0
0

Poll: Californians Gradually Souring on Unions


 invite response                
2013 Dec 13, 3:41am   11,601 views  61 comments

by zzyzzx   ➕follow (5)   💰tip   ignore  

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/13/Poll--Californians-gradually-souring-on-unions

California has long been a union stronghold, but voters in the strongly Democratic state are gradually taking a more negative view of organized labor, a poll released Friday suggested.

The independent Field Poll said that by a narrow margin, more voters said unions do more harm than good, as opposed to those who see organized labor as generally beneficial.

The slide in support represents a turnaround from a 2011 Field survey, when more voters said unions resulted in more good than harm.

The shift comes at a time of ongoing labor conflicts in the state and nation, often involving government employee pensions and retirement benefits.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, two transit strikes this year caused headaches for hundreds of thousands of commuters. Retirement costs for government workers contributed to bankruptcies in three California cities in recent years _ Stockton, Vallejo and San Bernardino.

The cost of "public pensions are starting to crowd out the services that local governments can provide. That doesn't sit well with the public," pollster Mark DiCamillo said.

Compared to the earlier poll, unions lost ground across most age, political and demographic groups.

Since 2011 "virtually every voter subgroup now displays a shift toward a somewhat more negative view of labor unions than they had expressed previously," the survey found.

The poll of 1,002 registered voters, conducted Nov. 14 to Dec. 5, found that 45 percent said labor unions do "more harm than good."

That compared to 40 percent who said unions do "more good than harm."

The findings were nearly identical when voters were asked about labor unions, generally, or public employee unions.

Those viewing unions more negatively increased 10 percentage points from March 2011, while the percentage of those viewing unions as more beneficial dropped 6 points during the period, the survey said.

The Democratic Party has long had close ties to unions, but the survey found 30 percent of registered Democrats now say unions do more harm than good, up from 21 percent in the 2011 survey.

More than half of whites, 51 percent, say unions do more harm than good, up from 39 percent in 2011. Even in households with a union member, 31 percent said unions do more harm than good, up from 18 percent in 2011.

Several California mayors want voters to consider an initiative on next year's ballot that would amend the state Constitution to allow local governments to negotiate changes in pension benefits for current and future employees.

Last year, labor groups and other Democratic interests funneled at least $75 million into their drive to defeat Proposition 32, which would have starved unions of the tens of millions of dollars they use to finance campaigns and political organizing.

The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 61       Last »     Search these comments

1   humanity   2013 Dec 13, 3:47am  

I'm all for ending all unions, and anything else that hastens our descent toward being a third world country.

Still you have to wonder about the stupid plutocrats who think that our country will be able to thrive, when a huge number of our citezenry can't afford anything above rent and food. Forget college for the kids. Forget consumption driving our GDP. Let's just have some really awesome gated communities for the owners, and the lucky few who can make out okay in our economy. Otherwise, let's let the American dream and America itself die.

The fucking workers should have known that that brief period when they could make a living was an experiment that would die as soon as the owners figured out how to make them slaves again.

2   EBGuy   2013 Dec 13, 6:58am  

I'm predicting "The CalPERS Initiative" will define the next California gubernatorial election. The current two tier system is grossly unfair to Millenials and new hires. It is also unsustainable. We need to smooth the transition between the two tiers by crediting public employees for their years of service and proportionally moving the max benefit at 55 towards what the new hires receive. This will put CA on better footing for the next generation.

3   EBGuy   2013 Dec 13, 7:29am  

bgamall4, Why are you trying to destroy the state and local municipalities? Future pension liabilities mean that cities will have to cut jobs instead of hiring Millenials and others. I do not support your vision of the future.

4   Entitlemented   2013 Dec 13, 7:53am  

Other view:

Seattle has a two party system: Democrat and Socialist.

Trickle down Socialism (southbound disease outbreaks) is a concern - google $15-20 per hour fast food workers.

Trickle down economics works in societies who produce goods and manufactures. (abid Montesquieu)

5   Strategist   2013 Dec 13, 8:46am  

This is great news. The only purpose of unions is to get more money out of governments and businesses. Not much different from the mafia that extorted money from small businesses for protection.

6   FortWayne   2013 Dec 13, 11:29am  

bgamall4 says

No, keep it the same for those who were promised the 55 years. The rest of governmental employees who have to work longer in shit jobs will most likely leave the jobs or do as little as they can get away with. It is either that or suffer sure heart attacks.

State and county jobs suck.

From what I've seen, they don't really work already. Most just sit on their asses all day collecting paychecks. Now that doesn't apply to everyone, but an average person working for the city/state out here is doing the bare minimum.

7   thomaswong.1986   2013 Dec 13, 11:42am  

zzyzzx says

Poll: Californians Gradually Souring on Unions

gotta grow private sector jobs.. other states are sucking more CA jobs each year.

here comes.. NY with their Tax Free zones...

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/14/new-yorks-tax-free-plan-puts-suny-center-economic-development

Texas Governor Rick Perry recently ran advertisements in New York telling companies that they should relocate to Texas for lower taxes. In some respects, the tax-free zones are an effort to combat such efforts.

“Cuomo gets it,” Seligman said. “In the 21st century, we’re going to see very intense competition among the states. When he sees the success of someone like Governor Perry attracting businesses from New York, that gives him heartburn. He understands that we need new mechanisms, and the tax-free zones are part of that.”

The tax-free program will be open to startup companies; companies from out of state that relocate to New York; or existing New York companies that are expanding (but not simply moving). Companies will have to have a partnership with an educational institution and will have “to be aligned with or further the academic mission of the campus.”

8   Automan Empire   2013 Dec 13, 12:15pm  

The worst by FAR is the prison guards' union. I'm surprised conservatives aren't all over THEM for not only their goldbricking, but influencing and corrupting the judicial system for customers.
Most union criticism these days is thinly veiled justification for paying production workers diddly with no benefits and shifting the money to the executive/owner level.

9   FortWayne   2013 Dec 13, 12:37pm  

bgamall4 says

FortWayne says

From what I've seen, they don't really work already. Most just sit on their asses all day collecting paychecks. Now that doesn't apply to everyone, but an average person working for the city/state out here is doing the bare minimum.

You don't know much about government jobs. But you aren't the only one.

I've seen my share, I've dealt with it, I worked in it when I was in my much younger years.

10   Strategist   2013 Dec 13, 12:40pm  

bgamall4 says

Strategist says

This is great news. The only purpose of unions is to get more money out of governments and businesses. Not much different from the mafia that extorted money from small businesses for protection.

The only goal of unions is to build a strong middle class, which you obviously don't think is important. As Henry Blodget, not exactly a flaming liberal has said, the advantage of capital over labor has never been greater. Labor is not getting paid a fair wage and you aren't helping.

This might change your mind.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/09/14/how-much-do-fat-cat-union-bosses-make-to-fleece-middle-class-83299

11   HydroCabron   2013 Dec 13, 3:48pm  

Union members and bosses should be forced to earn an honest wage as defense contractors, or by making a sex tape and getting a reality show, same as everyone else.

You think buying congressmen is easy?

12   tatupu70   2013 Dec 13, 9:26pm  

I'm confused by this whole line of thinking. When you are interviewing for a job, don't you try to get the most possible in compensation? That's all a union does--it uses the power of a group to try to leverage a better deal for its members.

Is the problem that unions ask for the best deal that they can get? Or is the problem that management didn't live up to their end?

13   AverageBear   2013 Dec 13, 10:52pm  

humanity says

I'm all for ending all unions, and anything else that hastens our descent toward being a third world country.

Still you have to wonder about the stupid plutocrats who think that our country will be able to thrive, when a huge number of our citezenry can't afford anything above rent and food. Forget college for the kids. Forget consumption driving our GDP. Let's just have some really awesome gated communities for the owners, and the lucky few who can make out okay in our economy. Otherwise, let's let the American dream and America itself die.

---------------------------
I'm very opposed to public sector/gov't unions. They are worthless, encourage sloth and shoddy performance, and drain many towns and cities of funds needed for infrastructure. Case in Point: The MBTA here in Boston. The union STILL won't hand over pension fund documents, even after the courts told them to. Pension funds supplied by tax payers, and they refuse to show the books to the tax payers.

That said, as for private unions, let's see if they offer any worth to the private sector worker. I have no problems w/ private unions, as long as they aren't given any advantages in winning contracts, 'right to work' laws, etc. Let the labor market and the workers determine their success.

Because if gov't unions are allowed to fester and thrive, the 'awesome gated communities' that you mention, will be only for those gov't union members, paid for by the sucker taxpayers.

One only has to look at the demise of Detroit to get an 'in your face' result of what happens when unions and gov't get into bed together...

14   AverageBear   2013 Dec 13, 10:58pm  

tatupu70 says

Is the problem that unions ask for the best deal that they can get? Or is the problem that management didn't live up to their end?

Tatupu, if you are talking about gov't unions, the problem is that the 'owner' is the gov't itself. It doesn't really have to worry about 'going out of business', like the private sector. This is the disconnect. Because gov't can always raise taxes, and BS the voters as they usually do to meet union demands. They don't have to answer to angy shareholders to keep them, and the budget/spending in line.

15   Tenpoundbass   2013 Dec 13, 11:35pm  

Unions today are only there to coerce people into working for wages lower than would normally work in the private sector, with a promise that they will be provided for when they are Old, Sick and Weak.

Which at said time, they will resent you because you are old, rework their previous deal with you, reduce your pension, and if your too sick Lobby Nancy Pelosi to initiate her elite death panel squad.

How can any one trust Unions when there's not a day that doesn't go by, that Unions aren't fucking over the retired people to appease the new lot of Union members, to sell them the next big LIE?

16   tatupu70   2013 Dec 13, 11:57pm  

AverageBear says

Tatupu, if you are talking about gov't unions, the problem is that the 'owner' is the gov't itself. It doesn't really have to worry about 'going out of business', like the private sector. This is the disconnect. Because gov't can always raise taxes, and BS the voters as they usually do to meet union demands. They don't have to answer to angy shareholders to keep them, and the budget/spending in line

I'm talking about all unions. Government can't always raise taxes because they'll laid off (not re-elected). Actually--answering to angry shareholders is a good analogy. Voters are the shareholders...

17   Strategist   2013 Dec 14, 12:52am  

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

Tatupu, if you are talking about gov't unions, the problem is that the 'owner' is the gov't itself. It doesn't really have to worry about 'going out of business', like the private sector. This is the disconnect. Because gov't can always raise taxes, and BS the voters as they usually do to meet union demands. They don't have to answer to angy shareholders to keep them, and the budget/spending in line

I'm talking about all unions. Government can't always raise taxes because they'll laid off (not re-elected). Actually--answering to angry shareholders is a good analogy. Voters are the shareholders...

Governments could borrow money to pay excess union wages and benefits until bankruptcy. The politicians responsible for the mess would long be retired.

18   tatupu70   2013 Dec 14, 2:55am  

Strategist says

Governments could borrow money to pay excess union wages and benefits until bankruptcy. The politicians responsible for the mess would long be retired.

Borrowing is not a hidden cost--if voters don't want their elected officials to have to borrow to pay for union benefits, they should elect folks that will fix the problem. Just like owners in a company would replace managers that mismanaged their union negotiations.

19   tatupu70   2013 Dec 14, 4:49am  

Call it Crazy says

How hard is the current group of elected officials working for YOU now with their 9% approval rating by the public???

Then vote for someone else next time!

20   Tenpoundbass   2013 Dec 14, 6:01am  

bgamall4 says

You have any examples of that statement, which seems on the surface to be crazy? :)

When has any Union labor dispute in the last 10 years not ended with workers take a cut, and some claw-back on pensions, and reductions on their monthly stipends for those already retired?

All else fails, they'll drive a company to shutter the doors, before they do what's right for the worker, and the pensioners.
That's why we've got imposter Twinkies down at the discount store, because there's some lose at all cost mentality, and they manage to make it look like a win for the workers.

21   thomaswong.1986   2013 Dec 14, 8:16am  

CaptainShuddup says

All else fails, they'll drive a company to shutter the doors, before they do what's right for the worker, and the pensioners.

we are well already past "companies" shuttering doors
we are already past whole "industries" disappearing...
we are at the point of "disabling" our whole economy....permanently!

22   FortWayne   2013 Dec 14, 8:27am  

It doesn't. It gets money for the union bosses. They care little for the state or employees. Look at Detroit... Broke state, retires with nothing...but fat union bosses..tatupu70 says

I'm confused by this whole line of thinking. When you are interviewing for a job, don't you try to get the most possible in compensation? That's all a union does--it uses the power of a group to try to leverage a better deal for its members.

Is the problem that unions ask for the best deal that they can get? Or is the problem that management didn't live up to their end?

23   tatupu70   2013 Dec 14, 9:02am  

FortWayne says

It doesn't. It gets money for the union bosses. They care little for the state or employees. Look at Detroit... Broke state, retires with nothing...but fat union bosses

Other posters have clearly shown why Detroit is broke. You should read the articles--they may open your eyes.

Union bosses get dues from their members. They get them whether the members are earning minimum wage or $100/hour.

24   Bellingham Bill   2013 Dec 15, 7:59am  

I see that Calstrs needs $8B/yr for the next 30 years, assuming 7.5% returns going forward forever.

Current retirement contributions are at $5B/yr.

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/10/whats-really-principal-cause-calstrs-shortfall/

State GDP is $2T though, so this is 0.4% hit to the state budget.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CARGSP

shows growth is kinda topped out though.

25   zzyzzx   2013 Dec 15, 8:11am  

bgamall4 says

The only goal of unions is to build a strong middle class

The only goal of unions is to line their own pockets, at the expense of the middle class (who pay most of the taxes). That and to drive more companies to move overseas or bankrupt.

26   marcus   2013 Dec 15, 8:16am  

FortWayne says

It doesn't. It gets money for the union bosses.

There he goes again. WTf are you talking about? What planet are you from? Why don't you find some legit criticism of unions instead of pulling such bizzare made up fantasy bullshit out of your ass.

Are you incapable of learning anything. Just repeat lies over and over again assuming they must be true, why ? Because it's you that made them up ?

27   marcus   2013 Dec 15, 8:20am  

zzyzzx says

The only goal of unions is to line their own pockets

Again, made up BS. Some unions may have cut deals that gave their members (not the union itself) benefits that are too high. But for the most part they have negotiated reasonable pay and benefits.

If you dissagree with them, then you should argue for renegotiating rather than demonizing the unions.

Middle class pay for all types of work has been falling steadily for decades. Are you really dumb enough to think that ending all unions will help eleviate this ? Just how fricking gullible are you anyway ?

28   tatupu70   2013 Dec 15, 8:21am  

zzyzzx says

The only goal of unions is to line their own pockets, at the expense of the middle class (who pay most of the taxes). That and to drive more companies to move overseas or bankrupt

Actually the goal of unions is to make companies pay reasonable wages to the folks that actually create the value. Instead of letting all the money flow to the executive bonuses and owners.

29   zzyzzx   2013 Dec 15, 8:23am  

marcus says

Middle class pay for all types of work has been falling steadily for decades. Are you really dumb enough to think that ending all unions will help eleviate this

Getting rid of union thugs will prevent more jobs from relocating overseas and prevent municipal bankruptcies. Are you really dumb enough to believe that overpaid union thugs won't be replaced by imports in private industry, and cause yet still more municipal bankruptcies?

30   zzyzzx   2013 Dec 15, 8:24am  

tatupu70 says

Actually the goal of unions is to make companies pay reasonable wages to the folks that actually create the value. Instead of letting all the money flow to the executive bonuses and owners.

Maybe 100 years ago...

31   marcus   2013 Dec 15, 8:27am  

zzyzzx says

Getting rid of union thugs

What the hell is a "union thug" other than a boogey man the koch brothers have programmed you to believe in. What fucking nonsense.

The truth is you are rooting against your own self interest, unless you are one of the plutocrats, who want nothing other than to have an even bigger piece of the pie.

32   marcus   2013 Dec 15, 8:29am  

SO calling union employees, such as California teachers who haven't gotten a raise since 2006 and who had pay cuts several of the interim years, "thugs," is what counts as high level reasoning and discourse in your lie filled world ?

The only thing worse than a liar is someone so stupid they don't even know they are lying.

33   zzyzzx   2013 Dec 15, 8:30am  

marcus says

The truth is you are rooting against your own self interest, unless you are one of the plutocrats, who want nothing other than to have an even bigger piece of the pie.

How do I benefit from the high taxes and job losses caused by unions?

34   curious2   2013 Dec 15, 8:36am  

marcus says

dissagree...eleviate

It's difficult to believe someone who can't spell but claims to be a teacher.

I support unions in principle but some specific unions seem to have been subverted in ways that cost everyone, for example in Milwaukee "health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages." The teachers make a reasonable salary, but the taxpayers pay almost twice that, with the difference going to dubious "benefits". As a previous comment observed on PatNet, subsidies in the absence of price controls are captured by the sellers, without benefit to buyers. We see this in housing ("helping homeowners"), education (guaranteed student loans), and especially medicine. Why are medical costs 10x higher here than across the border in MX? Subsidized mandatory insurance "benefits", which tend to be especially bloated in union contracts, are a major part of that problem.

35   marcus   2013 Dec 15, 8:38am  

zzyzzx says

How do I benefit from the high taxes and job losses caused by unions?

I can't guarantee that you persoanlly benefit (and I know that your selfishness rules you).

But it's obvious that if all public sector unions are dismantled and we step ever closer to being just another third world nation, with almost all middle class jobs gone, that's not good for America.

I guarantee you that there are plenty of high quality, highly trained and high integrity folks who chose careers in public servicve for a combination of reasons. Take teachers for example. There are plenty of people teaching who work really hard at it, and truly enjoy working with kids, but would not be doing it if it didn't provide a decent (and I do mean only decent) living.

Many Mish types will tell you that people will be lining up to do this work for half the pay and no benefits, when just a few years ago, teachers were hard to come by, and most quit in less than 5 years.

Sure right now, with the current economic and unemployment situation, we could probably pull off a pay decrease for cops, teacher and other public workers, just based on our current (and hopefully temporary) surplus of potential workers and college graduates etc.

But is that really what's good ?

Is that what we are going to do, every time automation lowers the number of workers needed ?

Are we just going to lower what they get paid ? I know that's great for the owners. But what about the rest of us ?

It's not really even good for the owners, because the economy needs consumers. But the small minded plutocrats are thinking of the shorter term and how to lower the cost of labor here.

36   zzyzzx   2013 Dec 15, 8:40am  

marcus says

SO coalling union employees, such as California teachers who haven't gotten a raise since 2006 and who had pay cuts several of the interim years, "thugs," is what counts as high level reasoning and discourse in your lie filled world ?

Am I supposed to feel sorry for people who get paid high salaries, get generous pension benefits, only work 9 months of the year, and can retire as early as 55 with full pay?

http://www.teacherportal.com/salary/California-teacher-salary
Shows average salary at 67K

Which is quite high salary when you figure in the retirement benefits:
http://resources.calstrs.com/Calculators/strsbene14.plx

You plan to retire in 2013
Your age at retirement will be 55 years, 0 months.
Your Years of Credited Service will be 30.000
Your Age Factor based on your birth date, including career bonus, will be 0.01600
Your average monthly salary will be $ 5583

Then it shows :
The member-only monthly benefit shown below is calculated by multiplying your final compensation by your years of service credit and the age factor at the time of your retirement.
Service Credit X Age Factor X Final Compensation = Member-Only Monthly Benefit
YOUR ESTIMATED MEMBER-ONLY MONTHLY BENEFIT:
$2680.00

Shows them earning 32K per year in retirement. They probably get medical and dental on top of that as well.

If I change their age to 60 I get:
YOUR ESTIMATED MEMBER-ONLY MONTHLY BENEFIT:
$3885.00

If I change the age to 65 or higher, I get:
YOUR ESTIMATED MEMBER-ONLY MONTHLY BENEFIT:
$4220.00

In each case, they worked for 30 years, irregardless of their age. When I changed the 65 year old to 35 years of service, I get:
YOUR ESTIMATED MEMBER-ONLY MONTHLY BENEFIT:
$5090.00

In any case, it's rich compared to today's nonexistant private industry pension.

37   marcus   2013 Dec 15, 8:43am  

zzyzzx says

Am I supposed to feel sorry for people who get paid high salaries, get generous pension benefits, only work 9 months of the year, and can retire as early as 55 with full pay?

No, your supposed to pull gargantuan lies out of your ass like you and your retarded bretheren always do.

38   marcus   2013 Dec 15, 8:46am  

zzyzzx says

You plan to retire in 2013

Your age at retirement will be 55 years, 0 months.

Your Years of Credited Service will be 30.000

Your Age Factor based on your birth date, including career bonus, will be 0.01600

Your average monthly salary will be $ 5583

.016 * 30 = .48

So that's 48% of full pay after working 30 years at 55.

That 5583 number would have to have come from assuming that a teacher makes 11,631 per month.

Yeah, right. Pay tops out in LAUSD at about 6K/month.

39   marcus   2013 Dec 15, 8:48am  

zzyzzx says

You plan to retire in 2013

Your age at retirement will be 55 years, 0 months.

Your Years of Credited Service will be 30.000

again, although I know your type ignores truth....this from your own post (yes your lies).

Your Age Factor based on your birth date, including career bonus, will be 0.01600

Your average monthly salary will be $ 5583

.016 * 30 = .48

So that's 48% of full pay after working 30 years at 55.

That 5583 number would have to have come from assuming that a teacher makes 11,631 per month.

Yeah, right. Pay tops out in LAUSD at about 6K/month.

40   zzyzzx   2013 Dec 15, 8:56am  

marcus says

THat's right, the form you filled out required you to put in an income number. Does 140K ring a bell ?

Anyway, as per Apocalypsefuck:
/?p=1235102&c=1033114#comment-1033114
Detroit *proves* that pensions destroy cities and societies if not entire culture and should be outlawed

Comments 1 - 40 of 61       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions