Standing against big government and for the people!

GOVERNMENT WORKER UNIONS.... THE LONG GOODBYE.... IN WISCONSIN, OBAMA'S NATION BUILDERS AND PELOSI'S TWEET

IS THIS OUR FUTURE?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/government_worker_unions_the...

February 20, 2011

Government Worker Unions: The Long Good-bye

By Steve McCann

The "Madison Uprising" is the beginning of the end of the incestuous relationship between government and the unions. That fact has been recognized by the public sector unions and the Democratic Party and is why they have pulled out all the stops and reverted to their 1960's playbook in order to maintain the status quo. However, it is a battle that the unions and the Democratic Party will lose regardless of the immediate outcome in Wisconsin.

The Democratic Party has sold its soul to the public sector unions. In the 2010 mid-term election, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees poured over $87 million dollars into the election. (A new spending record). AFSCME's $87 million was greater than the campaign spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($75 million) and American Crossroads ($65 million). Other public sector unions also ratcheted up their spending such as SEIU ($44 million) and the National Education Association ($40 million).

The three major public sector unions spent over $171 million in the 2010 election plus an estimated $250 million equivalent value of so-called volunteer activity such as get out the vote efforts, door-to-door campaigning and poll watching.

There is nothing wrong with private people or organizations, including private unions, spending money on political campaigns as institutional sources are disclosed. However, AFSCME, the NEA, the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) or the public union sector of SEIU are government employees. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayers and a portion of their salaries go to union dues which are slush funds for political activity and the promotion of left-wing causes. In 2008 the NEA and the AFT made contributions and grants totaling over $96 million of union dues; all to liberal organizations irrespective of the desires of the rank and file or the taxpayer.

It is wholly inappropriate for public employees to spend dues money on political contributions. Public officials are chosen through popular elections and the government employee should be indifferent as to the outcome of the election. However, by maintaining such a heavy hand in not only monetary contributions but election activity the politician becomes too dependent upon the union largess and is essentially blackmailed into acquiescing to all the demands of the union, particularly pay and benefits which have sky-rocketed and are now unsustainable.

President Franklin Roosevelt, the Progressive icon, recognized this problem back in 1937. In a letter to Luther Steward, then President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, he wrote that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government". He went on to say that government employees should not have bargaining rights or a closed shop similar to private sector unions.

However, since the public sector unions were granted those rights beginning in the 1960's they have achieved the virtual ownership, together with the private sector unions, of the Democratic Party. In the 2010 election cycle, per the Center for Responsive Politics, AFSCME donated 99.5% of contributions to Democrats; The NEA donated 96% and the AFT, 99.7%.

These dues were funneled to Democratic candidates who promised to raise workers salaries and hire more public sector workers-even though statistics show that total compensation for federal and state workers is nearly 50% higher than for private sector employees.

Government workers have access to elected officials during negotiations to set wages and benefits and can hold the promise of campaign contributions over these politicians' heads during negotiations. There is, in effect, no one representing the taxpayer who is the source of all income to the government.

This means runaway compensation for government workers, higher taxes for the general public and higher deficits. The taxes go from the electorate to government paychecks to union dues-then to more campaign contributions until the state, municipality or the federal government faces bankruptcy.

The clout of this unholy alliance was further on display when the unions were able to siphon off roughly $160 billion dollars of the 2009 stimulus to save the jobs of state and local workers.

The unseemly goings-on in Wisconsin portray, in microcosm, the disastrous policy of allowing government workers to unionize and bargain for wages and benefits. The unions are fighting to preserve their source of income and clout (i.e. union due) and the Democrats have shown the world their cowardice and dependence by slinking out if the state in order to maintain their bought status.

By these actions they have drawn back the curtain for all to see the true nature of this incestuous relationship and the impact on the future of the country.

It has taken Wisconsin and the near bankruptcy of the country and of many states and municipalities to finally awaken the American people to this fraud and theft. They must demand that public-sector unions can only be associations that can seek better workplace conditions or to facilitate employer-employee disputes but cannot have bargaining rights or mandatory dues.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Diana I Siviter on February 22, 2011 at 9:28am

That video was VERY well done. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing BUT the truth.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Forsyth on February 22, 2011 at 9:43am

Nonsense. Anybody that is paying attention knows they are protesting the loss of some of their collective bargaining rights, not the financial contributions. They already agreed to those.

I am delighted to see the unions being taken down but it is dishonest and ultimately unhelpful to misrepresent what is going on.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christy Bartholomew on February 22, 2011 at 10:38am

Yes, he should have mentioned that, but they need to give up bargaining rights for benefits only, they will still have the right to collectively bargain for their wages. It is long past time that these folks stopped being treated like they are more important than private sector workers. The private sector has never had the great benefits the unions receive, if they did every business in Nation would be bankrupt, or have left the country! The unions have done enough damage, time for them to face reality, and make a few sacrifices. Even with the contributions to their own retirement and health insurance, they STILL have better benefits than public sector employees, they need to STOP WHINING and get back to work.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ram K Singh on February 22, 2011 at 11:09am

Nonsense? Iy is the Collective bargaining that has placed any municipalities, counties and states in this predicament and this has got to go. Government should not collect Union Dues from anyone's paycheck. let the Unions collect them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karen Boswell on February 23, 2011 at 5:30am

Collective bargaining makes the "concessions: they say they are willing to make irrelevant since they can bargain to get them back and more in the next negotiation. The bargaining can take up to 15 months which that lengthy process is another expense in and of itself that State and local gov't can ill afford.

I think that the thing the union bosses are most disturbed about is that the State will no longer collect the dues via payroll deduction. Leaving the members to pay directly to the unions thus cutting off the garaunteed income to the unions. When the members write those big dues checks they will then realize how much they are paying and will then think whether there is truly value in that payment. This will cause many to stop paying and reduce the union gravy train. It is easy not to pay attention to something that is automatically deducted (that's why financial advisors tell you to have savings deducted from your pay up front)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chuck Otto on February 22, 2011 at 12:29pm

I agree with the video and MOST of the attached article. Truth is being bent severely, but mostly by the so-called Wisconsin teachers' protest. Anyone who was at even part of the event in Madison knows: There were busloads of union people from other states, paid activists - even from other countries - and lots of other agenda-driven participants. This event was not about Wisconsin teachers' salaries or benefits. That was the pretense, but the real issue was, and is, the power of the unions to control and dominate both business and the government. They put all they had into this, with the idea that - if successful in Wisconsin - they could intimidate other state governments. Hopefully, Governor Walker will stand fast, do the job he was elected to do, and take disciplinary action against the Dem senators who went AWOL.

As for the article, it's great... EXCEPT for a little misrepresentation of federal workers' (rank & file) access to their politicians and influence over their wages. As a recent retiree (31 July) I can tell you that, first of all, the federal employee unions are forbidden to strike. If AFGE, NFFE, etc. put on a show like the one in Madison, the members would have been disciplined or fired. Unfortunately, the fed. employee unions are connected to the AFLCIO, and were a major factor in the election of Obama in 2008 - without the knowledge of many of the members. I resigned from the union after discovering that fact, and was amazed to discover that union officials actually could prevent me from canceling the allotment I set up to pay my dues. I had to get a lawyer to fix that and it took me two months to get it stopped. Another misrepresentation, or maybe just a misunderstanding, the rank & file federal employees have absolutely no say in their wages. Those are set by the Office of Personnel Management and controlled by Congress. Congress, on the other hand, can vote itself a pay raise and is exempt from the federal workers' pay scale. Last item: federal employees (rank & file) have no collective bargaining rights at all. The fed employee unions can do four things: (1) They can offer legal referral to employees who get dumped on by their supervisors - but this is not a free service. The employee is sent to a private lawyer who's willing to take on the federal government, and must pay that lawyer's fees - which can be substantial. (2) They can offer additional medical/dental insurance programs (for a fee, of course.) These are often frauds that steal the workers' money and don't pay claims. We had that experience at Ft McCoy, and we got ripped off royally. (3) They can advise management on working condition improvements, but management is not obligated to take their suggestions and typically ignores them. (4) They can sponsor social events, like group picnics, and charity benefits for the underprivileged. AFGE did this for several years, then stopped the practice. Essentially, federal employee unions take dues from their members and give little or nothing back in services or benefits.

Salaries for rank & file federal employees do not exceed those of comparable private sector workers. In fact, in many cases, they lag significantly behind. The only highly paid fed. employees are in Congress or in what's called "excepted service." This includes FEMA, certain highly specialized security occupations, and some high level federal staff positions. These are the few and the powerful who get $100,000 PER YEAR or more, often not contributing much in return. Regular folks, myself included, get less than half that and must work 30-40 years to accumulate a pension (which WE pay for 100%, NOT the government) adequate for retirement. To make matters worse, we pay taxes on both our retirement contributions and our retirement annuities. We also have no protection from economic disasters such as we have experienced for the past 2-3 years. I lost over half of my retirement fund, and retired (with 44 years in service) before I could replace it. So much for the wonderful world of government service!

I believe states like Wisconsin should take a hard look at their relationships with public employee unions and make their rules more like those of the federal government. We (federal employees) don't serve to get rich, we serve our country - probably more effectively than most members of Congress, or the public employees in the state of Wisconsin.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan Butler on February 23, 2011 at 12:11am

I belong to a local trade association (which whenever we object to anything is then called a union in an attempt to slander what we do). There are lots of benefits for both the employer and the employee in this circumstance. We have collective bargaining - but non binding. We can also as a part of that negotiate for benefits etc. As a local trade assn. we are NOT affiliated with any national union in any way so we are completely indepent and can see to the needs of the 600 employee members as well as take into consideration the employers issues - makes for a fairly reasonable discussion. Our biggest problem is that our employer is local government - who continually refuses to acknowlege their obligation to the public to provide for public safety and instead provides artwork, elaborate buildings, landscaping and other things while furloughing it's own employees to make ends meet. I do agree that the NEA should go as should many of the big east coast based unions as they are nothing more than political machines at this point.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alta Whipple on February 23, 2011 at 12:30pm

Amen!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colorado43 on February 22, 2011 at 9:29am

The time has passed for the Unions and their effectiveness.

March on, Wisconsin and i pray other states follow suit.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by barb on February 22, 2011 at 9:43am

Remember what the union has done for all American workers!

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp143/

How unions help all workers

by Lawrence Mishel and Matthew Walters

Unions have a substantial impact on the compensation and work lives of
both unionized and non-unionized workers. This report presents current
data on unions' effect on wages, fringe benefits, total compensation,
pay inequality, and workplace protections.

Some of the conclusions are:

• Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise
compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.

• Unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low-
and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for
blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do
not have a college degree.

• Strong unions set a pay standard that nonunion employers follow. For
example, a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but
whose industry is 25% unionized is paid 5% more than similar workers in
less unionized industries.

• The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the
impact on total union wages.

• The most sweeping advantage for unionized workers is in fringe
benefits. Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized
counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more
likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54%
more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.

• Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than
nonunionized workers. They also pay 18% lower health care deductibles
and a smaller share of the costs for family coverage. In retirement,
unionized workers are 24% more likely to be covered by health insurance
paid for by their employer.

• Unionized workers receive better pension plans. Not only are they more
likely to have a guaranteed benefit in retirement, their employers
contribute 28% more toward pensions.

• Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total
paid leave (vacations and holidays).

Unions play a pivotal role both in securing legislated labor protections
and rights such as safety and health, overtime, and family/medical leave
and in enforcing those rights on the job. Because unionized workers are
more informed, they are more likely to benefit from social insurance
programs such as unemployment insurance and workers compensation. Unions
are thus an intermediary institution that provides a necessary
complement to legislated benefits and protections.

The union wage premium

It should come as no surprise that unions raise wages, since this has
always been one of the main goals of unions and a major reason that
workers seek collective bargaining. How much unions raise wages, for
whom, and the consequences of unionization for workers, firms, and the
economy have been studied by economists and other researchers for over a
century (for example, the work of Alfred Marshall). This section
presents evidence from the 1990s that unions raise the wages of
unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise total compensation by about 28%.

The research literature generally finds that unionized workers' earnings
exceed those of comparable nonunion workers by about 15%, a phenomenon
known as the "union wage premium."

#####

Friday February 18, 2011 07:00 am
Republican Governor Deliberately Spent Wisconsin Surplus To Pick Fight With Unions
By Susie Madrak

It's important that people understand this: This is a fight Gov. Walker picked for the specific purpose of breaking the unions. Wisconsin had a surplus, and as soon as he was sworn in, Walker gave it away to special interests in order to put the state into deficit. Is it a coincidence that every Republican governor is suddenly going after the unions and the pensions? Is it simply bubbling up from the ground for no special reason? Hell, no.

Wisconsin's new Republican governor has framed his assault on public worker's collective bargaining rights as a needed measure of fiscal austerity during tough times.

The reality is radically different. Unlike true austerity measures -- service rollbacks, furloughs, and other temporary measures that cause pain but save money -- rolling back worker's bargaining rights by itself saves almost nothing on its own. But Walker's doing it anyhow, to knock down a barrier and allow him to cut state employee benefits immediately.

Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.

"Walker was not forced into a budget repair bill by circumstances beyond he control," says Jack Norman, research director at the Institute for Wisconsin Future -- a public interest think tank. "He wanted a budget repair bill and forced it by pushing through tax cuts... so he could rush through these other changes."

"The state of Wisconsin has not reached the point at which austerity measures are needed," Norman adds.

"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the
oppressed." --Steve Biko