Collective Bargaining

I have been casually observing the Collective Bargaining thing that seems to be att he root of the whole Wisconsin thing. Most of my information comes from my own research, or from mainstream media. I am very not interested in extreme left or right talk radio. So - I decided I'd take a look at the law changes that started this whole thing to get a direct, un-politically-polluted plain english description of the changes. I don't really care about who funded what or what crybaby got his feelings hurt - I am just interested in what the real change was. I ended up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_Act_10 Assuming the wikipedia article is correct (admitting it may have flaws) there are alot of changes, but the items under collective bargaining are: *"Collective Bargaining:* The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining>; for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index>; (CPI) unless approved byreferendum <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum>;. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. These changes take effect upon the expiration of existing contracts. Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes." None of these sound unreasonable to me. If I work somewhere that's unionized but I don't want to be part of the union or pay dues, now I don't have to. The union has to have a valid reason to exist once a year by vote (which should be super easy for any worthwhile union). Wage increases are pegged to CPI - this all seems very reasonable to me. Perhaps there is an additional item I am missing? Does anyone have any links to a good (neutral) alternate summary of the law that has something else worse in there? -Cameron ...

I believe that the summary is pretty accurate. Here are some of the problems that it causes. 1. Having contracts have to be negotiated yearly is a waste. Contract negotiations take time and effort and often can be contentious (regardless of whether you are in the public or private sector). There is no reason to not negotiate a 3 or 4 year contract, possibly with opt out clauses, and focus on the actual work in the interim. It's wasteful. 2. Total wages, I believe, includes benefit supports by the employer. By artificially capping at the CPI, it doesn't take into account the rise if health care costs and similar factors. Regardless, I thought we want government to run more like a business? Would you support a law that told businesses that they couldn't give raises above the CPI? In general, most raises probably won't be much higher than the CPI and might be lower. But artificially limiting the options is bad management practice. 3. What the hell is reasonable about dissolving a union every year unless they have another vote? Great, more paperwork, more money spent on something stupid, more opportunities to have management interfere elections. Unions can be dissolved, there are mechanisms in place already. Maybe we need to strengthen those. Requiring a reauthorization of all unions every single year is just wasteful and stupid hoop jumping solely for the purpose of making unionization harder. So much for reducing bureaucracy, right? 4. Not allowing employers to collect union dues. Awesome. Let's add another unneeded layer of complication! Employers are the ones who are already processing payments, deducting taxes, ira deposits, premium payments, etc. Why the hell would you add a whole separate scheme for collecting union dues, post payroll? No reason other than to just make life harder on unions and union members. Punishment and stupid regulations, plain and simple. 5. Members of the collective bargaining unit wouldn't be required to pay dues. This is really the heart of what they were after when Republicans in Wisconsin passed this law. Everything else was about punishment for the audacity of having a union and being a union member. This one, however, gets to the heart of what collective bargaining is. Collective bargaining is the notion that an entity, in this case a union, is going to negotiate the wages, benefits, etc for a class of workers, say classified staff at a college. The union does the heavy lifting in terms of contract negotiations and are paid to try and get the best deal for their clientele, just like a sports agent gets paid for negotiating a players contract with a team. If a worker can get all the benefits of the negotiated contract without having to put any money toward the actual negotiation of the contract it completely blows the notion of collective bargaining out of the water. It is no longer collective bargaining because some reasonable portion of the collective is no longer participating in the bargaining, just the receiving of whatever benefits are negotiated by the people that other folks pay for. The words Collective Bargaining no longer apply and it's wrong to use them. The law effectively eviscerates collective bargaining but tries to pretend that it keeps unions around. It's totally dishonest and complete bullshit. If they had passed a law that just gets rids of unions for public employees it would have at least been honest. No, instead they redefine the notion of collective bargaining and then pass a bunch of add on rules so that if unions somehow survive in some form from the redefinition of collective bargaining or a court strikes down the rule on collective bargaining, then they still have a bunch of onerous rules in place designed, at every turn, to just make things more complicated, to add layers of regulation, to make things slower and more tedious and make every single little thing having to do with unions harder. It's anti-worker, it's bad for productivity, it's dishonest and purely driven by an ideological motive to crush unions in any way possible without regard to side effects on anything else. Hope that helps clarify things. Cheers, Judah On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Camer ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

If you benefit from Collective Bargaining, shouldn't you contribute to the costs? Otherwise or opt out of the benefits you get from it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: > If you benefit from Collective Bargaining, shouldn't you contribute to > the costs? Otherwise or opt out of the benefits you get from it. I completely agree with this. Further - if you opt out of the collective bargaining, the employer should be free to pay you outside of the pay rate structure established by the union since you might be a total moron or a total rockstar and deserve more or less money accordingly. -Cameron ...

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I think a one year contract, renewable every 12 months is a pretty easy thing. Kinda like paying rent month to month. Renegotiation isn't required, it's just available, annually. 2. Total wages, I believe, includes benefit supports by the employer. > I'm not sure about this. I'd be surprised if this were true, but it might be. > By artificially capping at the CPI, it doesn't take into account the > rise if health care costs and similar factors. It can still be raised above CPI by referendum. Admittedly it's an additional hurdle, but available. > Regardless, I thought we want government to run more like a business? > Would you support a > law that told businesses that they couldn't give raises above the CPI? > I would not support any law that dictates what a company pays to employees. Except perhaps minimum wage, in limited industries. But if an employee chooses to be a member of a union then they have already delegated their salary negotiations to someone else, this is the same. > In general, most raises probably won't be much higher than the CPI > and might be lower. But artificially limiting the options is bad > management practice. > I have to agree that artificially limiting pay is bad, but that's really the definition of union negotiations isn't it? Again, if you are a member of a union, you've already signed up for this. 3. What the hell is reasonable about dissolving a union every year > unless they have another vote? An annual confidence / no-confidence vote seems easy to me. Maybe the voting process may be inside a union is terrible and inefficient, but it's not really that bad. you could just check a box when you're mailing in your dues. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I think this assumes alot of things are going to be run inefficiently and be very cumbersome. If unions are really that bad at running things, how well can they actually be representing their members? > 4. Not allowing employers to collect union dues. Awesome. Let's add > another unneeded layer of complication! Employers are the ones who > are already processing payments, deducting taxes, ira deposits, > premium payments, etc. I could see allowing an employer to collect the dues, if they wish to, but not requiring them to. And I sure as hell would want to be able to opt out of paying union dues as an employee if I don't want to be a member. > Why the hell would you add a whole separate scheme for > collecting union dues, post payroll? No reason other than to just > make life harder on unions and union members. Punishment and > stupid regulations, plain and simple. > Because you're voluntarily paying for a service from an organization that is not part of your employer - like paying an attorney to represent you, or a CPA to file your taxes for you. This is not a government organization, or one that the employer has a benefits relationship with. As an employer, I completely cannot even comprehend another organization coming to me and demanding that I dock all my employee's pay and hand that money over to them. > 5. Members of the collective bargaining unit wouldn't be required to > pay dues. This is really the heart of what they were after when > Republicans in Wisconsin passed this law. Perhaps. > Everything else was about > punishment for the audacity of having a union and being a union > member. This one, however, gets to the heart of what collective > bargaining is. Perhaps. > Collective bargaining is the notion that an entity, in > this case a union, is going to negotiate the wages, benefits, etc for > a class of workers, say classified staff at a college. I think I you're leaving out the most amazing part of unions (to me). So I would revise your statement to be "Collective bargaining is the notion that an entity, in this case a union, is going to negotiate the wages, benefits, etc for a class of workers [whether the workers likes it or not, and then send them a bill for it when they are done]" This is like someone breaking into my house while I am at work, cleaning it, and then sending me a bill for it. Sure, maybe my house is better for it, but shouldn't I get to choose who clean sit and when? The union does > the heavy lifting in terms of contract negotiations and are paid to > try and get the best deal for their clientele, just like a sports > agent gets paid for negotiating a players contract with a team. ...and if the client already has a totally awesome fair deal, the union will still push for more, even if it puts the company out of business, and even if the worker is lacking competence at their job. Unlike a player, who will get fired if they aren't any good at the job. > If a > worker can get all the benefits of the negotiated contract without > having to put any money toward the actual negotiation of the contract > it completely blows the notion of collective bargaining out of the > water. The worker should pay to be part of a union, and not pay if they choose not to be a member of the union. I agree that no-one should expect to be a member of a union without paying, but it should be that worker's choice as an individual if they want to be a member or not. > It is no longer collective bargaining because some reasonable > portion of the collective is no longer participating in the > bargaining, just the receiving of whatever benefits are negotiated by > the people that other folks pay for. The words Collective Bargaining > no longer apply and it's wrong to use them. > It's bargaining for the collection of people who choose to be part of the collection. If there aren't enough people interested in being part of the collection - is there really a problem that needs to be solved here? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- This is all open to interpretation, obviously. -Cameron ...

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Camer > > This is all open to interpretation, obviously. I think there are some honest arguments against unionization. And the pro/con arguments for unions tend to vary a bit between public sector and private sector. I'm (mostly) pro-union but not rigid about it. Every single thing about the Walker campaign in Wisconsin, however, seems slimy, unethical and dishonest. What is the intellectually honest argument that they aren't trying to effectively kill collective bargaining? If you want to make the argument against the right to unionize period, ok. That's a debate. This shit though? I've yet to see anyone able to make a cogent argument for the items in the bill and have it amount to more than "We don't like unions and are trying to knee cap them". If we want to discuss optional membership in a union as opposed to mandatory membership, that's something I can really ponder. I've considered arguments on both sides and I'm still unsure, can't quite form a definitive position one way or another. The Wisconsin bill, however, doesn't have anything to do with this point. I also think that there are a lot of options for avoiding unionization on the part of employers. For instance, my sister and her husband both work for a local grocery store. They have 3 locations I believe. Grocery stores are, for the most part, unionized. Their isn't. The reason? Store owners have actively maintained a policy of keeping wages and benefits at or above comparable positions at other groceries in town. They haven't tried to fuck over workers. Employees, in return, have not unionized and have had pretty good relations (overall) with management. That, admittedly, is a bit harder in the public sector where you don't have the same competition, so you have to look at things a bit differently. None the less, Walker and his cronies were out to knee cap unions and undermine the very basis of collective bargaining while pretending to just want to stream line union processes. It was dishonest and dirty to the core. And they got away with it. While you make like the idea of doing away with unions, I think that if you really look at what they did and how they did it, you'll be holding your nose too. Their shit stinks plenty. Judah

> Every single thing about the Walker campaign in Wisconsin, however, seems > slimy, unethical and dishonest. > I'll leave this analysis to the crazy radio host people screaming into their microphones. > What is the intellectually > honest argument that they aren't trying to effectively kill collective > bargaining? Well, I am not really interested in the "we vs they" thing, I am really just trying to understand the change in law and wether I think it's good or bad. > If you want to make the argument against the right to > unionize period, ok. That's a debate. Well, that's not what  am debating, really, but I would be open to it. > This shit though? I've yet to > see anyone able to make a cogent argument for the items in the bill > and have it amount to more than "We don't like unions and are trying to > knee cap them". > Which is why I prefer to view the bill and law summary rather than observe the participants in the process directly. I am curious if the changes to law stand on their own as valid ideas - the distastefulness of everyone involved is irrelevant to me in that context. > If we want to discuss optional membership in a union as opposed to > mandatory membership, that's something I can really ponder. I've > considered arguments on both sides and I'm still unsure, can't quite > form a definitive position one way or another. The Wisconsin bill, > however, doesn't have anything to do with this point. > I very clearly favor freedom of individual choice in lots of things, including this. > I also think that there are a lot of options for avoiding unionization > on the part of employers. For instance, my sister and her husband [...] Also an option, choosing not to work somewhere that treats you like dogshit. I know that's grossly overly simplified, but frankly so was your example. None the less, Walker and his cronies were out to knee cap unions and > undermine the very basis of collective bargaining while pretending to > just want to stream line union processes. It was dishonest and dirty > to the core. And they got away with it. While you make like the idea > of doing away with unions, I think that if you really look at what > they did and how they did it, you'll be holding your nose too. Their > shit stinks plenty. I am supremely uninterested in identifying the character flaws of politicians. I figured out that are mostly all slimy lying assholes a long time ago. -Cameron ...

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Camer ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Who said anything about "we vs they"? It's an objective statement and has nothing to do with "they" and certainly not "we". There just has not been an intellectually honest argument that the law was not designed to do anything other than to kill collective bargaining. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Not the distastefulness of the people...the distastefulness of the process and the duplicity therein. You are pretending to be looking for objectivity but that isn't how law is made, interpreted or implemented and you are naive if you think otherwise. Like it or not, intent is important. When you break down every little segment of the law, as you did in response to the summary, you lose the fact that the details will be interpreted within the context of the overall law and the context in passing the law. So when you try and chip away at an established right via death by a thousand cuts in an effort to make it palatable to the public while crafting things in such a way that the totality of the bill accomplishes your only hinted at goals...that means something. Whether you like it or not. And not "means something" in a PR or ethical way, but means something in how the law is implemented and judicially interpreted. Cheers, Judah

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Judah McAuley <judah@wiredotter.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- My intent isn't to chip away at anyone's rights. I, personally, appreciate the right to negotiate my own salary and benefits when and if I get a job working for someone else. Really, among the people who I know, successful and not, I don't know many people who are in unions. The few limited experiences I have had with unions include the seeing parents of many of my friends in elementary school walk the picket lines for Eastern Airlines till they drove the company entirely out of business and lost their jobs. Other experiences are associated with education related unions - one third of graduates of the college I attended became teachers. I've only seen very negative, wasteful, ridiculous results from union activity. I admit I am biased by my personal experiences. I'm really just interested in understanding why anyone in their right mind would even want to be in one, and why certain people are FORCED to be in one if they work in a union company. I understand the very reasonable origins of unions, but their current incarnation and the rules around them are very confusing to me. -Cameron ...

Eastern Airlines failed due to bad management - very, very bad management - who then blamed it on the unions.  The fact that so many years later you still think the unions killed the company shows how successful their propaganda was. On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Camer > Really, among the people who I know, successful and not, I don't know many > people who are in unions. The few limited experiences I have had with > unions include the seeing parents of many of my friends in elementary > school walk the picket lines for Eastern Airlines till they drove the > company entirely out of business and lost their jobs

> Eastern Airlines failed due to bad management - very, very bad > management - who then blamed it on the unions.  The fact that so > many years later you still think the unions killed the company shows > how successful their propaganda was. They had terrible management for sure, which contributed greatly to it's demise. But you can't ignore the extensive 18 month long strike by multiple unions simultaneously that made it impossible to operate the airline. Lorenzo and the unions were locked in a standoff that ultimately ended in the Airline going out of business. I would certainly assign a lot of responsibility to Lorenzo and other management, but the unions were very very far form innocent bystanders. As a side point - being in that union didn't really do anything for those employees but help them barely scrape by while they stood around for 18 months. Then they all lost their jobs. Not awesome. -Cameron ...

Here's an interesting read on the Wisconsin recall election and the fraud that ensued... This was an article that Richard Charnin wrote in May 2012: http://bit.ly/LlIuPb Here's the post recall blog post: http://bit.ly/MU9pp9 Something is rotten in Denmark folks...what is the chance that, with all the democrats and many independents, all fired up to get rid of his corrupt ass, that he would win with the exact same numbers as he did in 2010 when he was originally elected. Exit poll raw data shows that his challenger won. Something is not right. This is a phenomenon known as red shift. Mr. Charnin believes that the only reason Obama won is that they underestimated the margin that he won by and thus, despite Diebold's best efforts, Obama won anyway. After the debacle in Ohio, this is a very feasible hypothesis that should be investigated. Why is it that election machines are not monitored and programmed by a government official? Why is it that the company that does this was able to not send it the PROM chips that program the machines for inspection. Read the blogs and this article from addicting info: http://bit.ly/LageOX On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Camer > > This is all open to interpretation, obviously. I think there are some honest arguments against unionization. And the pro/con arguments for unions tend to vary a bit between public sector and private sector. I'm (mostly) pro-union but not rigid about it. Every single thing about the Walker campaign in Wisconsin, however, seems slimy, unethical and dishonest. What is the intellectually honest argument that they aren't trying to effectively kill collective bargaining? If you want to make the argument against the right to unionize period, ok. That's a debate. This shit though? I've yet to see anyone able to make a cogent argument for the items in the bill and have it amount to more than "We don't like unions and are trying to knee cap them". If we want to discuss optional membership in a union as opposed to mandatory membership, that's something I can really ponder. I've considered arguments on both sides and I'm still unsure, can't quite form a definitive position one way or another. The Wisconsin bill, however, doesn't have anything to do with this point. I also think that there are a lot of options for avoiding unionization on the part of employers. For instance, my sister and her husband both work for a local grocery store. They have 3 locations I believe. Grocery stores are, for the most part, unionized. Their isn't. The reason? Store owners have actively maintained a policy of keeping wages and benefits at or above comparable positions at other groceries in town. They haven't tried to fuck over workers. Employees, in return, have not unionized and have had pretty good relations (overall) with management. That, admittedly, is a bit harder in the public sector where you don't have the same competition, so you have to look at things a bit differently. None the less, Walker and his cronies were out to knee cap unions and undermine the very basis of collective bargaining while pretending to just want to stream line union processes. It was dishonest and dirty to the core. And they got away with it. While you make like the idea of doing away with unions, I think that if you really look at what they did and how they did it, you'll be holding your nose too. Their shit stinks plenty. Judah