The end of public employee unions? Let's hope so

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Especially since 89% of the U.S. workforce is not in a union, and those 89% are working under those conditions. Oh wait...

 

Wrong. I posted several links which you obviously ignored.

The DMV I go to, they all seem to be busy with customers; I rarely have been to the courthouse, but on the occasions that I have, they all seem to be doing their jobs as opposed to sitting around doing nothing. Guess the work ethic where you live isn't as good as to where I live.

Omg, you are so out of touch with reality. If they are making (and how many tens of thousands of them are making $250k per year?) $250k per year, then they are living there doing a lot of overtime.

Did the company actually tell you that or did you guys dream this up over a few beers? Perhaps you ought to consider going to work in the public sector and enjoy what they enjoy.

You are wrong.

Ok Moses, it's not written in stone. Got it?

 

I like this guy - he states FACTS, unlike those on the far left with their agenda to protect their sacred cash cows no matter how hypocritical.

 

Who is responsible for this travesty? The NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

So the next time someone says that it is the democrats who are for the working and middle classes of the US, they are LYING to your face.

 

To answer your question, I would need to review the overall budget, but I can tell you that if the choice is between retirees and their fat pensions/health benefits and fixing the roads, feeding the poor, educating the children, or repairing the bridges - those retirees are going to lose out.

And I'd have no issue cutting salaries in years where tax dollars decline, no different than a private company during periods of reduced economic conditions.

 

Unions are in most cases paid secret agents and though politically loyal towards their unionized staff but secretly work loyally towards their own interest groups who bribe them.

 

The link I provided is the only one needed, it affects all federal workers.

Yes, in Schenectady and Troy the workers might be a bit more motivated; in a large city not so much.

Do you really want links to the thousands of public workers in NYC/NYS making over $100K per year? In salaries, and/or in pensions? Here you go:

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet...nitation-workers-who-earn-over-100000-2010-12

"Meet The Hundreds Of NYC Sanitation Workers Who Earn Over $100,000"

http://www.businessinsider.com/mta-salaries-2010-6#

"Another shocking report by SeeThroughNY reveals that 8,074 MTA employees earned $100,000 last year. Fifty MTA employees earned more than $200,000 last year. And salaries are rising."

http://seethroughny.net/pensions

Sure, sign me up for a no-show, easy job with set 9-5 hours, free healthcare for life for me and my family, a guaranteed pension at 80% of my last year's salary padded with lots of OT, and sign it in blood - I'm sure lots of those jobs will continue to exist with the country heading into an economic disaster with morons like obama at the wheel, doubling the nation's debt to $18 TR in just 7 years....

Excellent job proving your claim, as to be expected.

 

If they so choose that for themselves over collective bargaining what's the issue? It's their labor, the labor theory of value has been soundly rejected by all serious academia, they should be able to price it however they want.

Of course, these efficient, superior workers would soon put lazy union workers out of business. A union is just a cartel. It cannot function without coercive repression of competition. Such competition will send them out of business.

That says a lot about Unions.

 

OK. Here is some information for you.. That has been tried in my state and run its way through the court system. What the outcome was is that the retirement benefits that were promised during an employee's 30+ years of service are a contract that you cannot break.

I am not going to over-moralize, but yanking the carpet out from under the elderly ... next to children, they are the most vulnerable demographic we have, and I wouldn't want any part of it. If you make a promise, you keep it.

So what my state has done is to change that contract for new employees. That would be something you could get behind and support. The system they have instituted is much less expensive. The state will probably start reaping the benefits of those changes in another decade or so. Younger employees understand the deal from Day 1, so this is fair.

That's been done a lot of times. Pay cuts or no increases. You know how to search the internet. I searched "police salaries cut" to find examples.

What I find interesting is that apparently you wouldn't cut present salaries or benefits as long as tax income remained at or above present levels.

That's not a knock on you. When I put myself in the place of that City Manager/Mayor/County Supervisor/Governor, it is unattractive to me to cut the salaries and benefits of my employees. As that executive, I feel a great deal of responsibility, and I want to bring in the best people to engineer our roads, teach our children, and keep us safe from fire and crime. I don't want second or third best; I want the best people I can get.

OK, so thanks for answering back, man. Beer's on me.

 

No, I want to see proof of your allegation where they are making over $250K per year.

 

A recent court ruling showed that even with state constitutional protections, pensions can be reduced:

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/detroit-ruling-reveals-pensions-not-protected-in-bankruptcy/

"Dealing with numerous objections to the nation’s largest municipal bankruptcy, Judge Steven Rhodes ruled that pension debts were not given “extraordinary protection” under Michigan’s Constitution, and that pension plans could be reduced by a bankruptcy court...Like Illinois, Michigan has a provision in its state constitution that makes pensions enforceable contracts. Judge Rhodes ruled, however, that pension contracts, like most other contracts, can be modified in bankruptcy if doing so is needed to put the city on a sound financial footing.
...Detroit government workers unions had argued that pensions could not be amended. The judge rejected that argument, setting a precedent that is likely to apply in Illinois...The decision also weakens the value of any “guarantee” of pension funding, as a bankruptcy court could still reduce benefits in the event of a state or local government bankruptcy."

We are talking about situations where corrupt, craven and short-sighted politicians continued to give pension sweeteners, bonuses and benefit increases repeatedly to public employees to buy their votes. How come liberals never complain about that corruption?

If you are going to whine about promises, then roll back the pensions to what they were when that employee was first assessed on their hire date, and do not include the sweeteners and increases added along the way. Then you'd have something reasonable to argue about.

For most states/cities, changing it for new employees only will not help sufficiently or fast enough.

What do you propose when cities start going bankrupt to support these lavish pensions? Do you want to damage the wage base of the middle class further with ever higher tax increases?

Never said that was not an option.

 

I'll REPEAT the link for the over $200K pensions:

http://seethroughny.net/pensions

And for salaries:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/16/port-authority-cop-out/

"As The Empire Center reports, 10 members of the PA Police Department got paid more than $300,000 last year. Top earner Lt. Nicholas Yum took in $402,812. Twelve PA cops pulled in more than the $289,667 salary of PA Executive Director Pat Foye.

Satisfied?

 

Unions serve a good and proper purpose.

They may be reformed/evolve... but they are essentially NOT going away.

In due time, they WILL grow stronger, in every way.

 

Human nature dictates that people (even in groups) will get together and influence change. Workers will ALWAYS have an interest in being able to be heard and regarded for various reasons.

Unions aren't going away, and at some point will regain their numbers and political influence. It is only a matter of time and circumstance.

Regards.

 

22 cops made more then $250,000 last year out of how many hundreds of thousand cops??

 

Yes, I get it. If your city is bankrupt, it's bankrupt. What I'm referring to are situations where the city/state is not bankrupt but just wants to cut expenses. Bankruptcy is an extreme situation and would require extreme measures to correct.

I am not a liberal, and I am not going to try to defend the "goings on" in places like Chicago or Detroit. They have a long history of corruption and cronyism, but they are not typical or representative of the whole country.

I'm OK with that. If a city is bankrupt, that would be a fair compromise.

I live in the Pacific Northwest. The cities and states here are not going bankrupt. They actually can uphold their commitments to retirees, and, like I said, they can look forward to having a lower commitment in the future. If a city is completely bankrupt, then you're right. Savings 10 years from now will not help. But I would argue that most cities and states are not bankrupt.

That's kind of a loaded question because each city's situation is different. Everything would have to be looked at if the city was going bankrupt. It would depend on how badly the city was going bankrupt - how fast and by how much. The options you have are cutting employees (level of service), keeping employees but cutting salaries or benefits, cutting pension costs, and raising taxes. You'd have to look at all of it. That's a complicated question, and it may vary from one situation to another.

Yeah, but where your city's financial health is OK, where people are employed and taxes are being paid, you probably don't want to start cutting salaries and benefits. One thing I know from experience is that your city is in competition with other cities for qualified, top notch employees. If you do that very much, your city falls behind, and it becomes a "stepping stone" city, where people are willing to start their careers, but they are not willing to stay there. You end up with short term employees and the long term employees that no one else wants to hire. I know this from experience. As that executive, you are not serving your community well that way. The same holds true in the private sector.

I'm gonna have another. You?

 

Based upon what? Are companies not continuing to move across state and national borders? Until that is stopped somehow - without interfering with the country's basic democratic processes - unions cannot grow, it is a physical impossibility.

 

Stop. Just. Stop.

Now you are just deflecting after getting exposed.

There were thousands that made over $100K, plus thousands of MTA and sanitation workers making well over $100K; you asked for links and I gave you them.

Accept it, and move on.

 

You are wrong. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this thread.

 

I just can't wait till CalPERS goes belly up.

 

Typical liberal nonsense: "you are wrong. Now I am going home and taking my ball with me."

I stated that there were many public union employees making six figures, with six figure pensions, and my links showed THOUSANDS.

I was correct about that, and was also correct that federal employees' unions cannot colelctively bargain for wages or benefits, despite your denials of both.

The FACT is that I am RIGHT, you just are frustrated to have been exposed.

 

Don't forget the CA lifeguards earning six figures as well.

One of the BEST articles I've ever seen on this problem is here:

http://city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html

"The state’s public school teachers are the highest-paid in the nation. Its prison guards can easily earn six-figure salaries. State workers routinely retire at 55 with pensions higher than their base pay for most of their working life. Meanwhile, what was once the most prosperous state now suffers from an unemployment rate far steeper than the nation’s and a flood of firms and jobs escaping high taxes and stifling regulations. This toxic combination—high public-sector employee costs and sagging economic fortunes—has produced recurring budget crises in Sacramento and in virtually every municipality in the state.

How public employees became members of the elite class in a declining California offers a cautionary tale to the rest of the country, where the same process is happening in slower motion. The story starts half a century ago, when California public workers won bargaining rights and quickly learned how to elect their own bosses—that is, sympathetic politicians who would grant them outsize pay and benefits in exchange for their support. Over time, the unions have turned the state’s politics completely in their favor. The result: unaffordable benefits for civil servants; fiscal chaos in Sacramento and in cities and towns across the state; and angry taxpayers finally confronting the unionized masters of California’s unsustainable government."

 

Don't be so sure:

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/pers_costs_to_soar_in_2017_and.html

"State public pension officials are holding town hall meetings around the state to warn schools, cities and public agencies that they will be clobbered by an unprecedented string of pension cost increases starting in 2017. That is expected to be followed by persistently high contribution rates that will strap public budgets for at least a decade. Blame the Oregon Supreme Court's rejection of lawmakers' 2013 pension reforms, investment returns that have lagged expectations in the last two years, and a number of changes in the system's economic assumptions. The result is that the unfunded liability in Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System has more than doubled in the last year and now hovers at its highest-ever level. The last official estimate was $18 billion. But if current investment returns hold through year end, the deficit will exceed $20 billion.In order to bail out, PERS will need to raise public employers' contributions to the system by about 4 percent of their payrolls in each of the next three budget cycles. And that implies public employers will need to tap their budgets for an extra $800 million per biennium starting in July 2017, another $860 million in 2019 and an additional $930 million in 2021."

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/10/post_144.html

http://oregoncatalyst.com/32155-proposed-business-taxes-pay-huge-state-worker-payroll-increases.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_tax_revolt

 

"The end of public employee unions? Let's hope so"

Yeah, that way the cons can take their healthcare benefits, retirement, and pay them slave wages too.

 

O the irony in the left's attempts at hyperbole.