Public employee union membership in Wisconsin has crashed in the last year

[Beet]

No, corporations are the unions' worst enemy. You say you think strong unions are a check and have a place, but a 55% fall in membership in one year isn't restraint; it's disembowelment. Actually, I was pretty complacent about Walkerism until seeing this article Torie posted. I haven't always been the friendliest to unionism myself in the past. But this is shocking.

And all this is considering, as I said, unionism is already dead in the private sector. It's already dead in the south. Pretty much the only place it's still alive is in states like Wisconsin and in the public sector. And now, Walker will most likely win the recall leaving the unions totally eviscerated. The Democrats in the future will turn to the Koch Brothers to fund their campaigns.

Unions are still strong (for now) in the North East no?  Still kind of strong in the rust belt (what's left of it).  The teachers unions are still strongish nationally.  If the people still felt the unions were serving them this sh**t wouldn't pass, but the unions have burned any and all the good will they had by constantly doing things the people find heinous.  The jokes about lazy union members didn't come out of a board room of a Fortune 500 company, they came from people observing lazy unions members.  The jokes about corruption and ties to organized crime didn't come from a guy in a suit, they came because unions have historically been corrupt and had ties to organized crime.

Public opinion on the workers in question in Wisconsin however are largely positive. The problem isn't 'lazy' union members, the problem is the pension funds. Secondly, if there's corruption and organized crime then by all means, go after that. This has nothing to do with that. However it should be noted that there is inevitably going to be some corruption within unions just as there are in Fortune 500 companies. Large human organizations, especially those with a political side, always have some corruption from time to time. But it's better than the alternative of not having them, or having them only pro forma with no real power.

[Beet]

The only successful large developed country right now is Germany. Guess what, Germany has strong unions, deeply embedded within the structure of the economy. Historical experience with the US has shown that the middle class benefits well going with a large public and private sector union base that is strong across the major economically significant areas of the country. Weakening union membership since the 1970's has been associated with stalling of wage-growth, stall in the decline of the poverty rate, income inequality, political polarization, corporate money in politics (a.k.a. corruption at a higher level), and recently, jobless (or job-loss) recoveries and economic instability. This is because of the breakdown of the social contract that unions implicitly represented.

[dead0man]

Couldn't I refute your last point by pointing out other places with strong unions that aren't doing as well as Germany?  I know I'll probably get called a racist or something, but perhaps Germany is doing well because it's full of Germans?

[ZuWo]

Neoliberalism is the most dangerous political movement since National Socialism.

This is so hackish and absurd that it hurts.

Pure neoliberalism should not be the ultimate goal since elements of a social-market economy are a necessary corrective to negative aspects of a free-market system, but at the same time it must be stated very clearly that some of the values we all enjoy - democracy, individual freedom and prosperity for an overwhelming part of a country's population - can only be achieved in a society that is in principle a free-market society.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, membership does tend to decline if you change the rules in order to make it decline...

[tpfkaw]

I'll also point out that the German system is set up so that the unions have a vested interest in the well-being of their employers, unlike the US system which deliberately pits them against each other (and heavily favors the former).

[Torie]

Public employee unions are a very different thing than private company unions in my mind. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the former. The higher the cost of government services, the less the amount of services. That does not foster equality. It exacerbates inequality. In addition, almost uniquely these days, public employee unions have the defined benefit pension plans which tend to be off balance sheet, or have unrealistic assumptions, leading to a fiscal meltdown when the off balance sheet liabilities go on balance sheet, and there is a cash flow crisis. That can lead to bankruptcy, and all the dislocations and mass layoffs attendant thereto.

I just thought I would toss that into the mix, since it seems the distinction has not been mentioned in the above polite fisticuffs.

[ingemann]

Couldn't I refute your last point by pointing out other places with strong unions that aren't doing as well as Germany?  I know I'll probably get called a racist or something, but perhaps Germany is doing well because it's full of Germans?

So your argument is that Americans are inferior to Germans? Are it a sentiment widely shared among the American right?

[Brittain33]

The higher the cost of government services, the less the amount of services.

Not if salaries become so low as to be uncompetitive with the private section, in which case you get people not qualified to do their jobs.

[Torie]

The higher the cost of government services, the less the amount of services.

Not if salaries become so low as to be uncompetitive with the private section, in which case you get people not qualified to do their jobs.

True, but at the moment, public sector employees make about 40% more or something vis a vis private sector equivalents on average, with a lot more job security. When it flips the other way, get back to me.

[dead0man]

Couldn't I refute your last point by pointing out other places with strong unions that aren't doing as well as Germany?  I know I'll probably get called a racist or something, but perhaps Germany is doing well because it's full of Germans?

So your argument is that Americans are inferior to Germans?

On average?  Yeah, probably ever so slightly so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably not.  I'm not all that "right" though.  What with my hardcore support of making victimless crimes legal and not voting for the GOP and what not.

[tpfkaw]

Liberals are hardly ones to talk about "public servants" being "not qualified to do their jobs" given how they become hysterical at any proposal to fire said "public servants" if they are unable to do their jobs well.

[Brittain33]

The higher the cost of government services, the less the amount of services.

Not if salaries become so low as to be uncompetitive with the private section, in which case you get people not qualified to do their jobs.

True, but at the moment, public sector employees make about 40% more or something vis a vis private sector equivalents on average, with a lot more job security. When it flips the other way, get back to me.

Got a link?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The higher the cost of government services, the less the amount of services.

Not if salaries become so low as to be uncompetitive with the private section, in which case you get people not qualified to do their jobs.

True, but at the moment, public sector employees make about 40% more or something vis a vis private sector equivalents on average, with a lot more job security. When it flips the other way, get back to me.

It's funny how widely studies differ on this subject because of number massaging on both sides. Everything I've read says that public sector employees are dramatically underpaid compared to private sector employees based on their level of education.

[Brittain33]

It's funny how widely studies differ on this subject because of number massaging on both sides. Everything I've read says that public sector employees are dramatically underpaid compared to private sector employees based on their level of education.

Here's my recollection of what I read: at low levels of education, salaries are equivalent, but benefits make public employment a better deal. At higher levels of education, public service can't come close to competing with private sector employment. So jobs requiring good skills are tough to fill. Torie, I'm guessing you never considered becoming a public defender for the 40% higher salary.

[Torie]

The higher the cost of government services, the less the amount of services.

Not if salaries become so low as to be uncompetitive with the private section, in which case you get people not qualified to do their jobs.

True, but at the moment, public sector employees make about 40% more or something vis a vis private sector equivalents on average, with a lot more job security. When it flips the other way, get back to me.

Got a link?

I just knew that you were going to ask that. Well here is one paper to look at.  And here is another one for Ohio. I heard the 40% figure from a pretty reliable guy on the phone, actually. Yes, I should have verified it. There is of course a lot of debate about just who is doing what to whom. Some places may be far more out of line than others. CA in particular seems to be a cesspool.

I told you about the Glendale situation didn't I (about 100 policeman and fire fighters there make over 200K per year (a few over 300K), before factoring in the value of fringe benefits)? That one I have seen from a pay sheet of all the employees who make over 100K per year, before factoring in the value of fringe benefits) from the city of Glendale itself.  About 450 Glendale employees make over 100K in take home pay, or something like that. The list was very long.

In all of this comparison analysis, one needs to be sure to factor in the value of fringe benefits. For fire fighters and policeman in CA, that is about equal to either 40% or 70% of their take home pay, I forget which now. That figure I got from a guy who makes his living dealing with that issue now.

Oh, and here is another one for federal employees. The USA Today article says that for federal employees, they make twice as much as the private sector equivalents.

[Torie]

It's funny how widely studies differ on this subject because of number massaging on both sides. Everything I've read says that public sector employees are dramatically underpaid compared to private sector employees based on their level of education.

Here's my recollection of what I read: at low levels of education, salaries are equivalent, but benefits make public employment a better deal. At higher levels of education, public service can't come close to competing with private sector employment. So jobs requiring good skills are tough to fill. Torie, I'm guessing you never considered becoming a public defender for the 40% higher salary.

No, but in the private sector, some lawyers are far more equal than others. I fooled enough folks into thinking that I had skills that were worth paying $350 per hour for, and there were times when I was stuck in trial for a month (it was hell), where I billed about 300 hours in a month. What can I say? 

[tpfkaw]

It's worth noting that prosecutors are paid considerably more than public defenders too (and probably compete with prison guards for highest percentage of persons with Antisocial Personality Disorder).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I agree in general with Beet here (shocking everyone) in that strong unions are an excellent check against sh**tty working conditions, strong unions are their own worst enemy.  They don't care about the repercusions of their actions, they don't care about corruption inside their own organizations and the people in charge don't even care about their own members.  I certainly don't want unions to die, I think they have their place in a free market system, but they need to be restrained less they kill the golden goose and make toilets out of the eggs.

No, corporations are the unions' worst enemy. You say you think strong unions are a check and have a place, but a 55% fall in membership in one year isn't restraint; it's disembowelment. Actually, I was pretty complacent about Walkerism until seeing this article Torie posted. I haven't always been the friendliest to unionism myself in the past. But this is shocking.

And all this is considering, as I said, unionism is already dead in the private sector. It's already dead in the south. Pretty much the only place it's still alive is in states like Wisconsin and in the public sector. And now, Walker will most likely win the recall leaving the unions totally eviscerated. The Democrats in the future will turn to the Koch Brothers to fund their campaigns.

Actually, the worst enemy of the unions is the government.  When the government provides that there will be an eight-hour work-day and 40-hour work week, when unemployment insurance comes via the government rather than your craft union; when government mandated safety rules are in place, etc.  then a lot of the impetus towards belonging to a union is gone.  Unions have remained relevant in Germany because they made certain that they maintained a role in all of those things and more.  In the United States, the unions got lazy and transferred to the government a number of the reasons why a worker would want to be in a union without keeping a hand in the benefits that were formerly secureable only via union membership.

[Brittain33]

Oh, and here is another one for federal employees. The USA Today article says that for federal employees, they make twice as much as the private sector equivalents.

It doesn't say equivalents - it says compared to private sector workers as a whole.

Given what federal agencies do and where they're located, we'd need to know education levels and cost of living. Washington D.C. is among the best-educated metros in the country for a good reason. The federal government has a lot of scientists, regulators, specialists, doctors, etc. The private sector has a mix of doctors, lawyers, burger flippers, and Wal*Mart greeters. Many of the federal government's employees live in places like Montgomery Co., Maryland where they could easily be snapped up by a private company at a higher salary. Despite Sen. Byrd's best efforts they aren't living in cheap cost-of-living private-sector metros like Kansas City or Fresno.

[Brittain33]

I just knew that you were going to ask that. Well here is one paper to look at.

That link says there's a big double-digit discrepancy, but when you factor out for education, it declines to single digits.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This paper, put out by the Ohio Business Roundtable (do you think they have a dog in the hunt), also concludes that salaries are equal, but that public servants get better benefits. This is what I said originally. They also have greater job stability, which I don't think anyone would disagree with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, there are always some people who make out like bandits. Nassau County police in N.Y. are another example. And we've heard about the public officials in Bell, California. Research the Quinn Bill in Massachusetts if you want to get your blood boiling. The question is, how representative is this of the average public employee? How much of it has to do with them starting out in high salary jurisdictions (what's the median house cost in Glendale, BTW) and then escalates with people abusing the system. These shock stories are good, they are corrective. But how illustrative are they?

CA may well be non-representative, too, as you said.

[Brittain33]

No, but in the private sector, some lawyers are far more equal than others. I fooled enough folks into thinking that I had skills that were worth paying $350 per hour for, and there were times when I was stuck in trial for a month (it was hell), where I billed about 300 hours in a month. What can I say? 

The DMV doesn't need Torie-quality employees to get the job done, but the SEC and federal courts might...

[Torie]

No, but in the private sector, some lawyers are far more equal than others. I fooled enough folks into thinking that I had skills that were worth paying $350 per hour for, and there were times when I was stuck in trial for a month (it was hell), where I billed about 300 hours in a month. What can I say?  

The DMV doesn't need Torie-quality employees to get the job done, but the SEC and federal courts might...

Obama needed me to argue for the Constitutionality of the mandate before SCOTUS actually. That Solicitor General is a beta.  I can't disagree with anything that you said, but you didn't mention the federal employee thing. I gave you a trifecta of articles. The best things come in threes. Just ask any interior decorator.  

Of course federal employees aren't unionized!  So in a legal brief, I would have to play that card rather carefully wouldn't I? So many sand traps, so little time. Life is at once beautiful and complex. I love it.

[Torie]

Can anyone direct me to some quotable quotes which represent bureaucracy and the public functionary in a positive light?  I searched but alas the results are mostly the unappreciative kind.

[muon2]

The private-sector and public-sector unions can be at odds on a number of projects. For instance, there is heated debate here over a privately-operated federal detention center. The trade unions want the construction work and the public-sector unions want the jobs to stay at county jails where they are.