Public Unions Vs. The Unorganized Taxpayer

This is a short (10min.) documentary I came across not too long after all the fuss occurred in Wisconsin. I think it lays out the argument very well.

I encourage everyone to take the time to watch this, some of you may learn something. I am sure many of you are already aware of the information presented.

(I am in no way affiliated with organization that created this film)


I tend to agree with argument made by the creator. So which side do you agree with?

I look forward to hearing everyone's opinion on this matter, whether you are for or against public unions.
If you have any other information to add to the discussion please feel free to contribute.

My bottom line is that Union Workers are taxpayers too.
Corporations and the wealthy of the wealthy are the ones bringing this country down.
People are angry.
Most people don't have access to a serious CEO or a super rich guy to vent their frustrations.
But they have access to a teacher.
They have access to a postal worker.
So, I believe that the pent up (perhaps dangerously so) frustrations of the American Public have been redirected toward people in their own midst. And in the end either the unions will really rise up and it will be part of the spark that truly takes this country back or the working/middle classes will tear each other to pieces finishing the job that was started at the top.
I really hope that we aren't so short sighted as all that.
Are there unionized workers who get a pass for less than stellar performance? That seems likely.
Are they doing nearly as much damage to the overall quality of life in this country as the fancy derivitives guys?
They couldn't do that kind of damage if they tried. Teachers, Postal workers, Line workers, etc. they just don't have that much power.

I don't agree with Public Unions at all!

In the beginning they had a place just as they did with the private sector, they provided better working conditions and wages. Now they are no different than big business as everyone calls it. They get millions of tax payers dollars every year for doing nothing other than paying politicians off to further their goals and make themselves rich.

I believe they should get rid of Public Unions and this would put more money back into the system instead of in the pocket of the unions. This would also put the individuals most likely in a lower tax bracket and could help them out with their taxes.

With the Public Unions gone then what would we have?
If let's say the teachers at a school or the Sheriff Dept. wanted a pay raise then they would have to go out and have a petition signed by a mere 2500 voters in their district.
Then once that is accomplished then it would be put to a public vote.

The problem with Public Unions is that the public has no say in what is paid to these unions, that is where my problem falls in all this. It would still give them collective bargaining rights but it would be left to the voters.

reply to post by watcher3339


While you do make a valid argument. I disagree that none of those people have any power.

Teachers for one have the first and best shot at developing and educating kids.
I remember having a lot of ineffectual, lazy, and incompetent teachers, that would have been lost without their "teachers edition" text book. Many were lost anyway.

Look at kids today. Yes most of the blame lies with their parents, but when they see the same half-assed effort from the teachers, what are the kids going to learn? Now most teachers are good and they care, but when you can't get rid of the crappy ones, it casts a shadow on the whole.

And the police. How many fat useless cops have you seen? Who are they going to protect?, just killing time to get their pensions.
You can't fire them because they are in the union.

reply to post by watcher3339


Its not the rich vs the poor its the politically connected vs the non politically connected. The politically connected use their connections to enrich themselves and punish their enemies.

The politically connected include:
Labor unions - especially public sector unions
Many corporations (through regulatory capture)
celebrities (anyone want to bet the Obama loving poker studs wont have the IRS barking up their a$$es?)

the non politically connected inlcude
most every taxpayer
some corporations - mostly small and medium sized

One group uses its influence over the political process to leverage money from the others, protect thier business interests, or pursue their pet projects.

I just love it when members post highly vitriolic partisan videos or articles and act all neutral like they are doing some Community Service or Public Service Announcement immune from bias and in the spirit of objectivity. Then as the thread goes on their true agenda and bias rears its ugly head.

"Please watch 10 minutes and learn something" Uh yea, anti union propaganda.

I am fully willing to say that there need to be changes that allow non productive union members to be dismissed more easily. I agree that it would be better for society, business, and colleagues.
I can also see the point about connected versus not connected. But I really feel that this country is being taken for a ride. We have been addicted to cheap consumer goods across the past two decades. All made in countries where workers do not have union protections and where both the standard and cost of living is much lower. That's changing. Prices will climb and the American worker who has seen stagnant wages will suddenly experience the fact that their wages have failed to climb. While the products were cheap we could have stuff despite lower wages, well, at least as long as we had a job. But now its going to be different.
Corporations make decisions that work for their bottom line. And cheap labor works for their bottom line. I think one of the hard things for us as Americans to get our heads around is that the corporations also don't care who buys their goods as long as someone does. So, they really don't care if our standard of living declines. Given the direction that the world is moving unions are easily going to be as important to protecting the American worker a decade from now as they were six decades ago.
The unions have to do their part too though. They do have to be willing to negotiate reasonably. They should not be screaming for raises (public service sector) when the rest of the community is not able to keep their head above water as is.
And the rest of the public has to not fall for the bait and switch. Don't be mad that a union person makes more than you do. Be mad that your employer is paying you LESS!
While there are certainly examples where union deals have hurt business (the golden retirement and lifetime health benefits of the auto industry is an excellent example given that it was negotiated at a time when most people didn't live very many years after retirement and now that they do it is just too expensive) the majority of the loss of American based production could have been kept without carving up the American worker.
I have worked in both union and non union environments. I have seen unions function beautifully for the benefit of all and I have seen some kinks in the system. But, overall, who else is going to protect you from your boss.

How many of you have yourself or know somebody who
was promised a certain level of compensation and then had it changed on a whim
regularly been told you would work extreme overtime (unpaid because you're salaray not hourly) or risk your job
been forced to work on weekends despite the fact that your job is Monday/Friday
been given a hard time for taking a day because you or your kid was sick: even if you are never out
been given a hard time about actually scheduling and taking the vacation time you earned
watched the inept but cronied get a raise or a promotion that clearly should have gone to someone else
etc., etc,

I am sure that there are many more examples but those are just a few that pop into my head that I have personally witnessed. It's happening more and more. I am all for employees tightening up and chipping in to help a company given the economy, but a lot of bosses are really starting to milk it now. They are actually combining two or three positions and throwing it all on the shoulders of one person. Some companies are posting better profits now and bosses expect workers to roll with this as the new normal.
And what are you going to say? Ten percent unemployment. You aren't going to say anything.

Good workers need to be protected. There should be more unions not less. And America should start looking out for its own. You know, the whole "divided we fall, united stand" idea. I really think it applies here.

reply to post by MaskedDebater


Well I stated in the OP that I agreed with the video,

I tend to agree with argument made by the creator. So which side do you agree with?

I also said that some people may learn something, but most here were probably already aware of the information presented.

I encourage everyone to take the time to watch this, some of you may learn something. I am sure many of you are already aware of the information presented.

So I don't see what the point your trying to make here is.
What are you trying accomplish by twisting my words?

If you are member or organizer for a public union say so, and give us your side.
Don't try to attack me with baseless accusations.

reply to post by watcher3339


I agree more unions are needed for people who work for private companies. What goes on between private companies and their workers unions is their business. The more protection they can get the better. Most corporations will bleed their workers dry if given the opportunity.

But public unions are a completely different ballgame.

States are going bankrupt at the cyclic rate. New Jersey is about to take out a $3Bn loan from a private bank! Most of that is because of the federal reserve and fiat currency, and the public unions are just throwing fuel on the fire. I don't fault the people for trying to get all they can. But the mechanism is broken and corrupted.

reply to post by watchitburn


Exactly. Simple truth:

Public unions aren't over-represented or over powerful. In fact, no group of working-class citizens can be "too" powerful. This isn't the problem.

The problem is that the rest of us are too underrepresented and not powerful enough.

Anti-union politicians are simply that: anti-union. They don't care if they are public employees. They just want to get rid of working-class power. I'm ashamed to know so many people who are falling for this obvious trick.

Originally posted by MaskedDebater
Uh yea, anti union propaganda.

Just because it's propaganda doesn't mean it's false. Watch the video and then refute the facts it brings to the table. Otherwise, you're wasting electrons with your post.

As to the OP, it's not new information (for me), but more people need this information. We are inundated by the vocal minority of union members because they whine the loudest about being treated unfairly. It's time to turn the table and expose the unions for the slime pit they are.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by MaskedDebater
Uh yea, anti union propaganda.

Just because it's propaganda doesn't mean it's false. Watch the video and then refute the facts it brings to the table. Otherwise, you're wasting electrons with your post.

As to the OP, it's not new information (for me), but more people need this information. We are inundated by the vocal minority of union members because they whine the loudest about being treated unfairly. It's time to turn the table and expose the unions for the slime pit they are.

/TOA

Which facts? I saw a bunch of opinions and unsubstantiated absolutisms in that video. I can address the two facts they backed up with statistics, though:

Claim 1 - Public workers get paid more than private workers. (the percentage varies depending on source).

Response - This is true. It is true that union workers, in general, get better benefits and pay than the private worker. This is the result of economic freedom and democracy, allowing for a "guild" of like-minded people to strong-arm better rights and treatment out of business owners. I (and many others) see this as democracy and freedom. To restrict anybody's right to peacefully protest and organize is very unAmerican. Why do you think employers are forced to give breaks and pay overtime now? That is all a result of the efforts of unions in the past. Unions puts equal power in the workers' hands... which is fair since the employer can't function without them and vice-versa. It should work like that. Any law preventing that is a law that takes away worker rights. Just because these guys get paid by taxes doesn't mean they should have less rights.


Claim 2 - Unions have politicians in their pockets and thusly benefit from that relationship.

Response - This is true. It is true of any large organization. If they did not do this, then the pro-corporate/capitalists would have eliminated the normal capitalist rights long ago through their pocket politicians. The problem isn't that the unions fight dirty politics with more dirty politics. The problem is that they have to fight dirty politics with dirty politics. If you want to change this, change campaign contribution laws and others that prevent corruption at a political level. To attack the least powerful segment of corruption because the most powerful segment of corruption tells you to is just... wrong.

In short, there are plenty of problems with modern unions but the problem isn't unions. They are just playing the game that the corporations created. Destroy the game, fix the problem.

There is a bridge being built right now in China for the San Francisco area.

China?

Yep, being built in China and being shipped to San Francisco.

California mandates Union labor and rules.

By having this done in China, California just saved 500 million dollars.

California had no choice.....they are broke.

Originally posted by Carseller4
There is a bridge being built right now in China for the San Francisco area.

China?

Yep, being built in China and being shipped to San Francisco.

California mandates Union labor and rules.

By having this done in China, California just saved 500 million dollars.

California had no choice.....they are broke.

edit on 28-6-2011 by Carseller4 because: 5 second edit rule

And if that bridge holds up as well as so many other things that are made in China? Perhpas California should have been more fiscally responsible in other areas so that they could afford a U.S. made bridge. And, if it is tax payer funds that are going to China as part of a public works project, well that ought to be against the law.

yeah ok i stopped when the dude said it aint about money its about rights

which is bs if your a public union your financed by everyone else union and those who arent.

those people are not entitled to whatever they want thats a total crock.

when it comes to union its the union first and nothing else second those people and the people who support unions are totally brainwashed and all they are doing is trading one master for another.

those people are stupid when your money comes from other people screw them over so you can get a paycheck?

i think not.

reply to post by Cuervo


Data/facts. Either is fine if either is truthful, which they are.

Union members enjoy higher wages and better benefits at the cost of the business and the consumer. If a business can't afford to pay higher wages, as arbitrarily mandated by a union, then that business has three courses of action:

1. Negotiate. That works out often.

2. Lay off employees. Which, of course, is then laid squarely at the feet of the employer as being greedy and anti-employees, even when they tried #1 above and the union flat out wouldn't negotiate. This is what usually happens, and is actually the worst solution. The business is open, but customer service suffers because of longer work hours and fewer employees, so all are hurt in the process: the business owner, the employees, and the consumer.

3. Close the doors. Then, instead of only getting a slight, more affordable bump in salary like the business was trying to work on, the employees are out of a job and getting $0.00. But the consumer is only bumped a bit because they can shop somewhere else.

Unions do appear to work hard for the workers, but almost invariably at the expense of businesses and consumers. That is also fact and data.

/TOA

I need to get my eyes checked. I read the title as "Public Unicorns....". Yeah, unicorns.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Why is that when corporations were again allowed to make political contributions as a single entity people jumped out their skins, yet this is how unions already make contributions [despite individual members political stance]? How is it that a group that ahem represents the workers is filled with those who parasitically feed off those who do work?
Once unions were a necessity, now some of their duties have been actually regulated. I.E. most states have their own labor laws in place dictating breaks per hours worked and so on. That is redundancy at its finest. Either the gov't needs to stop doing the unions job or the unions need to redefine their role in the modern day workplace.

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Data/facts. Either is fine if either is truthful, which they are.

Union members enjoy higher wages and better benefits at the cost of the business and the consumer. If a business can't afford to pay higher wages, as arbitrarily mandated by a union, then that business has three courses of action:

1. Negotiate. That works out often.

2. Lay off employees. Which, of course, is then laid squarely at the feet of the employer as being greedy and anti-employees, even when they tried #1 above and the union flat out wouldn't negotiate. This is what usually happens, and is actually the worst solution. The business is open, but customer service suffers because of longer work hours and fewer employees, so all are hurt in the process: the business owner, the employees, and the consumer.

3. Close the doors. Then, instead of only getting a slight, more affordable bump in salary like the business was trying to work on, the employees are out of a job and getting $0.00. But the consumer is only bumped a bit because they can shop somewhere else.

Unions do appear to work hard for the workers, but almost invariably at the expense of businesses and consumers. That is also fact and data.

/TOA

There's no easy answer. It is another one of those cases where people start talking about taking away rights to solve a problem. I know you know where that leads. Ending unions (something that was very very good for democracy and viewed as beneficial for decades) just because they are problematic now reminds me of many other compromises we make and then complain about later when those encroached-upon liberties start effecting everybody else.

Unions are citizen-made. Any group or institution made by citizens should be protected at all costs by all Americans, even if it does not serve our own interests. If they are causing unfairness in politics as a reaction to corporate corruption, then fix the corruption. You don't just eliminate rights and you don't eliminate corporations and businesses themselves.

We complain about this phenomenon (people voting away their own rights to rid themselves of an element they don't like) all the time yet we keep supporting it. Heck, the only reason I defend gun rights now is because I don't want those gun-toting guys voting to take away my rights. We all need to watch each others' backs and not forget who the real enemies are, who is actually screwing us. I can tell you now that it's sometimes us that screws us because we fall into that trap.

Originally posted by hangedman13
Why is that when corporations were again allowed to make political contributions as a single entity people jumped out their skins, yet this is how unions already make contributions [despite individual members political stance]? How is it that a group that ahem represents the workers is filled with those who parasitically feed off those who do work?
Once unions were a necessity, now some of their duties have been actually regulated. I.E. most states have their own labor laws in place dictating breaks per hours worked and so on. That is redundancy at its finest. Either the gov't needs to stop doing the unions job or the unions need to redefine their role in the modern day workplace.

Okay so states have things in place after they were fought for by unions. Yay!
Now if unions are broken but the corporations keep their power and their personal politicians how long do you think it will be before those hard won concessions go away?
Me, I don't think it would take long at all. We need unions as much as ever. And we need them in professional areas that have never had them. American's are being run ragged. And yes, we are overly materialistic, but it seems like all we do is work. And, happy to have a job in this economy, we just keep on doing it no matter how unrealistic the demands become.
So, even when their books look better they don't replace that person whose job you absorbed into your own last year. You work the unpaid extra hours and the company benefits.
Plus, there is some really qualified unemployed person who would love it if they would actually hire and make the two jobs two again. But, the people who have jobs are way too afraid of losing them to point that out.
Vicious cycle.