Walker v. Public Employees

[Red Arrow]

Oh, right, it's about ideology, not money.

Gee, I've never seen that before.

[RecycleMichael]

Guido:

I am impressed that you referenced NPR. Your random blogger, not so much.

But these are third parties saying months after the campaign that they thought he was going to go after unions. Neither of these sources ever say he actually said he was going to take away collective bargaining.

He went after the unions and they have agreed to many concessions. He won. But now he wants to kill them completely, something he never said until after the election.

[guido911]

Um, you're running toward the wrong end zone. The union agreed to the concessions with the exception of the removal of collective bargaining rights. Thus, the taxpayer gets all the savings that Walker asked for. So why has he not accepted that and moved on? Oh, right, it's about ideology, not money. It's about his desire for national office, not about saving the taxpayers diddly squat.

Towards the end of this (evil, right wing) video might explain it.

[nathanm]

How about you tell it in your own words so I don't have to watch some insipid youtube video. Explain why it is that elimination of collective bargaining rights for some (but not all, mind you!) public employees is required to save the money Walker wants to save, when the employees have already agreed to his pay and benefit cuts.

[guido911]

Guido:

I am impressed that you referenced NPR. Your random blogger, not so much.

But these are third parties saying months after the campaign that they thought he was going to go after unions. Neither of these sources ever say he actually said he was going to take away collective bargaining.

He went after the unions and they have agreed to many concessions. He won. But now he wants to kill them completely, something he never said until after the election.

According to Graham, the unions sure knew something like this was going to happen. Something put that notion in their collective heads. Now, if Graham is mistaken, please prove it.

[guido911]

How about you tell it in your own words so I don't have to watch some insipid youtube video. Explain why it is that elimination of collective bargaining rights for some (but not all, mind you!) public employees is required to save the money Walker wants to save, when the employees have already agreed to his pay and benefit cuts.

According to the governor, he exempted public safety union employees because he did not want to risk "public safety" if those folks went on strike over benefits.

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/article_dbfe5872-3665-11e0-94e7-001cc4c002e0.html

Sounds reasonable to me. As for agreeing to the proposed benefit cuts, not enough in my opinion. Public sector employees for too long have had the upper hand in negotiating new contracts.

[nathanm]

Sounds reasonable to me. As for agreeing to the proposed benefit cuts, not enough in my opinion. Public sector employees for too long have had the upper hand in negotiating new contracts.

I'm confused. If you said to me "sell me this widget for $5" and I said "OK," you'd figure you were getting a raw deal and demand I also fellate you?

[Gaspar]

If the workers want to hire someone to represent them to speak on their behalf, they should be allowed to. Think of it as the working man's attorney. In one part of their life, their job, they have somebody looking out for them.

That is all a union is. Workers hiring a spokesman.

This is no different than my homeowners agreeing to collectively hire an attorney to represent them in a zoning case to protect one part of their life, their home.

Because I believe they should be allowed to hire a representative, I am pro-union.

Because their boss may change every two years with an election, I am for government employee unions.   

The "representative" argument is old and inconsistent with the purpose unions serve.  If an employee feels that they need representation when speaking with an employer, that is within their rights.

It's the collective nature of it that is corrupting. I don't need to explain this again.  I know that you understand it.  The minimum standard of work becomes the primary measure in a union situation.  Seniority takes precedence over performance.  Innovation is fought and typically defeated.

[Townsend]

I'm confused. If you said to me "sell me this widget for $5" and I said "OK," you'd figure you were getting a raw deal and demand I also fellate you?

Never fails.  I always walk in at these awkward moments.  'Scuse me fellas.

[guido911]

Gov. Walker defending against allegation of union busting and the new meme that the public sector unions are willing to concede on benefits.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-denies-union-busting-on-gma/

Incidentally, Mediaite in my opinion is one of the more fairer media websites out there. Give them a shot.

[nathanm]

Gov. Walker defending against allegation of union busting and the new meme that the public sector unions are willing to concede on benefits.

So what you're saying is that one of them is lying.  

Gaspar, why is collective bargaining a corrupting influence. Most businesses are collective entities. Very few businesses employing more than a few people are owned solely by one person. There's usually at the very least a silent partner involved. Moreover, the business itself operates through the collective action of its employees. Without collective action, you've got what I've got, which is me working for some clients and not employing anybody.

What you're basically saying is that what's fair for one side of a negotiation is not fair for the other side.

The only two unions whose members I have known well enough to discuss the details of their contracts both had merit pay. (One was manufacturing, the other service)

Edited to add: Oh, wait, that article didn't say what guido said it did. Walker called the concessions "a red herring." Hmm, I think Walker needs a dictionary.

Edited again to add: And for those who are interested in guilt by association: http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/disgraced-ex-tea-party-leader-mark-will

[Gaspar]

So what you're saying is that one of them is lying.  

Gaspar, why is collective bargaining a corrupting influence. Most businesses are collective entities.

That's a flawed thought process.  Companies are not collective.  Even companies as large as Wal-Mart.  They do not use collective bargaining techniques. Wal-Mart does not threaten to withhold paychecks or benefits to encourage extra work. Collective bargaining is one sided.  It is soft blackmail.  "We will threaten your business if you do not deliver your profits to us."

In the real world, each boss, manager, supervisor has performance standards for his/her employees.  Employee performance is evaluated individually.  If you are responsible for production and you identify 3 employees on your line that consistently slow down production or cause problems, it is your duty to counsel or replace them.

Each employee has an opportunity to excel, innovate and advance based on their individual performance or lack thereof.  This is not true under the collective system.  Again, minimum performance standards are the standard.  Employees and management are treated as equal and that's not right (insert liberal outrage).  Companies are forced to evaluate the performance of a group rather than an individual.  Advancement comes with seniority because it's the only fair way to reward when performance is outlawed.

LOL! Makes me think back to when Daimler Benz decided to introduce the German performance system into the Chrysler plant in St. Louis.   I was living there at the time and it was hilarious.

[nathanm]

Each employee has an opportunity to excel, innovate and advance based on their individual performance or lack thereof.  This is not true under the collective system.  Again, minimum performance standards are the standard.  Employees and management are treated as equal and that's not right (insert liberal outrage).  Companies are forced to evaluate the performance of a group rather than an individual.  Advancement comes with seniority because it's the only fair way to reward when performance is outlawed.

Once again you ignore the fact that not all union contracts are based solely on seniority. Understandable, given how inconvenient that fact is to your world view, however.

The point is and remains that there is a significant power imbalance in the employer/employee relationship, especially in larger companies. It's not at all infrequent that employees are fired because of a personal vendetta on the part of a supervisor, rather than any performance issues. Unions help to make things like that less likely.

[Red Arrow]

It's not at all infrequent that employees are fired because of a personal vendetta on the part of a supervisor, rather than any performance issues. Unions help to make things like that less likely.

I don't guess a Union Grievance would ever be filed because of a personal vendetta on the part of a union worker.  They can make a supervisor's life very uncomfortable.

[nathanm]

I don't guess a Union Grievance would ever be filed because of a personal vendetta on the part of a union worker.  They can make a supervisor's life very uncomfortable.

That some abuse a process does not lessen the need for such a process.