anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which explains, “You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.”
So the difference here is that, in non-RTW states, unionized workers have to pay some kind of agency fee to unions that bargain on their behalf, but they don’t have to join the union (or pay for things like the union’s political activity).

That minimal agency fee ( I know people that just pay that) does not go to politics. It's really not even enough to cover the cost of what they do get from the union.

Meccos says

I suppose this lack of political power is the reason why teachers cant be fired for feeding sperm to kids,

If had seen this I surely would have stopped talking to you sooner. That guy is going to go to prison if he isn't already there. And those guys in prison don't take kindly to child molesters.

Do you think anyone in the union is not sickened by that. Surely does help the anti teacher crusade though.

Yeah, okay, so the fact that teachers have a contract, and that a student can't easily get any teacher fired for looking at him or her the wrong way. I guess that's bad for education. Teachers, you know the same ones who sometimes have to give students failing grades. I guess in this day in age, we should just have teachers fired on the spot for anything a student accuses a teacher of, with no one representing the teachers position at all.

MAybe the same reasoning should apply to all crime. IF a person is accused of anything, they are guilty. Period.

Be careful out there.

marcus says

That guy is going to go to prison if he isn't already there.

Yes he is going to prison because he broke a law, yet the teachers union still wouldn't let him be fired. Instead the district was forced to give this guy money to quit, instead of firing him.

marcus says

Do you think anyone in the union is not sickened by that.

If the union is so sickened by him, why does the union not propose steps to fire teachers who commit these crimes instead of blocking legislation that would expedite the firing of these teachers?

http://www.laweekly.com/2012-07-19/news/betsy-butler-mike-eng-SB-1530-alex-padilla-sex-abuse-teachers/

Please note how the article points out how legislators voted or didnt vote at all because of their fears of the California Teachers Association. Still think you have no political clout in California???

marcus says

MAybe the same reasoning should apply to all crime. IF a person is accused of anything, they are guilty. Period.

No one said everyone who is accused is guilty until proven innocent. Im sure everyone could agree (even the unions) that cases such as the one at Mira Monte was a clear case of abuse. Yet what actions did the union take? Your reasoning is a rather pitiful excuse to protect all teachers at any cost.

BTW, Im still waiting for your response regarding prop 30 and prop 38 issue I brought up earlier.

Meccos says

Why cant unions play by the same rules as everyone else.

If only!

Industry trade groups and lobbying groups are fine right? Please explain why? It's a the biggest money finding ways to concentrate it's power and muscle so it can wield a club and sway opinions.

After Citizens United they can do so with near anonymity and no limits.

Labor unions lack anything like that level of power now and are slipping down to zero quickly.

I think we know what happens in warfare when one side is defenseless. Some will say yeah let's START with the unions because... something... and we'll get around to step 2 which is we want to reel in all that corporate influence-peddling. They never get around to step 2, because they don't really believe in it. We hate lobbying they say, only they never actually do anything about it.

Y"ALL SHOW ME CITIZENS UNITED ROLLED BACK AND LYING DEAD IN THE DIRT... THEN! THEN I'll believe you aren't two-faced hypocrites.

@ marcus

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/12/19/ca-public-worker-pay-soars-to-unsustainable-levels/

This is what happens when public unions have too much power... They bankrupt states and make its citizens slaves to fund unsustainable compensation packages.