|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:54 am Post subject: Cairo moves to Madison |
 |
|
Interesting last few days in Wisconsin, hunh? I especially enjoyed reading the e-mail someone sent to his state senator in Madison that said, "Run, Senator, Run!" (in reference to the 14 senators high-tailing it down to Illinois to escape the gov's dispatching the highway patrol to round them up and force them to come to the state senate). If you haven't been paying attention, it's all about a budget crisis that isn't.
[I've never really understood libertarian/Libertarian problems with unions. As I understand it, that crowd usually thinks when a problem arises, the good put-upon citizens should make a group and solve the problem. That, in a nutshell, is what a union is. Obviously, I'm missing the secret memo that reveals how a group of citizens combining to stop oppression is destructive of liberty. I have a sneaking suspicion that it is the same memo that says regular people must pull their forelocks when a CEO enters the room.]
What with the Right's War on Women in Congress (and South Dakota) and the various governors' attacks on unions, etc. we may well be seeing the over-reach that will energize the progressives for '12. 
Even without a presidential election, American politics stays entertaining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kberger
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've watched the situation back home closely.
The budget repair bill Governor Walker has proposed overreaches, but it would not bother me at all if he broke the public workers' union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Obviously, I'm missing the secret memo that reveals how a group of citizens combining to stop oppression is destructive of liberty. |
Yikes. I'm not going to even try to unpack the Leftist propaganda in that statement.
This is one of those moments when I'm reminded I'm not exactly a progressive. These are public unions, not private unions.
Public sector unions are inherently political. The following article is long:
| Quote: |
In the classic model of democratic accountability, citizens vote in competitive elections for candidates offering distinct policy agendas; once in office, the wi...nners implement their programs through public agencies. But when public-employee unions bargain collectively with the government, elected officials partially cede control of public agencies to unelected labor leaders. Many policy choices are then settled in the course of negotiations between office holders and unions, rather than originating with the people's duly elected representatives. Over the long term, these negotiated work rules can drive public policy in directions that neither elected officials nor voters desire. And once enacted, these policies can prove very hard to reverse, even through elections: A new mayor or governor � no matter how hard-charging a reformer � will often find his hands tied by the iron-clad agreements unions managed to extract from his predecessors.
As a result, it is difficult for defenders of public-sector unions today to make a convincing case that such unions benefit the public at large. Their argument has basically been reduced to three assertions. One is that most public employees live modest lives, and so criticizing efforts to improve their lot distracts attention from wealthy CEOs and Wall Street bankers who are the real culprits behind today's economic woes. Another is that the unions defend the dignity of public service, thereby preserving a middle class that would otherwise be plunged � through conservatives' efforts to privatize such work � into the vicious race to the bottom that now plagues the private sector. Finally, government-workers' unions help advance leftist politics by keeping the labor movement hobbling along.
To be sure, there is some merit to each of these arguments, though none is especially convincing. But even if these claims were completely true and obvious, they would not offer sufficient reason to put up with the other, manifestly negative consequences of public-sector unionism. |
Public sector unions are collectivist and undemocratic. Collective bargaining is intended to blunt the hard-knuckled and short-term impulses of corporate logic. It is inappropriate to employ collective bargaining against considerations of the public welfare entrusted by the Legislature. It is shameful for the Democratic legislature to flee its post, in an especially cowardly reprise of Republican filibuster efforts in the US Senate, in its own collective bargaining maneuver to shut down the Wisconsin government. This is especially obnoxious when the unions are only being told they cannot collectively bargain for benefits, but may bargain for wages.
Now, neither do I back Gov. Walker. Apparently, he is only attacking the teacher's unions and other Leftie-associated public unions' rights to bargain for benefits, but leaving the fire and police unions. I don't see a distinction. Particularly when fire and police pensions dominate 70% of pension expenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| It is inappropriate to employ collective bargaining against considerations of the public welfare entrusted by the Legislature. |
In order for this to be true, don't you have to assume that the legislature is acting in the public interest and not the individual interests of reelection posed by individual legislators? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| This is especially obnoxious when the unions are only being told they cannot collectively bargain for benefits, but may bargain for wages. |
They're being told they may bargain for wage increases only up to an amount reflected in increases in the consumer pricing index. The alterations to how dues would work, in concert with the requirement to vote every single year to remain unionized, in combination with the total lack of meaningful bargaining ability, would ultimately simply amount in the unions in question vanishing.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Now, neither do I back Gov. Walker. Apparently, he is only attacking the teacher's unions and other Leftie-associated public unions' rights to bargain for benefits, but leaving the fire and police unions. I don't see a distinction. Particularly when fire and police pensions dominate 70% of pension expenses. |
That's because this is a 100% political move on his part. It has absolutely nothing to do with state finances; the unions in question have all ready agreed to take cuts. They've virtually begged to take them so long as they can keep their current collective bargaining rights intact.
I understand your stance, and from a philosophic point of view I sympathize with them to a large extent. However, I think that your case neglects the fact that what you call, "The hard-knuckled and short-term impulses of corporate logic," are also at work in the public sector, because corporations have immense political influence. If all corporate and business influence were somehow removed from government, then public sector unions would probably have to go too. While corportate and business influence remains ascendant in the public sphere, public sector unions are necessary. There's a reason guys like Scott Walker want to crush these unions on principle, regardless of whether they're willing to negotiate. Yeah, they're political, but that's okay when they're serving as a counter-balance to a much more serious and socially damaging political influence.
Last edited by Fox on Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| This is especially obnoxious when the unions are only being told they cannot collectively bargain for benefits, but may bargain for wages. |
They're being told they may bargain for wage increases only up to an amount reflected in increases in the consumer pricing index. The alterations to how dues would work, in concert with the requirement to vote every single year to remain unionized, in combination with the total lack of meaningful bargaining ability, would ultimately simply amount in the unions in question vanishing. |
Good riddance. 18 states, including Virginia, Indiana, and Missouri, already forbid public-sector unions. Limiting them to CPI figures sounds generous, quite frankly.
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Now, neither do I back Gov. Walker. Apparently, he is only attacking the teacher's unions and other Leftie-associated public unions' rights to bargain for benefits, but leaving the fire and police unions. I don't see a distinction. Particularly when fire and police pensions dominate 70% of pension expenses. |
That's because this is a 100% political move on his part. It has absolutely nothing to do with state finances; the unions in question have all ready agreed to take cuts. They've virtually begged to take them so long as they can keep their current collective bargaining rights intact. |
Its blatantly political. Why can't he target firefighters and police pensions, as well? Because they are his political backers. Why did Obama intervene and claim "it looks like public employees are under attack in Wisconsin?" Because the teachers unions are his political backers. Aren't we so proud of our democratic system right now?
| Northway wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| It is inappropriate to employ collective bargaining against considerations of the public welfare entrusted by the Legislature. |
In order for this to be true, don't you have to assume that the legislature is acting in the public interest and not the individual interests of reelection posed by individual legislators? |
Yup. But I am somewhat suspicious of government employment and public sector services generally, because of the very dangers you point out. Again, private sector unions may be a necessary evil. Public sector unions are political creatures that subvert democracy. As a taxpayer, I demand my representatives hold full power of the purse, unmitigated by collective bargaining of its employees. The Legislature must be free to lower its employees' benefits and wages. Now, I don't live in Wisconsin, but I can recognize the national Democratic agenda when I see it. The Democrats are showing themselves to be every bit creatures of special interests as the Republicans are. This should surprise nobody. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aside from the main point (which I elaborated on a bit in my above post, but you snuck in before my edit), I do agree with you that the Democrats fleeing the state isn't the way to do business. Just like filibustering, this is a case of using illegitimate procedural obstruction to attempt to corrupt the basic legislative process. It's not okay. Wisconsin is going to suffer under Walker, but that's what the people voted for, and it's what they should get.
Of course, unlike with a modern Senate filibuster (where some jowly old guy just says, "Nuh uh," and that's that), sooner or later the Democrats will have to come back, and then everything will go through.
I remember some time back there was a discussion on Off Topic about being proud about your nation. I've never been especially proud of America on the whole, but I was always somewhat proud of my state. That pride stemmed from a set of cultural values, and one manifestation of those values was Wisconsin's labor movement. For an outsider, it's easy to, "Har har," as those parasitic public unions get crushed. For a denizen of Wisconsin, it's kind of like watching a bit of our shared heritage get tied down on the altar of corporate profit and pissed on. It's not pleasant, and it's not okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I think that your case neglects the fact that what you call, "The hard-knuckled and short-term impulses of corporate logic," are also at work in the public sector, because corporations have immense political influence. If all corporate and business influence were somehow removed from government, then public sector unions would probably have to go too. While corportate and business influence remains ascendant in the public sphere, public sector unions are necessary. There's a reason guys like Scott Walker want to crush these unions on principle, regardless of whether they're willing to negotiate. Yeah, they're political, but that's okay when they're serving as a counter-balance to a much more serious and socially damaging political influence. |
I can only respond thusly: teacher's unions are the Democrats' special interest, but corporations have both parties on their side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The fact that corporate interests have infiltrated both parties in my eyes only makes it more vital that alternate interests oppose them until or unless they can be purged from politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The fact that corporate interests have infiltrated both parties in my eyes only makes it more vital that alternate interests oppose them until or unless they can be purged from politics. |
The difference being that business interests cannot walk out and go on strike. Teachers' unions can still exist as lobbying groups if Wisconsin bars their collective-bargaining rights (for benefits). But as it stands currently, teacher's unions can strike for better pensions. That means that these teachers can use Wisconsin voters' children as hostages. Business interests can't do that.
The only thing worse than allowing teachers to strike is allowing firefighters and police to strike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The difference being that business interests cannot walk out and go on strike. |
They can do something much worse: "Comply with our demands or we're leaving your state." Even the mere threat of this has substantial influence in American politics. Let's not try to underplay how much of a crushing grip business interests have on our government. Yes, teachers going on strike can have serious results. No, that doesn't automatically invalidate the concept, especially since America's (excessively) generous vacation schedule leaves plenty of time for make up days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The only thing worse than allowing teachers to strike is allowing firefighters and police to strike. |
Pay should be benchmarked to a band similar to the middle class wage of the community. They should not be able to pull their salary out of the middle class bound.
Look what coppers in Miami Beach earn:
http://miamibeachexposed.com/2011/02/miami-beach-police-salary-over-100k-club/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Beach,_Florida#Demographics
| Quote: |
| The median income for a household in the city was $27,322, and the median income for a family was $33,440. Males had a median income of $33,964 versus $27,094 for females. The per capita income for the city was $27,853. About 17.0% of families and 21.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 25.2% of those under age 18 and 24.5% of those age sixty-five or over. |
... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dongjak
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I remember some time back there was a discussion on Off Topic about being proud about your nation. I've never been especially proud of America on the whole, but I was always somewhat proud of my state. That pride stemmed from a set of cultural values, and one manifestation of those values was Wisconsin's labor movement. For an outsider, it's easy to, "Har har," as those parasitic public unions get crushed. For a denizen of Wisconsin, it's kind of like watching a bit of our shared heritage get tied down on the altar of corporate profit and pissed on. It's not pleasant, and it's not okay. |
I'm from Wisconsin also, and this is pretty much how I feel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The only thing worse than allowing teachers to strike is allowing firefighters and police to strike. |
Right. I now see the difference in your position.
How profoundly depressing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
