More union busting in Wisconsin

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Which again, is why I keep wondering why FLOW is applying private employee rules to this public employee issue...aren't the rules for state public employees set by state statute?

Yes. A lot of them essentially mirror the NLRA, though, especially when it comes to the issue of good-faith bargaining.

As I've tried to say before, I think private v. public is really a substantive difference. As FDR noted, there generally are civil service rules that provide public employees with legal protections even absent a union that private employees do not have. The politics of budgeting, including the receipt of payments from other governmental entities over whom a particular government entities has no control, is simply different from having a centralized decision-making body like a Board of Directors. And where a private entity is really deciding how much of it's money goes to employees versus profits, at least in a general sense, the public entity is choosing between different expenditures, all of which benefit the general public. So rather than taking money from fatcats and giving it to workers, you're really taking money from one set of workers (the taxpayers as a whole) and transferring it to another -- public employees. So the ethics are different.

But overall, it is just a horribly complex issue that the media does a pretty poor job of explaining all around.

[Sariel]

But overall, it is just a horribly complex issue that the media does a pretty poor job of explaining all around.

I agree with that! Next there'll be flying pigs and snow in hell.

I think I need a shower.

[Guest Raids]

I agree with you on that also to some extent. The day-to-day protections that I have are all out of my collective bargaining agreement.

Also, on the administrative staff here, the managers tend to lack sophistication and violate the employees' rights all over the place. This only does not happen because the union steps in to represent them.

For instance, I had a pay issue that went unresolved for several months. They kept making additional incorrect "corrections." I nearly lost track of the whole thing. Every time I got a paycheck I had to spend four hours correcting my OT pay - tracking the past incorrect "corrections," new incorrect "corrections" and new mistakes to my current pay.

My union finally did something about that.

I don't think that would be likely to happen with a private employer. And if it did, I'd quit. But you would not quit a federal job mere months away from attaining status. You might say we have more rights, but we're got a big beheamoth of a party on the other side, too.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I agree with you on that also to some extent. The day-to-day protections that I have are all out of my collective bargaining agreement.

Also, on the administrative staff here, the managers tend to lack sophistication and violate the employees' rights all over the place. This only does not happen because the union steps in to represent them.

For instance, I had a pay issue that went unresolved for several months. They kept making additional incorrect "corrections." I nearly lost track of the whole thing. Every time I got a paycheck I had to spend four hours correcting my OT pay - tracking the past incorrect "corrections," new incorrect "corrections" and new mistakes to my current pay.

My union finally did something about that.

I don't think that would be likely to happen with a private employer. And if it did, I'd quit. But you would not quit a federal job mere months away from attaining status. You might say we have more rights, but we're got a big beheamoth of a party on the other side, too.

I don't think it's as much a party as a clusterfuck. After all, your supervisors/payroll people on the other side aren't really lining their pockets when they screw you. It's just due to sheer incompetence, overwork, etc.

[TerraPrime]

I don't think it's as much a party as a clusterfuck. After all, your supervisors/payroll people on the other side aren't really lining their pockets when they screw you. It's just due to sheer incompetence, overwork, etc.

And for large corporations, to a scale that's comparable to a state government, or even, federal, individual errors were not done to line the pockets of those committing errors. It's all the same, that errors happen because some people are shit workers who don't give a crap.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And for large corporations, to a scale that's comparable to a state government, or even, federal, individual errors were not done to line the pockets of those committing errors. It's all the same, that errors happen because some people are shit workers who don't give a crap.

Actually, I think some of the private companies do make errors intentionally to line their pockets. And some is simple clusterfucking as well. However, those kind of errors tend to be less common in private business because private attorneys are much more likely to take up that cause than one against the government. Because of that, private employers tend to put a bit more emphasis on trying to get it right.

[Jon Sprunk]

Anyway, the real problem for governmental units isn't the mere fact of negotiation, but how those rules make it almost impossible to make changes without going through an incredibly long process that itself hurts those governmental units by delaying action. The issue arises when external forces, either a poor economy or perhaps cuts in payments from federal or state (in the cases of county and city governments) governments, mean that a government is running short. When that happens, the government is allowed to negotiate concessions. But since the union obviously doesn't want to make any unless it is forced, the union's incentive is to drag it out as long as possible, which obviously means members get to receive the same payments until an impasse is reached.

In my 14 years as a public employee (12 of them in a union), the delay in contract and work-rules negotiations always fell on the employer's side. One reason was because the govt employer believed that stonewalling the union for a year would strengthen its bargaining position. Of course, that never worked and usually ended up costing the taxpayers more in the long run.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In my 14 years as a public employee (12 of them in a union), the delay in contract and work-rules negotiations always fell on the employer's side.

That's been generally true in my experience as well unless you're talking about give-backs, when it tends to flip.

One reason was because the govt employer believed that stonewalling the union for a year would strengthen its bargaining position. Of course, that never worked and usually ended up costing the taxpayers more in the long run.

It all depends on who has the upper hand at a given time. But I do agree with the point that the drawn out bargaining process tends to be counterproductive overall.

[Guest Raids]

I don't think it's as much a party as a clusterfuck. After all, your supervisors/payroll people on the other side aren't really lining their pockets when they screw you. It's just due to sheer incompetence, overwork, etc.

Take it a step further. As you say, usually employee rights are better protected because there might be more downward pressure to get it right to avoid employment law liability.

So while the intent might not be to flex the much better bargaining position of the government - state or federal - it has that end effect as an individual employee.\

Now, on my husband's side of things, we've got union representatives illegally absconding with brand new secret hiring test keys and generally exhibiting knee-jerk resistance to any new hiring or promotion procedure. For instance, our union told us not to respond to an employee satisfaction and leadership development survey because it was not given to the union for review. Naturally, the contractor (not my husband, but a friend of ours) should have known better than to miss that part of the process, so ultimately it's their fault, but I can see how it can suck to deal with the union. But then again, that is part of its primary function. It can often suck to deal with the employer also.

However, another thing - god help the employer who decides to try to take any initiative to improve working conditions on behalf of their employees because they actually care about that avenue of improving performance without going through the union - that's an NLRA violation on its face. But, to be fair, I've seen employers start those groups and then actually hold elections for representatives to sit on that committee, and then actually make decisions on the terms of employment based on the recommendations of that committee, which is flagrantly stupid and results in terrible, terrible unfair outcomes.

[Inigima]

I see the "public employees are pampered" meme is still going strong. Here is an Ezra Klein post from Saturday that debunks that claim for at least Wisconsin public employees:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/are_wisconsins_state_and_local.html

If you prefer it in non-graph form: "Wisconsin public-sector workers face an annual compensation penalty of 11%. Adjusting for the slightly fewer hours worked per week on average, these public workers still face a compensation penalty of 5% for choosing to work in the public sector."

Ezra's post goes on to make other bold assertions, including declaring the governmental intent to abrogate its obligations a "form of default."

Please note that the analysis Ezra cites accounts for all compensation, including benefits and pensions. The analysis was performed by the Economic Policy Institute.

If this absurd conservative meme continues, I expect to see this -- actual data and analysis -- addressed rather than more no-nothing garbage that makes right-wingers feel good.

[Guest Raids]

Thanks for posting actual hard data, Ini. I think I'll forward that to my Mom...

[TerraPrime]

Ezra's post goes on to make other bold assertions, including declaring the governmental intent to abrogate its obligations a "form of default."

That ship has sailed. At least in WI, the government has reneged on negotiated salary increase several times. As far as I can tell, there had been no consequences. I was rather baffled and I was not able to get any answers to why when the state refuses to provide the salary raises that it has agreed to that they are not penalized, but yet, if workers strike "illegally" they can be fired. :dunno:

[awesome possum]

That's been generally true in my experience as well unless you're talking about give-backs, when it tends to flip.

So you admit/agree that it's the employer (i.e. the state/federal government) that is responsible for the tactics you used as an excuse for why busting a union is OK. How does that make sense? It's like saying, "Yes, I know your boss is trying to have sex with you. And it's entirely within his rights to fire you if you say no."

If this absurd conservative meme continues, I expect to see this -- actual data and analysis -- addressed rather than more no-nothing garbage that makes right-wingers feel good.

What historically in the past two years has made you believe that actual data and analysis will stop the far right (which is steadily eating the whole party) from spewing their garbage? Hell, there is still a large contingent of birthers and people who believe in death panels out there!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I see the "public employees are pampered" meme is still going strong. Here is an Ezra Klein post from Saturday that debunks that claim for at least Wisconsin public employees:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/are_wisconsins_state_and_local.html

Ezra's post goes on to make other bold assertions, including declaring the governmental intent to abrogate its obligations a "form of default."

Please note that the analysis Ezra cites accounts for all compensation, including benefits and pensions. The analysis was performed by the Economic Policy Institute.

If this absurd conservative meme continues, I expect to see this -- actual data and analysis -- addressed rather than more no-nothing garbage that makes right-wingers feel good.

EPI is hardly an unbiased source, and the degree to which the results were adjusted for factors such as race, age, education, gender, and experience is unknown, so it is impossible to verify whether such adjustments made sense or not. Also, I saw nothing in that study that took into account the economic value of job security.

Actually, I think it is almost impossible to do a meaningful objective comparison one way or the other because there are just too many factors that can't be fully accounted for or measured objectively.

The closest we can come to an objective measurement is looking at applications per opening, because the real measurement of whether you're being over or underpaid is the market.

[awesome possum]

There you go, Inigima. The right-winger reaction to your data and analysis:

"nuh uh!"

[Mr. Natural]

TYT: Koch Brothers Behind WI Governor Walker's Union Busting

[Swordfish]

Another take on the cost of pensions....

[The Progressive]

Another take on the cost of pensions....

This would be relevant if the unions have refused to negotiated about pensions benefit.

I'm not really sure why such a non-issue was even brought up.

[The Progressive]

There you go, Inigima. The right-winger reaction to your data and analysis:

"nuh uh!"

It's was quite a spectacular poisoning-the-well move too .......... declared the EPI as "biased" and then go on to proclaim that the issue is too complicated and therefore all data should be dismissed.

I sure hope his legal briefs aren't such a joke, otherwise some malpratice suits might be in order.

[Commodore]

Does the law forbid collective bargaining, or make it no longer mandatory?