Protesting in Wisconsin....Just the beginning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I guess you're right if you want to stick to the wrong wording you used to convey your idea. Still, the retention rate was less than 80%, which is what you were talking about.

---

Hmm, upon examination of the wording the only wrong thing may be your trying to misrepresent it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

(the congress reelection rates are around 90%, same as always)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

only 9% of those who ran for reelection lost

---

If you missed the emphasis in blue I am talking about reelection, which is something that quantifies what the voters do, not retention, which also includes what what the non-runners-for-election do.
No matter how much squirming you do this is the conventional way to count - e.g. the percentages of winning or losing are determined by

Code:

---

votes for a given candidate / total legally cast votes

---

and not by say

Code:

---

votes for a given candidate / number of elegible voters

---

Your postulate that politicians do not run for reelection only when the voters are disgusted with them is just wrong. Sometimes they die, sometimes they're too old, sometimes they want to make money in a different way, sometimes they don't want their dirty laundry aired in public, sometimes they 'want to spend more time with their family'....

Just say 'uncle' and double check the dictionary next time you want to do your pedantic thing :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Just say 'uncle' and double check the dictionary next time you want to do your pedantic thing :p

---

I think I'll pretend to take the high road here and watch the blackened pots and kettles below me battle it out before I offer more constructive criticisms to the resident euro-lib academic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 32t

On the TV news tonight I was told that the average public/government employee in Wisc is paid 4.something percent less than the private sector. As a national average it is around 7% less. Gotta do more research but food for thought.

Tim

---

I wish I had access to the contracts.
A classic difference is that pay is less but retirement
is at 20 years and the pension rate is 80+% of wages
combined with a rich health plan.

So a private sector dude makes 4% more but has to work
for 45 years and then retires with his 401K or just social
security and must depend on Medicade....

This is a lifetime problem.

Worse in the northern climates those that retire
migrate to the warmth of Florida taking their
cash flow with them. Thus the retirement wages
from Wisconsin do not get spent in Wisconsin
but with a big sucking sound flow south.

Again this is a lifetime problem and the entire
span of a working lifetime must come to the
equation.

Then there is the issue of double dip. After 20 years
at one job many "retire" and take another position exchanging
their municipal job for a state job or a county job... Again
20 years later fully vested he retires again.
Now with two pensions that each pay 80% of his base
plus medical come together and retirement is 160% of
his 'highest' paid years adjusted up for inflation.

Without breaking these insane contracts and renegotiating
sane terms the entire game will end badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

I wish I had access to the contracts.
A classic difference is that pay is less but retirement
is at 20 years and the pension rate is 80+% of wages
combined with a rich health plan.

So a private sector dude makes 4% more but has to work
for 45 years and then retires with his 401K or just social
security and must depend on Medicade....

---

Right, so the comparison has to be made w.r.t the total. Of course, there are more factors, so here's a study I found that gives a lot more details. (Different numbers from the same study are quoted by either side as justification that the public employees are more compensated, or less compensated than their private counterparts, so it's best to look up the meaning of the quoted numbers at the source)

http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

Then there is the issue of double dip.

---

I don't understand how this is an issue (other than 'these people are making a lot of money'), whether the pensions for those two separate jobs are paid to one person, or two people it is the same amount that is being paid. I suppose that there is a saving in health benefits are if they go to the same person instead of two different people, since one person can't charge twice for the same medical bill.


I didn't know that the public employees get to retire after 20 years on the job, I thought that's only for law enforcement/military type and if they pick that option the retirement pay is 50%, not 80%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Right, so the comparison has to be made w.r.t the total. Of course, there are more factors, so here's a study I found that gives a lot more details. (Different numbers from the same study are quoted by either side as justification that the public employees are more compensated, or less compensated than their private counterparts, so it's best to look up the meaning of the quoted numbers at the source)

http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf


I don't understand how this is an issue (other than 'these people are making a lot of money'), whether the pensions for those two separate jobs are paid to one person, or two people it is the same amount that is being paid. I suppose that there is a saving in health benefits are if they go to the same person instead of two different people, since one person can't charge twice for the same medical bill.


I didn't know that the public employees get to retire after 20 years on the job, I thought that's only for law enforcement/military type and if they pick that option the retirement pay is 50%, not 80%.

---

The retirement age and retirement qualification/vesting age is all
over the map. I just know that a couple high school pals of mine
retired twice. Once at 20 years and later when they hit 60 and
qualified for early retirement.

The link above is a good one -- it does not list the future value
of vested retirement. It does list the single year earning tables
and does show that on a given work year it public service folk
are not overpaid. However I could not see an accrual for retirement
and health insurance in the link.

I know of a computer company in Wisconsin that pays very well
but has zero retirement. Employees are on their own with
a 401K and Social Security.

So retirement pay of 50%+insurance for 20 years is a
a BIG tag along payment. Page 8 says...
"Retirement benefits also account for a substantially greater share
of public employee compensation costs: 8% compared
with 4.6% in private sector organizations with more than
100 employees." But does not state that this larger retirement
benefit is "deferred". It also does not say that it is "nearly double"
the private sector.

One thing that is hammering local governments is this "deferred"
payment. Private companies today shake your hand and
say good by at retirement. State and local employers shake your hand
and then sign 'em up for the plan.

I suspect the above pdf was well researched to make the
point of one side. I suspect there are more facts to consider.

The least of which is that our elected officials have been running
a Ponzi scheme by not funding their retirement plans.

And little of this matters if the insanity in the mid east
erupts into a big oil fueled fireball and we continue
to outlaw coal and more....
Invest in insulation if you have not already.

Right, the issue with the retirement is not very clear. From that paper it appears that there is 8% (or whatever number for the corresponding education bracket) in benefits and that would go into a pension account from which the future pensions would be paid.

That would be what makes sense. If that is true, the problems seem to be (1) poor management of those pension funds, so they actually do not make enough to cover the promised benefits; (2) the government just issues an IOU instead of actually contributing that portion (we know this was/is the case in NJ where it was highly publicized); (3) the government just takes money off that pension fund to pay for other things (seems to be a favorite thing in NY).

All these are chronic problems happening for decades and the problem is with all the politicians during these decades, which tend to keep being reelected. So, if the voters leave things go bad for that long, at some point they ought to suffer the consequences of being that stupid. And when the state goes bankrupt the government employees who hold all these IOUs get to forfeit their benefits as well, or at least large portion of them. I mean they certainly weren't too smart either if they relied on a contract with a government that doesn't appear to have the means to honor it. The same as if you contribute to a private pension fund that just goes bankrupt (or invested yourself in stocks that plummeted), the money is not there, so you're screwed.

That's the scenario I already described in my earlier posts.

In the private sector one instance of the same thing was the so called 'housing bubble', a couple of financial institutions went bankrupt, and many others would've gone too, but under the threat of destroying the whole economy they got bailed out.

At the end of the day those with money/power, on average, always do far better than those without, and that's exactly what the free market is all about, both in economics and politics.

Whether the majority of people without much money/power (who hold the final say via voting) can influence a more pragmatic middle ground solution is yet to be seen. Looking at the news, or even at political threads on SRP, it doesn't seem promising right now.

I don't pretend to understand even half of the details regarding this whole thing, but I know a lot of people who work for the state (I live in Maine). I haven't seen any of them getting rich off their jobs. They are certainly not starving, but I just don't understand the notion that state workers are these people trying to milk us for all we're worth.

I know many are not suggesting this, but we're going through something similar in Maine, and it just doesn't make sense. Our new governor is saying that state workers are bleeding us, and then gives his 23 year old daughter a 43k job in an entry level position.:thinking:

I wonder what a lot of the talking heads opinions of the AFTRA union is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaritimeFanatic

I don't pretend to understand even half of the details regarding this whole thing, but I know a lot of people who work for the state (I live in Maine). I haven't seen any of them getting rich off their jobs. They are certainly not starving, but I just don't understand the notion that state workers are these people trying to milk us for all we're worth.

I know many are not suggesting this, but we're going through something similar in Maine, and it just doesn't make sense. Our new governor is saying that state workers are bleeding us, and then gives his 23 year old daughter a 43k job in an entry level position.:thinking:

---

+1
The trouble with all of this is the people that should understand
all of this do not. Because they do not they failed to understand
their cash and cash flow positions over time and entered into contracts
that may prove impossible to honor.

This places a lot of "agencies" in the position of finding a bad guy
to lump the blame on. Some are so "blind" to reality they will
hire their daughter when the state should have furlough and
reduced hours.

Consider that the board of education can enter into contracts but
does not have control over their funds beyond the current fiscal
year. Yet they enter into contracts that include pension plans
that reach decades into the future. True some of these contracts
are known to the legislature and governor but not understood.

Governors and Mayors will have to make hard decisions but in some cases
their hands are tied because the law requires various activities.
Most of these required program expenses have no link to or limits
on the income side of the balance sheet.

The legislators need to address this -- too bad so many
are on vacation in neighboring states. Perhaps, just perhaps
they are working remotely and will show up with quality
legislation and sane solutions.

No one will like them but if they buck up and tighten up focusing
on an honest balanced budget program removing or limiting
many entitlement programs and more things will not fully fall
apart.

And it is not just collective bargaining (union) contracts that
need "Force majeure" actions to revisit the terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't understand how this is an issue (other than 'these people are making a lot of money'), whether the pensions for those two separate jobs are paid to one person, or two people it is the same amount that is being paid. I suppose that there is a saving in health benefits are if they go to the same person instead of two different people, since one person can't charge twice for the same medical bill.

---

The issue is not when you work one job and retire, then take up a second job and retire. That is totally legal.

The issue is that one person would hold 2 jobs at the same time. Each job would be "full time" but the employee would only work a portion of a week on each job. Now, you have one person, possibly working one job 80-90% (if you are lucky) of the time and giving lip service to a second job. He is earning a pension on both but only doing the work of one. :thinking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MackofallTrades

The issue is not when you work one job and retire, then take up a second job and retire. That is totally legal.

The issue is that one person would hold 2 jobs at the same time. Each job would be "full time" but the employee would only work a portion of a week on each job. Now, you have one person, possibly working one job 80-90% (if you are lucky) of the time and giving lip service to a second job. He is earning a pension on both but only doing the work of one. :thinking:

---

Does this actually happen beyond small number of cases that add up to no financial impact? It seems rather odd if somebody can do two full time jobs simultaneously. And in any case it looks to me something that would be done by a middle or high level executive rather than a teacher. Numbers would be nice.

It is not teachers and blue collar workers that are the culprits here. It is always a politically appointed position given to someone who is already a state employee (usually members of the legislative branch).

As far as numbers, it can't be that many at one time. The problem is that it has occurred over many years. Over time, even a small chink in the armor can be catastrophic.

Right, but those officials are elected, or appointed by elected officials, and tasked with making decisions on behalf of the taxpayers. So, when they screw up the taxpayers are still on the hook for those bad decisions.

What the current political majority in Wisconsin is saying is that it's too bad the guys before us messed it up, now we're going to fix it by just giving a round of tax breaks and just alter the contracts on the low level government employees.
(Anybody still remember the big outcry a couple of months ago over the unfairness of taking an extra 1-2cents on every dollar over $250,000/year? Way better to take 3-10cents on the dollar from all these government employees making $30,000-$80,000/year.)

What I see is just lot of politics and very little interest in addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

Crisis in Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - Teachers and Wall Street - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 03/03/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Right, but those officials are elected, or appointed by elected officials, and tasked with making decisions on behalf of the taxpayers. So, when they screw up the taxpayers are still on the hook for those bad decisions.

What the current political majority in Wisconsin is saying is that it's too bad the guys before us messed it up, now we're going to fix it by just giving a round of tax breaks and just alter the contracts on the low level government employees.
(Anybody still remember the big outcry a couple of months ago over the unfairness of taking an extra 1-2cents on every dollar over $250,000/year? Way better to take 3-10cents on the dollar from all these government employees making $30,000-$80,000/year.)

What I see is just lot of politics and very little interest in addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

---

I was surprised by this quote from Reagan...

Quote:

---

"These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland ... They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." --Ronald Reagan, Labor Day Address at Liberty State Park, 1980

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Right, but those officials are elected, or appointed by elected officials, and tasked with making decisions on behalf of the taxpayers. So, when they screw up the taxpayers are still on the hook for those bad decisions.

What the current political majority in Wisconsin is saying is that it's too bad the guys before us messed it up, now we're going to fix it by just giving a round of tax breaks and just alter the contracts on the low level government employees.
(Anybody still remember the big outcry a couple of months ago over the unfairness of taking an extra 1-2cents on every dollar over $250,000/year? Way better to take 3-10cents on the dollar from all these government employees making $30,000-$80,000/year.)

What I see is just lot of politics and very little interest in addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

---

Yeah, I can't comment on the Wisconsin issue with any accuracy. I won't pretend to know much about that.

But as far as NJ's double dipping, the taxpayers are always on the hook for the mistakes of elected politicians. Hell, we did elect them.

We allowed the politicians to appoint their buddies into positions, then failed to remove those politicians from their offices. IMO, it would do NJ a ton of good to elect a majority of Republicans in the upcoming election in order to try and balance out the state. I am not arguing for one party over the other here, but I feel that a balance of each party is something that is beneficial. We have been a democrat led state for too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

I was surprised by this quote from Reagan...

---

Dont be. It is the usual political double talk, whatever works at the moment type of comment. This is the same guy who as a Democrat was President of the Screen Actors Guild, as well as the same guy who as a Republican POTUS said that Air Traffic Controllers could not organize or negotiate. Power and money are a good thing in my hands, not so much in yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

Crisis in Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - Teachers and Wall Street - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 03/03/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

---

Well said, though you didn't actually say it! :)

That clip totally hits the nail on the head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

I was surprised by this quote from Reagan...

---

That's called hypocrisy I guess. Although I believe this statement to be correct.

Not being american I'm not going to get involved in the discussion, but I just wanted to say that it really really saddens (and frightens) me to see the US sliding away towards what I see as a modern kind of fascism. And so many of you just don't see this or worse maybe, just don't care. Your country deserves better than this.

Here is my take on things.. Now I have not finished reading all the bills and budget information for my state but am currently in the process of it.

The states around this area ( Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan ) have either all passed or are in the process of passing bills limiting the collective bargaining ability of Unions. The primary way they are getting these through is that due to the extreme of our two party system currently the Republicans control the government in these states.

I think also that one reason there is not more uproar about this is there is so much misinformation about public sector unions out there and with the recent history of the Auto Workers Union and how they were blamed for the downfall of Ford, GM, and Chrysler people who do not belong to one ( majority of America) they do not think it affects them. Unfortunately people forget about the history of Unions and how the working conditions and in some ways even the wages we earn today are due to them.

I don't know many public employees but I do know a lot of teachers who are also affected by these changes. The public perception ( either right or wrong) is that teachers in Michigan get free health care , free massages, and other perks due to being a teacher. This is actually true at some districts that have bargained for them but the majority of them do not get these freebies and do have to pay some of their benefits like the private sector. It all comes down to how those Districts bargained with the Teachers Union. Most teachers also spend between five hundred and a thousand dollars a year to provide materials for their classroom such as pencils, paper, crayons, and other items that you would think should be part of a schools list of items to have on hand for their teachers.

I know here schools have been hurting financially since the early to mid 90's when the Governor then decided to change how schools were funded. Originally they were funded through Property Taxes and since those went up slightly every year the Districts had a slightly larger budget most years. Their funding was then moved to being tied to the Lottery system here in Michigan and since then funding has declined every year.

I think we are in for a rough couple of years as with most things the pendulum seems to swing wide right or wide left for a bit before people finally figure out it is better to be closer to the middle. We may even see a third party emerge if things don't correct in the next couple of years.

I will stop rambling now..

I think theres going to be more and more of this over the next 2-3 years. We've all borrowed far too much money from each other (countries, banks, governments and individuals) and everyone is going to end up paying through the nose for a long time to clear all the debt off.

I fully appreciate that not everyone was recklessly borrowing, but the nature of the beast is that we're all going to be taxed until the pips squeak as a result.

Our government has recently said that public sector workers (who tend to, on average, get pretty good pensions) are going to have to work longer and get less of a pension when they retire. Asa reuslt the teachers are now talking about strike action this summer.

What ****es me off in Ohio is that Kasich is part of the reason for the short falls right now. He helped get the state to reinvest the pension funds into Lehman brothers mortgage backed securities and is now blaming the unions.

Personally, I think public employees being public servants after all should be... well.... servants. That's how they should be treated. If they don't like that let them quit and work on the outside. They should never earn more than any private employee or ever have any benefits better then any private employee. We should probably pay them the minimum wage afterall we pay their salaries.

These teachers are the biggest crybabies of them all. heck when I went to college and we needed some easy A's we'd take those Education Courses. Then they get months off with summer vacation and all the time off during the year and work short days. I think we should cut their salaries in half or when they aren't working make them clean the streets or put them on a road crew building highways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Personally, I think...

---

I have to disagree They should work for free if they really love their country

There was someone quoted within the last few days on a news site who said something to the effect that it was maybe a bit surprising that it took several years longer for the government sector to catch up to the private sector in regard to economic crunch and how it has impacted so many.

The loss of rights, the loss of union power to defend workers, etc. Right, wrong or otherwise, to me the issue is very simply that the bad economy and massive debt repercussions have broken into the government sector now whereas many of us in the private sector have been affected by this for years now.

I can understand the screaming of the protesters (not the death threats), I really can, but as someone in the private sector, again, this has been a reality for many of us for some time now.

Rather than have this mentality about it: :boohoo:, my feeling toward the government sector is simply: "Sorry, we no longer have the resources to support those who work in government to the level that we've supported in the past. It's a reality, period.


Chris L

I am not a fan of Public Sector Unions, I am all for unions in the private sector if employees want to organize. What bothers me is that after Nafta and Gatt as well as the "replacement worker" has destroyed the union in America. No matter your viewpoint we are quickly moving back 100 years to a time when there were two classes of people. There were the "robber barons" and then there were the rest of us turds in the bowl. Without Unions there will be no middle class. I remember the strikes of the early 1970's when inflation was rampant, if not for the strikes keeping wages up the middle class would have been wiped out. We have had inflation rear its ugly head again in the last few years but now there is no one to protect us. Without strong unions your employer will pay you in "cheaper dollars" until he is paying you nothing,


BTW A CEO way back in the 60's would make 51x what a worker on the floor would, now its over 540x.

well I am not sure what the national news has shown but the bill has been split. The collective barganing has been voted on as a seperate issue and has been passed. They did not need the democrats for this special vote because it did not have a financial impact. Now they can vote on the rest of the budget.

What people have to realize is that state by state and city by city things are different for public employees. I can tell you that I pay 25% of my healthcare and also contribute a considerable amount to my pension system. I also have to work 32 years and be at least 55 years old before I can collect my full pension, which will be 80%.

Most pension abuse problems come at the hands of the politicians who find a loophole (they're all lawyers so it isn't hard) and after serving one term retire and collect a full pension. Then when people find out and are up in arms they agree that there should be pension reform...and go after the public employees and blame them.

Again, these benefits that we do have were bargained for and agreed upon by both parties. I think most of us can agree that we're in this mess because of the excesses of those at the top, not the working class. Don't let them get away with blaming the workers like they are and they skate free. We've all been divided against each other long enough. It's time to put our petty differences aside and turn our attention to those who are really at fault. United we stand, divided we beg!!

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

BTW A CEO way back in the 60's would make 51x what a worker on the floor would, now its over 540x.

---

Very different marginal tax rates back then than today. But I suppose that's just a small part of keeping America safe from socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knightwolf

well I am not sure what the national news has shown but the bill has been split. The collective barganing has been voted on as a seperate issue and has been passed. They did not need the democrats for this special vote because it did not have a financial impact. Now they can vote on the rest of the budget.

---

pretty smart eh :)

now the question is whether that is going to end up as political gain or political liability for the republicans. they're obviously betting that with more corporate money for them and less union money for the opposition the voters would be swayed by the more expensive/better advertising.

i wonder whether the public employees would just go for bankrupting the state. supposedly the reason to kill their collective bargaining power is so that the past contracts can be unilaterally amended, but there's still the rule of the law and it takes a bankruptcy to cancel a debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerryman71

Again, these benefits that we do have were bargained for and agreed upon by both parties. I think most of us can agree that we're in this mess because of the excesses of those at the top, not the working class. Don't let them get away with blaming the workers like they are and they skate free. We've all been divided against each other long enough. It's time to put our petty differences aside and turn our attention to those who are really at fault. United we stand, divided we beg!!

John

---

The best thing thats been said on this thread thus far, think of all the division being created by the media, Fox, CNN, NPR, CBS etc. It is not a matter of left vs right, it is not a matter of capitalism vs socialism, republicanism vs the democrats. It is a matter of us vs them. The people at the top know this, the people at the bottom have been too busy scratching each others eyes out trying to make a moot point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Very different marginal tax rates back then than today. But I suppose that's just a small part of keeping America safe from socialism.

---

Not really. It's just another way to make sure the have's have what they want and the rest go without.

Unfortunately it has become very apparent that both political parties answer to the same corporate interests, one more so than others. The other 98% of America seems to be left out in the cold.

The two party system in this country is broke and has been for a while.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

but there's still the rule of the law and it takes a bankruptcy to cancel a debt.

---

They will just change the law.:gaah:

tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kerryman71

Not really.

---

Yes, really :) Ok that socialism part was probably from me consuming a bit too much conservative media, so here's a picture originating in NYT to counterbalance it.
Attachment 58625

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 32t

They will just change the law.:gaah:

---

That's the thing though, afik the federal laws trump state laws, so if a state decides that they are no longer going to pay their former employee the pension that they had mutually agreed upon say some 20 years ago, I don't think that just changing the state law to say it's cool would fly. But I really don't know all that much.

I should've been a little clearer in my "not really" comment. I meant not really in regards to the socialism comment you made. I realize that when this country was most prosperous for the majority of its population the top wage earners were taxed much higher. Our progressive tax system has gotten much more regressive over the years. There were some years when the top money makers were paying as much as 70% towards the end of the year. The fact that they now pay less than ten percent more than many middle class people is sickening. That's of course if they pay at all.

When it comes to corporations forget it. In the early 2000's Microsoft made 13 billion in PROFIT and paid less than 6% in taxes while at the same time outsourcing over 100,000 to India I believe.

I think we were on the same page, just in misunderstanding in wording.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes, really :) Ok that socialism part was probably from me consuming a bit too much conservative media, so here's a picture originating in NYT to counterbalance it.
Attachment 58625




That's the thing though, afik the federal laws trump state laws, so if a state decides that they are no longer going to pay their former employee the pension that they had mutually agreed upon say some 20 years ago, I don't think that just changing the state law to say it's cool would fly. But I really don't know all that much.

---

Gingrich and Jeb Bush are actually pushing the Republican members of the House and Senate to make it easier for states to file bankruptcy so that they can get out of their pension obligation to retirees.

John

Funny how people are so concerned about the pay and benefits of public workers but don't seem to have any thought about what some mid level manager at GM makes or the guy who manages your local supermarket. After-all you are paying his wages every time you purchase something. Public Worker salaries are public record but private ones are a big hush hush secret.

What's that you say, you have no choice you have to pay taxes and there is no choice on your part but you can buy a Ford or go to another supermarket? You think that really makes a difference? GM pays their workers a fraction of what they used to pay. Anyone notice a decrease in the price of a Chevy?

If anyone would like to see the results of overly ambitious unions and the ability for companies to move overseas to get away from them...please come to Detroit. Unions definitely have their place when employees are undercompensated, mistreated and/or work in dangerous jobs, but most of this is now regulated by laws and OSHA.

My Dad moved here from Kentucky after WWII so that his family could have a better life. Now people are moving away from this area so their families can have a better life. My house is worth less than half of what it was worth 5 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCasper

If anyone would like to see the results of overly ambitious unions and the ability for companies to move overseas to get away from them...please come to Detroit. Unions definitely have their place when employees are undercompensated, mistreated and/or work in dangerous jobs, but most of this is now regulated by laws and OSHA.

My Dad moved here from Kentucky after WWII so that his family could have a better life. Now people are moving away from this area so their families can have a better life. My house is worth less than half of what it was worth 5 years ago.

---

Is this the result of unions or is it the result of Nafta and Gatt? Unions did not push companies overseas, they went there for the slave labor and no regulation. Courtesy of Bill Clinton. Have you noticed that damn near everything from curtain blinds, baby food, toothpaste and sheetrock have all had issues with poisoning people. Neither the Chinese nor the corporations have an issue with killing you, its all about the bottom line. You have as much value to them as the dog in the OP of the Glorious China thread. Put the blame where it really goes.

Do you really believe the unions drove companies out of this country? Last year one of the appliance makers shut down a plant in Ohio, which was a profitable plant. They claimed as usual, and everyone drank the Kool-Aid and believed, that the union workers were making too much for them to stay there. Again, they were making a profit. So what did they do? They moved south...not a southern state where the standard of living may be less and they could get away with paying the workers less, but south of the border to Mexico.

So in all reality the price of those appliances make in Mexico should drop dramatically, right? I mean the workers are probably making five bucks a day if they're lucky with no benefits. It all comes down to profit, profit, profit. People are so easily fooled. The unions aren't ruining the country, corporate greed is.

John