LA Times: What unions do for Americans

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-lowitz-20100511,0,1998217.story

Far from transforming certain employees into taxpayer-funded aristocrats, unions today seek to preserve fairness for workers and a semblance of the American middle class.

Suzan Lowitz

May 11, 2010 | 9:43 a.m

Robert "Mickey" Kaus, author of the May 3 Times Op-Ed article "America's lead weight, should meet director James Cameron, who famously blamed the high cost of movies on the film industry unions. This contention was false then, and it's false now.

I would like to invite Kaus to attend a meeting of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. He would see that the conditions of union members in all industries are far from the lives of an "aristocrat at taxpayer expense." We who belong to unions simply attempt to maintain something like an American middle-class lifestyle, with some assurance of a modest pension to supplement Social Security, which may or may not exist several years from now. We hope for sufficient healthcare to assure that we don't die as a result of our hard work. And we try to hold on to some of the benefits put in place to assure that we aren't exploited by employers who, if not for some regulations, would work us into the ground without fair compensation and would fail to maintain safe working conditions.

How can Kaus write this on the heels of the worst mining disaster in decades?

Kaus cites Detroit automakers and Los Angeles public schools as examples of institutions whose decline has been hastened by unions. The Los Angeles Unified School District suffers from overcrowding and a lack of funds, a problem endemic to our school system since I was a student in the 1960s and '70s. Teacher pay is hardly generous and, some would argue, is insufficient to keep excellent instructors in our schools. As for Detroit, volumes have been written on the causes of the automakers' financial failures. General Motors' have been attributed to its financing arm as well as the disproportionate salaries and bonuses of its executives.

FULL story at link.

[howaboutme]

1. I support card check and organized labor

but one must ask does the Democratic Party?

Some say the unions were out of control. I disagree especially when it comes to the private sector. The problem is not out of control unions, but corporations that have long forgotten the concept of loyalty to country. "Multi-national" by definition means multi-loyalty, and multi-country loyalty translates to opportunistic, and never to a patriotic belief that puts American workers first.

The USA was sold out starting in the early 80s and it continues to this day by both Ds and Rs. The original goal was to break the unions so that the elite could have all the spoils while neutralizing political opposition. Their goal was a global market using cheap global labor.

The industrial unions served one big function and that was keeping Congress and the corporate elite politically grounded in their greed and power. They (and the bankers) are out of control today and we the people are paying for it because the wealth of the USA is being plundered by these greedy bastards directly or through the socialization of commercial risks and indebtedness.

Steve to be frank I'm not as enamored of the public sector unions where politicians catered and were looking for votes but put taxpayers on the hook under the force of law. We needed politicians that supported an economy where private sector workers had rights and political support. The Democratic Party used to support this concept without question, but that was before the DLC and Wall Street bankers put their hooks into the Party.

[county worker]

3. "public sector unions where politicians catered and were looking for votes "

Please explain. I am in SEIU and am a public sector employee, why am I different from a private sector employee? Nobody caters to us!

We are told by our union who is union friendly and who isn't. I think that is true of every union member. And politicians look to all of us for votes don't they?

Us working class people should not be fighting among ourselves. That's what the man wants. We should be helping each other organize and fight for better conditions for all.

[old mark]

4. I worked for a state and was an AFSCME steward. A lot of

lower-middle level public service jobs really suck, and most people either couldn't or wouldn't handle all the shit you get with them. If they were so great, why are there not long lines of people waiting to apply for them?

Our union did the minimum it could for us - we got a lot more done with lawsuits against our employer.
(We had no-strike clauses, and a management escape clause stating that management could do anything they wanted to if they HAD TO to keep things running...it was in our contracts.)

mark

[howaboutme]

5. Just an opinion

My intent is not to offend anyone in public unions, and not to squabble among ourselves.

There is a different impact to the public between public and private union negotiations and many of us are feeling the squeeze right now. In a nutshell if Ford workers go on strike for a raise, you and I can decide if we can still afford to buy a Ford. If public workers go on strike and get a raise, we have no choice but to pay the increase in taxes or go to jail or lose our homes. Politicians have regularly tied public employee increases to their own selfish gains. See PA how they gave state workers a 25% increase in 2001 to an already generous state pensions so that they could increase their own by 50%. Now the state is going broke and this is a primary reason. There have been too many examples of abuse of the pension system but the burden is placed on the rest of us.

Before we were indoctrinated by Wall St, Ronald Reagan and philosophy that "free trade, welcome to Wal-Mart and China philosophy" (ca: 1980-2010) is good, there were many workers in the private sector that were paid well and generally did better than those in the public sector. Still there were some who took public jobs because they liked public service, were offered good pensions, benefits and early retirement and job security. Tax revenues from the middle class were good and could support the public sector.

Fast forward to 2010 and the private sector has had many of its good jobs outsourced to China, benefits and pensions reduced or eliminated (all because of lack of union clout), while the public sector has over the years received steadily advancing wages and benefits. USA Today reports that government jobs pay 30% better than private sector. Those who don't work in the public sector will be lucky if they can ever retire.

I'm all for good wages and benefits for all but it must be equitable and not become a huge burden to some. I'm for taxing the ultra rich at 90% as it was in the 1950s. They made it all for 30 years and we should bring that money back into making our country strong (not militarily) but economically. It is going to be necessary to make shared sacrifice between all of us. The capitalist elite have plundered our nation for their personal benefit.

The politics of private unions versus public unions is different. Politicians directly control the contracts and purse strings to public unions and they often use that as a bribery and means to get votes.

[county worker]

6. You don't know what you are talking about!

State and local governments are run on a budget. There can be no deficits meaning you can only spend an amount equal to your income.

We are working on our fiscal year 10-11 budget. We predict income from what ever source and then determine what we can spend. Workers wages are decided when the budget is put together. We use a salary model. There are n amount of dollars allocated to salaries. We do not go on strike for higher wages. We have contracts negotiated between the union and the board of supervisors in my case. We are determining what salaries will be for the period July 2010 to June 2011 now. There are no raising of wages once the budget is approved so going on strike would gain us nothing!

The past two years we have had to go on unpaid furlough because there are not enough income dollars to cover the salaries. If we did not go on furlough we would get laid off. The employees of the State of California are forced to take 3 unpaid Fridays off a month.
We are forced to take two unpaid weeks off this year as we did last year. Last year a number of employees lost their jobs and we are not filling vacancies. Basically we are trying to offer the same level of service with less people to do it with.

So you see you are wrong about us raising taxes to cover increased wages. It does not work that way. Voters approve tax increases and if the money is there wages can be raised through colas not the other way around.

The trouble with postings like yours is that some people believe you just as the right believes Fox or something.

There are no private and public unions. We are in SEIU just as private workers are. Politicians do not have anything to do with our unions and only negotiate just as private companies negotiate. This year we negotiated no cost of living increases and a two week unpaid furlough so we would not have union members laid off!

Here is something that really pisses me off. Government wages are better than the private sector not because we got raises but but because the private sector lost wages. We have the same pay scale as we had for years. Depending on what position you have and your experience you begin at some level and get step increases (if you get good reviews) which are spelled out and are open to public view. We have always had a union and private sector has lost unions. We are better off not because we gained something we didn't have but because private sector lost wages and benefits because they lost the unions.
I am at the highest level in my position and can not get a pay increase. I can get colas if they were available but they are not available at this time because of a decrease in tax revenue.

Now if private sector workers got of their asses and organize rather than join the chorus of no nothings trying to take away our benefits too you may get somewhere.

If I came around and preached that you should lose you wages and benefits because I thought it unfair to me you'd raise hell wouldn't you?

[howaboutme]

8. I think I agreed with you.

I recognize that fact and that is exactly what I said in my previous post.

The facts are that most Americans working in the middle class private sector have lost ground since the 1980s.

I experienced it myself as a management employee working for a large Fortune 100 company. The corporation said we were overpaid relative to others in similar industry. They wanted us in a lower compensation quartile. So they essentially froze wages for years and or offered much smaller increases. Promotions were reduced because of staff cutbacks. This trend has persisted in the private sector for 25 years. Much of it was because of outsourcing, in-sourcing of cheap labor, and because unions lost power to negotiate higher wages too.

So the result in this 25 year period was the public sector wages steadily and gradually overtook the private sector all while tax revenue was declining from lower paid jobs and tax cuts for the rich. Unions in the private sector lost clout while those in the public sector retained it.

The point is that property taxes and state income taxes are going up exponentially to cover the spiraling cost of pensions and benefits for public workers, and that is starting to piss off a lot of people who have far less. When public workers were earning significantly less than the private sector they were considered as public servants. No one complained. Now that they are earning more and with better benefits and retirement the "public servant" aspect becomes questionable.

America in the last 25 years has had a public employee sector (from bureaucrats to teachers) that has done well while most in the private sector have done worse. But Hollywood, the celebrity crowd (sports, movies, music, entertainment), Wall Street, financiers, CEOs and those who make money, not by producing products, but off of the backs of others, have literally raped the economy of the nation with grossly absurd compensation increases while paying less in taxes. Other professionals such as physicians, accountants, attorneys have done better. Except for a few we are in a rush to the bottom.

I do not know the full answer, but part of it is to tax this elitist over-compensated segment at much higher tax rates (as 1950s style) and consider it as reinvestment in our nation. The public sector must also face fiscal reality and a need to sacrifice compensation and pension outlays or face huge layoffs.

[Omaha Steve]

9. "piss off a lot of people who have far less"

A reminder to ALL. Flame wars are forbidden. This is a friendly forum. Lets keep it that way.

Why are they not angry at Wall St. or many others?

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working


Government workers are more highly educated on average than private industry workers, but compared to private workers of similar education, public employees make 11 percent less. (Courtesy of the Center for Economic and Policy Research)

[county worker]

10. We need to further discuss this idea that property taxes are going up.

Our county has a property tax rate of 1.07% of assessed value. The value is determined by sales of comparable property in the county. Values have been falling thus taxes have been falling. The county cannot just increase the tax rate to cover pension costs.

You are falling for right wing propaganda just like the wing nuts do!

Here is what is going on. People are living longer so the actuarial tables show that more money needs to be invested to cover future benefit costs. The money currently invested is not earning the same rate of return as in previous years because of the recession.

This results in a gap in the amount of money invested and what needs to be invested. That gap can close somewhat when the economy improves. Also the payback period of borrowed money can be extended so that less is needed each year though this increases the interest paid.

The conservatives want all of us to be in the same boat as private sector workers are in, that is a world where there is no such thing as retirement plans paid for by employer and employee contributions. Since most of us live from paycheck to paycheck we don't have savings to put aside for retirement. The less we get paid the harder it is to save.

The question becomes this, should we all be in poverty when we retire or should we work toward all of us having pensions as was true in the 60's and before?

If our pensions went away people would not see a significant change in their lifestyles but we would see a very significant change in ours. We have worked and planned under the assumption that we would have retirement income at some point. I feel it is not right to change that now that other people don't get a pension from their employer.

The right is pitting you against me with their propaganda just so they can have more wealth. We should work together against the right instead of fighting each other. If we all were in unions again we could bargain for better conditions and we need to find ways of bringing back jobs from over seas and increasing the availability of college for our kids.

Taking away my pension does nothing to help you but makes us all worse off! Don't be pissed that we get a pension be pissed that you don't. Don't reduce us all to poverty let's bring all of us up to the middle class!

[howaboutme]

11. Shared sacrifice

Until Americans agree to a shared sacrifice by all that starts at the top and includes those on Wall Street and CEO club (who donate most to Parties) the system is rigged. We need sacrifice by all but most sacrifice by those on top. Until we see the big contributor class sacrificing the most it is all BS.

Yes I am pissed off just are many of my neighbors because our pensions are shot to hell while our property taxes are going up 30% or more in one year to ensure that those in government (including corrupt legislators) get pensions of 100% or more of what they earn plus bennies after just a nominal amount of employment. The outcome is about survival and fairness for all and has nothing to do with right wing vs left wing. Most Americans are being stiffed while a few are doing well. Those that are doing the best have Congress in their vest pocket.

There needs to be parity between government and private sector employees with benefits and pensions and pay.

[Omaha Steve]

7. I'm AFSCME and I can't strike

Most public unions have to live with the laws that oversee them. My local has to file with State of Ne. Labor Commission. It costs the local about $150,000 for the process for about 350 members (250 scabs get a free ride) that work for the City of Omaha. And that only gets us a one year contract. I got no raise last year or this year. Once before in the last decade I got no raise. I have two good articles to post about public workers trailing the private sector later when I'm home.

OS

[county worker]

2. I heard on NPR that businesses say they are hurting because of lack of customers.

If there were more union jobs there would be more customers. But those business are probably members of the Chamber of Commerce and vote against unions when ever they can.