Unions and the Wisconsin Governor

[guido911]

If you had not heard, the AWOL dems wanted to meet with the GOP near the IL-WIS border to discuss apparently a compromise. This was rejected, and also triggered this written response from the majority leader to the Dem minority leader:

March 7, 2011

    Sen. Mark Miller

    Parts Unknown, IL

    Dear Senator Miller,

    Thank you for your hand-delivered letter with an offer to meet, in Illinois, about the business and future direction of Wisconsin.

    Let's set aside how bizarre that is for a moment.

    As you know, this legislation is designed to finally balance the state budget, prevent layoffs and create jobs in the real world. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed Wisconsinites, and at least 1,500 more whose jobs are in the balance because of your media stunt. We all deserve better than this.

    In the meantime, members of your caucus have been meeting with the governor's staff, talking to the media, trying to find a way back to Madison, and contradicting your message in public. In case you don't remember, you were present yourself at one of those meetings with the governor's staff. Your grasp of reality, and control of your caucus as minority leader, continues to amaze me.

    As you know, your opportunity to compromise and amend the bill was on the floor of the state Senate. As you know, you forfeited that right and opportunity when you decided to flee the state instead of doing your job.

    Your stubbornness in trying to ignore the last election and protect the broken status quo is truly shameful. While we wait for you and your colleagues to finally show up, Senate Republicans continue to stand ready to do the job we were elected to do, here in Wisconsin. I hope you are enjoying your vacation, and your vacation from reality.

    Sincerely,

    Scott Fitzgerald

    Senate Majority Leader

    CC: Governor Scott Walker

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261527/best-letter-ever-top-wis-gop-senator-responds-missing-dems-katrina-trinko

[Red Arrow]

The Democratic Party is not by any means the party of the workers. They get union money, but most likely because who the hell else is going to get it? The Republicans?

How about no one?  Cut the operating costs and dues.

There certainly are folks who are left of the Democrats on this, but even they by and large aren't out to strangle business. They think that greater regulation and stronger unions leads overall to a stronger business climate that has the side benefit of not grinding people up under its boot.

They may not think they are strangling business but in many cases the goals of the union can do that.  In addition to wages and benefits I am thinking of not allowing job flexibility and cross training.

I could never be anti-union with a straight face, not because of ideology, but because I believe in checks and balances. The unions (should) act to check the sometimes destructive impulses of CEOs focused too much on this quarter than next year. Company management should be acting to check any greed within the union attempting to get more out of the business than is sustainable for it.

So you think the Unions should run the company?  If they own stock in the company, they should have as much say as any stockholder but that is all. It might be wise for company management to seek ideas from the workers but I say no to the Union as an organization for anything beyond a suggestion.  Management can check greed within the Union?  How?  Put an offer on the table and get a workforce in picket lines?

I know there are some companies that deserve the nasty union they get and I have little sympathy for them. 

[Conan71]

How about no one?  Cut the operating costs and dues.

They may not think they are strangling business but in many cases the goals of the union can do that.  In addition to wages and benefits I am thinking of not allowing job flexibility and cross training.


So you think the Unions should run the company?  If they own stock in the company, they should have as much say as any stockholder but that is all. It might be wise for company management to seek ideas from the workers but I say no to the Union as an organization for anything beyond a suggestion.  Management can check greed within the Union?  How?  Put an offer on the table and get a workforce in picket lines?

I know there are some companies that deserve the nasty union they get and I have little sympathy for them.  

I tend to agree with you Red.  UAW really didn't care two whits about GM or Chrysler now did they?  Much of their financial problems stemmed from years of union contracts which drove up benefits to unsustainable levels.  The union didn't care so long as their workers were getting theirs.  That's all that mattered to them.  Once they broke the company, the company ran to the government who in turn gave a good chunk of ownership to the union in return for bailing GM out of bankruptcy.  I really don't see any altruism on the part of the union toward GM in this case.

[nathanm]

I tend to agree with you Red.  UAW really didn't care two whits about GM or Chrysler now did they?  Much of their financial problems stemmed from years of union contracts which drove up benefits to unsustainable levels.  The union didn't care so long as their workers were getting theirs.  That's all that mattered to them.  Once they broke the company, the company ran to the government who in turn gave a good chunk of ownership to the union in return for bailing GM out of bankruptcy.  I really don't see any altruism on the part of the union toward GM in this case.

One could equally say that it was management's overreliance on truck sales and failure to adapt to changing market conditions that sent them down the path of doom (essentially the same thing that happened in the 70s, just with a different type of vehicle)

A few years back, I saw a report from GM themselves that clearly showed that domestic automakers didn't pay current employees excessively compared to foreign automakers. The huge numbers that turned up were made up, nearly out of whole cloth. To get the ridiculous $60 an hour figure or whatever it was you had to count retirement benefits for past employees as part of the wages of current employees. One of the big reasons this is a silly way to look at things is that the domestic automakers have significantly smaller workforces than they used to, thus inflating the current workers' supposed "pay" even higher.

Moreover, foreign automakers have almost zero current retirees, so their current employees' wages look artificially low if compared using the above formula.

Regarding actual pay structures as of about 2006, domestic automakers paid their workers about $2 an hour more than the foreign automakers. A cost disadvantage, to be sure, but nothing like the ridiculous claims of $20 or $30 an hour more that were being spouted during the controversy. The point being that unions didn't in any way destroy the automakers. Do note that Ford, like AA, was able to get concessions out of their union without playing the BK card.

[Conan71]

One could equally say that it was management's overreliance on truck sales and failure to adapt to changing market conditions that sent them down the path of doom (essentially the same thing that happened in the 70s, just with a different type of vehicle)

A few years back, I saw a report from GM themselves that clearly showed that domestic automakers didn't pay current employees excessively compared to foreign automakers. The huge numbers that turned up were made up, nearly out of whole cloth. To get the ridiculous $60 an hour figure or whatever it was you had to count retirement benefits for past employees as part of the wages of current employees. One of the big reasons this is a silly way to look at things is that the domestic automakers have significantly smaller workforces than they used to, thus inflating the current workers' supposed "pay" even higher.

Moreover, foreign automakers have almost zero current retirees, so their current employees' wages look artificially low if compared using the above formula.

Regarding actual pay structures as of about 2006, domestic automakers paid their workers about $2 an hour more than the foreign automakers. A cost disadvantage, to be sure, but nothing like the ridiculous claims of $20 or $30 an hour more that were being spouted during the controversy. The point being that unions didn't in any way destroy the automakers. Do note that Ford, like AA, was able to get concessions out of their union without playing the BK card.

Granted, GM was far behind on innovation, however the light truck market is huge in the U.S. that isn't what killed the old GM.  Too many similar brands was an expensive proposition, they could and should have shuttered Pontiac and Olds years ago and worked out a suitable joint venture with another manufacturer with Saturn if they weren't willing to do what it took to keep their most innovative line (as far as fuel-efficient vehicles and out of the box marketing) up and running.

They were also known as poor stewards of cash.  One of my former co-workers moved down here from Michigan.  His wife is the widow of a GM worker.  He always referred to GM as "Generous Motors" as they had a reputation for spending big when it came to plant maintenance, contractors, etc.

Here's what you are missing from my last post:

IIRC, 2/3 of the people receiving health benefits and income from GM weren't working there anymore.  You simply cannot pay anywhere near that kind of percentage of your payroll and benefit costs to people who no longer contribute to the productivity of the company and expect to stay solvent, especially when they had other obvious asset and cash flow management issues.

[nathanm]

IIRC, 2/3 of the people receiving health benefits and income from GM weren't working there anymore.  You simply cannot pay anywhere near that kind of percentage of your payroll and benefit costs to people who no longer contribute to the productivity of the company and expect to stay solvent, especially when they had other obvious asset and cash flow management issues.

As many people have said over the years, "whocouldanode?" When GM agreed to those contracts, they were already enormous and growing like topsy. They're not terribly generous for the time, even. Pensions and health benefits in retirement weren't exactly uncommon back then. It was just part of what you got in a manufacturing job. And it wasn't even a problem because the foreign competition hadn't made inroads into the market yet.

It became a problem because the foreign makes set up shop here and had no retirement benefits to pay at all (and still don't, but will in the next decade or two). It became a huge problem because GM shrank and life expectancy rose. Not exactly a problem that's easy to predict.

Now, I will go so far as to say that both management and the unions failed to see the writing on the wall long after it was up there and outlined in neon, but as with so many things "it seemed like a good idea at the time."

[heironymouspasparagus]

All this talk about the unions...normal distraction, dissemination, and just pure crap.

The real problem with GM and Chrysler ALWAYS and still is management.  No union in this universe ever made GM have too many brands.  No union in this universe forced their hands to sign a contract.  Management always went into the negotiations with eyes wide open.  Trying to hammer the workers at every opportunity (hence the work rules like the speed of the line and who controls it - jointly between union and management).  And they never had to keep the doors open - the option was always open to just close the door and let a strike happen or even turn out the lights and go home.  But no, they had the big accountants and computers that told them the cost/benefit ratios and management signed on to the deal.

And particularly how the management would get their multi-millions in bonuses and tax reduced benefits.  You remember that 15% tax bill they get versus the 40% the rest of us get to pay?  

It was never a union OR the engineers that design them that decided to cheapen up a GM or Chrysler car to the point where no one would want them.  The engineers were told - and STILL are told today - to make it cheaper.  NO OTHER POINT is anywhere near the precedence of that single one.  (And yes, direct experience in this - non-union experience.)

It WAS and IS management that ran those companies into the ground.  And we the taxpayers got to bail out that same management - you do remember that it was Bush who bailed out GM and Chrysler, don't you?  (Probably not - selective amnesia).  Lucky for us, people are buying a lot of GM now.  Who knows why, since they continue down the path of arrogance and hubris they were on before.  As evidenced by the new engine oil requirements of dexos oil - or your warranty is void.  Ford doesn't play that crap game yet.  Maybe they will if the lemmings,  er, uh, people who buy GM keep on playing their game.

Hopefully we the people can sell out our stake in GM before the next crash.

And for all the young RWRE's, post-pension generation.  You really have no clue about what the Republican party has done to you starting with Reagan's gutting of the pension system in this country.  And replaced it with that "magical" 401k system of today.  So sad.  

So much ignorance about the true union versus management culpability here.  The whole mind set of "unions once had their place" but are obsolete today.  You WILL discover before your career ends that the mantra you live by is just another Murdochian/Rove/Cheney implant, twisting and torturing your neural paths with their lies.

Here is the real story.  Again.  Redistribution of wealth.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110223/ts_yblog_thelookout/separate-but-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap

[Gaspar]

"Wisconsin is just the first act in an unfolding tragedy in which states and municipalities across the country have promised $3.5 trillion—about a quarter of the national GDP—in pensions that they don't have the funds for. Unfunded health retirement costs are even greater. But how did we get to this point?"

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/08/the-real-lesson-from-wisconsin

[RecycleMichael]

If people just died quicker all will be fine. Maybe that is why republicans are opposed to universal health care. 

[Townsend]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker blames "union bosses" for budget stalemate

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20040557-503544.html

Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Monday night said that "union bosses in D.C." were likely to blame for the stalemate he has seemingly reached with Wisconsin Democratic lawmakers over legislation that would impact union rights.


After nearly three weeks, all 14 Wisconsin Senate Democrats remain out of state to prevent a vote on Walker's so-called "budget repair bill."


Democratic leader Mark Miller yesterday sought to arrange a meeting with Walker and the state Senate Republican leader to reach a compromise over the bill, but the two Republicans rebuffed the offer. Walker called Miller's request for a meeting at the Wisconsin-Illinois border "ridiculous" and charged that Miller is "the person standing in the way of progress."


Reports over the weekend suggested that Miller and other Democrats were ready to return to Wisconsin -- even without the changes they wanted to the budget repair bill -- but Miller's letter made clear Democrats want to continue negotiations. Walker last night speculated that Miller changed his tune because of the influence of national union leaders, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.


"I don't have this on firsthand knowledge" as to why the Democrats remain out of state, Walker said last night at a forum in Waukesha, Wisc. "My guess is [Miller] got a phone call from one of the union bosses in D.C. who said, 'You cannot go back there and let them have a vote.'"


In response to the reports about their possible return, Miller and other Democrats said yesterday that their position never changed; they said they were simply acknowledging that they will at some point in time have to go back to Wisconsin.


The Democrats are holding out for Walker to drop a provision of his budget repair bill that would largely scale back public workers' collective bargaining rights. Unions have already agreed to other parts of the bill that would scale back their benefits, but they argue that limiting collective bargaining rights will not impact the budget.

Walker and Republicans argue that limiting collective bargaining rights is an important element of the legislation that will enable local municipalities to meet budget realities.


Walker said of the Democrats last night, "Eventually, if any of them come back, this bill will pass."


Also speaking at the forum Monday, the Journal Sentinel reports, was Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett -- the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Walker defeated in 2010. Barrett who pointed out that the Senate could vote on collective bargaining rights as a standalone measure without the 14 Democrats present. Indeed, the Wisconsin Senate only needs a 20-vote quorum to pass a spending bill, so the 19 state Senate Republicans could pass non-spending legislation on their own.


"Don't hide it [in the budget-repair bill]," Barrett said. "Don't make this a Trojan horse."


He said he believes Republicans are not voting on the measure separately because it would not pass. Several polls have shown that most people in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the country agree with Democrats that union collective bargaining rights do not need to be scaled back.


Meanwhile, as the conflict drags on, liberal groups are keeping up the pressure on Republicans. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America said yesterday they've raised over $525,000 online since Wednesday, when they launched a pro-union campaign. They're using the money to keep an ad on the air that blasts Walker's plan, and to assist local recall efforts against Republican lawmakers.

[Gaspar]

If people just died quicker all will be fine. Maybe that is why republicans are opposed to universal health care. 

That's actually part of the end of life planning in Obamacare.  

"Maw-maw, you are no longer useful to us, it's time you thought about dieing."

[heironymouspasparagus]

The "Death Panel" gang obviously have never read the law.  Or had a terminally ill family member/friend who has gone through this before.  They just keep pooh-poohing something that has been done informally for decades that now has a formal definition and consistent implementation.

Actually, end of life planning and information is a huge boon for anyone facing that circumstance.  Too bad the RWRE just doesn't get it on yet another point.

[we vs us]

"Wisconsin is just the first act in an unfolding tragedy in which states and municipalities across the country have promised $3.5 trillion—about a quarter of the national GDP—in pensions that they don't have the funds for. Unfunded health retirement costs are even greater. But how did we get to this point?"

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/08/the-real-lesson-from-wisconsin

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/06/109649/why-employee-pensions-arent-bankrupting.html

"A close look at state and local pension plans across the nation, and a comparison of them to those in the private sector, reveals a more complicated story. However, the short answer is that there's simply no evidence that state pensions are the current burden to public finances that their critics claim.

Pension contributions from state and local employers aren't blowing up budgets. They amount to just 2.9 percent of state spending, on average, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College puts the figure a bit higher at 3.8 percent."

[Conan71]

Pension contributions from state and local employers aren't blowing up budgets. They amount to just 2.9 percent of state spending, on average, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College puts the figure a bit higher at 3.8 percent."

Yeah, but it's a good smokescreen for the other billions they keep pissing away on useless projects and cushy bureaucrat jobs for their closest friends and contributors.   

[nathanm]

Pension contributions from state and local employers aren't blowing up budgets. They amount to just 2.9 percent of state spending, on average, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College puts the figure a bit higher at 3.8 percent."

It's the same math that lets them paint Social Security as insolvent.

Hint: any future ongoing liability will look big as a lump sum..like your mortgage, only you don't get it paid off after 30 years.