|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 1, 2011 9:51:00 GMT -5
Public Employee Unions By Walter Williams www.JewishWorldReview.com | With all of the union strife in Wisconsin, Indiana and New Jersey, and indications of more to come, it might be time to shed a bit of light on unions as an economic unit. First, let's get one important matter out of the way. I value freedom of association, and non-association, even in ways that are not always popular and often deemed despicable. I support a person's right to be a member or not be a member of a labor union. From my view, the only controversy regarding unions is what should they be permitted and not permitted to do. According to the Department of Labor, most union members today work for state, local and federal government. Close to 40 percent of public employees are unionized. As such, they represent a powerful political force in elections. If you're a candidate for governor, mayor or city councilman, you surely want the votes and campaign contributions from public employee unions. In my view, that's no problem. The problem arises after you win office and sit down to bargain over the pay and working conditions with unions who voted for you. Given the relationship between politicians and public employee unions, we should not be surprised that public employee wages and benefits often average 45 percent higher than their counterparts in the private sector. Often they receive pension and health care benefits making little or no contribution. How is it that public employee unions have such a leg up on their private-sector brethren? The answer is not rocket science. Employers in the private sector have a bottom line. If they overcompensate their employees, company profits will sink. The company might even face bankruptcy. Of course, if private companies can count on federal government bailouts, as did General Motors and Chrysler, they can maintain a comfy relationship with their unions. No such bottom line exists in the government sector. Politicians have every reason to grant benefits to their political allies, in this case public employee unions. They don't pick up the tab; it's unorganized taxpayers who face higher taxes. Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker says that stripping the workers of collective bargaining rights, and limiting talks to the subject of basic wages, is necessary to give the state the flexibility to get its finances in order and spare taxpayers further grief. Consider the cushy deal for many of California's unionized state and local police, fire and prison employees. They have what's called a "3 percent at 50" formula that determines their retirement check. It's based on 3 percent of the average of the three highest-paid years of the employee's career, multiplied by the number of years on the job. An employee with 20 years' service can retire at age 50 and receive 60 percent of his salary. Employees often boost their retirement income by putting in a lot of overtime hours during their last three years of service. Temple University professor William Dunkelberg said in his recent CNBC article "Should Unions Have the Power to Tax?": "The 'employers' (taxpayers through their elected officials) have slowly lost their ability to determine the terms of employment offers. The unions now determine working hours, hiring criteria, the quantity of 'output' to be produced per day, the number of sick and vacation and holiday days, how their performance will be evaluated etc. No longer can the employer make an 'offer' for a job with requirements that fit the needs of the public institution." Major states like California, New York, Illinois, Ohio and New Jersey — and the federal government — are on the verge of bankruptcy. Large cities like Los Angeles; Chicago; New York; Washington, D.C.; Newark; and Detroit are facing bankruptcy as well. Does that tell you something? It tells me that we can no longer afford to do what we've done in the past. We must make large cuts in spending. Spending on public employee salaries is just a drop in the bucket.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 1, 2011 14:17:17 GMT -5
It's a myth that public employees make more than private sector employees: Employees of state and local government earn an average of 11 percent and 12 percent less, respectively, than comparable private sector employees. An analysis spanning two decades shows the pay gap between public and private sector employees has widened in recent years. These findings are contained in a new report, “Out of Balance? Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation Over 20 Years,” commissioned by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence (Center) and the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS). The study provides an original analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The study finds that: • Jobs in the public sector typically require more education than private sector positions. Thus, state and local employees are twice as likely to hold a college degree or higher as compared to private sector employees. Only 23 percent of private sector employees have completed college as compared to about 48 percent in the public sector. • Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector employees with comparable earnings determinants such as education and work experience. State workers typically earn 11 percent less and local workers 12 percent less. • During the last 15 years, the pay gap has grown–earnings for state and local workers have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees. • The pattern of declining relative earnings remains true in most of the large states examined in the study, although there does exist some state level variation. • Benefits make up a slightly larger share of compensation for the state and local sector. But even after accounting for the value of retirement, healthcare, and other benefits, state and local employees earn less than private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local employees than for comparable private sector employees. “The picture is clear. In an apples-to-apples comparison, state and local government employees receive less compensation than their private sector counterparts,” said Keith A. Bender, report co-author and associate professor, Department of Economics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “These public sector employees earn less than they would earn if they took their skills to the private sector,” he added. Read more at faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/iamergel/files/Summer2010LR.pdfHere is the link to the 'Out Of Balance' report: www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7BA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7D/uploads/%7B03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7D.PDF
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Mar 1, 2011 15:21:07 GMT -5
Hey Mike.
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Just kidding. LOL. I love that line.
Seriously, assuming the stats you post are accurate, the perception is the opposite. The article by Walter E. Williams that Phil posted paints a much different wage picture and also points out the inherent conflict of interest in the bargaining process.
So even if the perception about wages can be changed, there is still the matter of the collective bargaining process wherein workers "bargain" with those they elected to bargain with.
There is also the simple fact that most believe government to be too big and too much in debt, and therefore any cuts will necessarily involve government employees, union or not.
So the truth needs to be told about wages and benefits (by both sides), the bargaining process needs reformed or eliminated, and government needs to cut wasteful spending and unnecessary programs before it cuts budgets of needed programs (safety, law enforcement, national security, etc).
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 1, 2011 15:50:22 GMT -5
The article states that unionized employees represent a big political force. That may be partially true. But so is it true that Big Business and their big money (read: Koch Bros and Wisconsin's Governor) is a political force. The fact of the matter is that the average government worker is being used as a whipping boy for today's government financial problems. It's made worse when the completely false myth that government workers are paid more then their private industry counterparts is perpetuated as truth. Collective bargaining is not the problem either. The problem lies with too many middle and upper management people and a whole lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. Start there. Then we'll talk.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Mar 1, 2011 15:56:40 GMT -5
Hey Mike. "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here." I was thinking the same thing. ;D This article is trying to get me to believe that sanitation workers, public works people, correctional officers, police, fire, and every other member coverered by the NFL-CIO or SEIU need a college degree to hold their job. PUH-lease!
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 1, 2011 16:38:17 GMT -5
This article is trying to get me to believe that sanitation workers, public works people, correctional officers, police, fire, and every other member coverered by the NFL-CIO or SEIU need a college degree to hold their job. PUH-lease! Actually it doesn't say that at all. It says 48% of public sector workers have college degrees, while only 23% of private sector workers have college degrees. It doesn't say they needed a college degree to hold their job, nor does it say their degree is in the field that they are working. I think you'd be surprised at just how many of the people you cite do indeed have some sort of higher education degree, especially those in corrections and the PSP. And while they may not have a college education, although some do, you, of all people, ought to know the specialized training requirements for career fire, rescue and EMS personnel. What the study does say is that they weigh all variables, those with degrees, those without degrees, etc, and compare apples to apples, and what they have found is that public workers get paid less than their private counterparts with everything else being equal.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Mar 1, 2011 17:27:14 GMT -5
And it's all completely beside the point. Public sector unions have no justification for existence. Mike, you reject that fact; the rest of us see it and wholeheartedly accept it. Anything else is just nibbling around the edges.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 1, 2011 17:36:43 GMT -5
As many have pointed out, the problem isn’t with unions or union members; the problem is the cozy situation where the union leadership uses union dues to support politicians who they’ll later bargain with. I suppose if you’re politics are the same as the leadership’s then you don’t have a problem with that. If your politics aren’t the same, then you have no choice but to contribute to the other side.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Mar 1, 2011 17:45:46 GMT -5
Mike wrote: The problem lies with too many middle and upper management people and a whole lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. Start there. Then we'll talk. I couldn't agree more. I've been saying this throughout.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Mar 1, 2011 17:57:22 GMT -5
From the article; Jobs in the public sector typically require more education than private sector positions.
If thats not an implication about education requirements, I don't know what is.
If public sector union members have it so bad, why are they fighting so hard? Just leave and go to work for the private sector unions and the problem is solved. Afterall, they'd all be getting paid so much more then, right?
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 2, 2011 2:51:55 GMT -5
As many have pointed out, the problem isn’t with unions or union members; the problem is the cozy situation where the union leadership uses union dues to support politicians who they’ll later bargain with. I suppose if you’re politics are the same as the leadership’s then you don’t have a problem with that. If your politics aren’t the same, then you have no choice but to contribute to the other side. Actually, Phil, you do have a choice. While a member of AFSCME, prior to decertifying them and forming our own union, I used the option to notify AFSCME in writing that I was opposed to their political views and was refunded the portion of my dues that would have been used for political activities. On top of that, the unions have an option where, if you wish, you can contribute to the political action committee fund, whose funds are used for political activities.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 2, 2011 2:56:03 GMT -5
And it's all completely beside the point. Public sector unions have no justification for existence. Mike, you reject that fact; the rest of us see it and wholeheartedly accept it. Anything else is just nibbling around the edges. The problem, Doug, is it's not a 'fact', it's your opinion. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that they serve a valuable purpose in labor-management relations.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 2, 2011 3:16:14 GMT -5
From the article; Jobs in the public sector typically require more education than private sector positions.If thats not an implication about education requirements, I don't know what is. When used in context with the whole paragraph, it paints a different picture than what you claim. If public sector union members have it so bad, why are they fighting so hard? Fighting so hard at what? Got any examples. Just leave and go to work for the private sector unions and the problem is solved. Afterall, they'd all be getting paid so much more then, right? Many do. If not for the promise of a pension and job stability I would have left during the first year. For me that job stability was worth it to stay, to others it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Mar 2, 2011 7:23:00 GMT -5
Yeah Mike, it's just that my opinion is based on fact and yours isn't.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 2, 2011 7:28:16 GMT -5
Yeah Mike, it's just that my opinion is based on fact and yours isn't. Facts? What facts? You haven't shown any facts. You've only thrown out opinions. Just because you say it you expect everyone to assume it's fact. I have experience on my side. I've been involved in two public sector unions and I've witnessed the need for those unions. What facts do you have? Do share.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 2, 2011 7:50:28 GMT -5
Mike, the refund you speak of has little to do with the fact that the remainder of your dues are supporting an entity that is a powerful political force in this country. If you disagree with the leadership’s politics you are still compelled to support them.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 2, 2011 8:00:17 GMT -5
Mike, the refund you speak of has little to do with the fact that the remainder of your dues are supporting an entity that is a powerful political force in this country. If you disagree with the leadership’s politics you are still compelled to support them. Phil, that is false also. Due to the fact that we are compelled to pay dues (as a 'fair share' member), the Unions are required to keep accurate records separating costs attributed directly to representing the membership on the job (IE processing grievances, negotiating, etc) from all other activities. Fair share members only pay their 'fair share' of the cost of directly representing them. They don't pay anything for political activity or any other activity that is not attributed to representing them directly on the job. We are compelled to pay dues only for the cost of representing us, nothing else. We can become a full dues paying member and pay more in dues, but still request the refund of any money being spent politically on our behalf. Most members choose to be full dues paying members. Also, if you are unhappy with the Union or it's leadership you can petition to decertify the union. We did that back in 2001 when we were unhappy with AFSCME. And then we formed our own union, the PSCOA. We could have chosen to have no union at all at the time of decertification. So we do, in fact, have a choice. But if their is a union in place, all persons in the work place covered by that union must pay their 'fair share' for the fruits of the unions labor on their behalf.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 2, 2011 8:45:53 GMT -5
Perhaps your situation doesn’t apply Mike, but what the rest of us are referring to are the hugely powerful national public employee’s unions that are little more than a wing of the Democrat Party. I also saw this during my working days and it was a primary reason I preferred to work in non-union jobs.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 2, 2011 12:57:11 GMT -5
Perhaps your situation doesn’t apply Mike, but what the rest of us are referring to are the hugely powerful national public employee’s unions that are little more than a wing of the Democrat Party. I also saw this during my working days and it was a primary reason I preferred to work in non-union jobs. Phil, I'm 99% sure that is standard for the public employees here in PA that are unionized.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Mar 2, 2011 14:03:17 GMT -5
Mike you actually say, "Due to the fact that we are compelled to pay dues (as a 'fair share' member)". You don't get that this is the crux of the matter? You ask me to submit facts that you freely attest to yourself! I will repeat (everyone else here gets it, but I'll repeat if for you): public sector unions have no moral justification for existence. Nothing you say trying to justify their actions means anything, since their very existence is unjustified.
|
|