Here’s a riddle: When does a good idea, first proposed by a liberal Democrat (Barney Frank) and enacted into law by an overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature suddenly become a very bad idea? If you only read newspaper headlines (or watch television interviews by legislative leaders), the answer is when that same good idea is proposed by a Republican.
In 1980, faced with the impending collapse of the MBTA where EVERYTHING was a subject of bargaining, then State Representative Barney Frank proposed and the Legislature enacted a Management Rights law for the MBTA which reserved basic tools of management to management and preserved the traditionally bargainable subjects of wages, hours and working conditions. According to the MBTA’s outside counsel, that law has saved the agency millions of dollars. At the same time, our MBTA workers are among the highest paid transit workers in the Nation with some of the best benefits, so clearly the Management Rights law hasn’t hurt working men and women while it has saved millions for taxpayers and fare payers.
I have proposed legislation to expand the MBTA Management Rights statute to all local and state employers in Massachusetts. While the Herald describes this as “taking a page from Wis Gov’s playbook” the fact is that I proposed this legislation a month ago and promised during my campaign last Summer that I would file it if elected. See: http://danwinslow.com/manageme… Unlike the Wisconsin proposal, the proposed Management Rights Law preserves traditional collective bargaining (yes, I support collective bargaining as the best way to invest employees in the solutions and mission of an organization) while allowing management to manage. It’s an idea that makes good sense and would help solve the budget crisis without killing human services or balancing the budget on the backs of cities and towns.
We’re in deep trouble in our state and we need all good ideas on the table. This one, with a genesis from the Democratic side of the aisle, would save hundreds of millions of dollars if the MBTA’s experience is any indication. And it does so while honoring and preserving the traditional values of collective bargaining, being respectful of and recognizing the value of our public sector workforce, and by giving local and state managers the tools and accountability to manage. Union busting? Not in my book.
Rather than cowering across state lines, the Wisconsin Democrats should be proposing a statewide Management Rights Law as a way forward for Wisconsin. It certainly is a way forward for Massachusetts. Now, what brave soul from the Left is willing to stand with me?
…that your first paragraph could be written in reverse and describe GOP attitudes toward Obama, right?
Again: don’t complain about being treated unfairly here.
Why justify my observation that you can be santimonious?
Look, over there! A republican did it too!
KB was just pointing out a double standard by the commenter.
I actually think PP’s comment was on the mark here. Christopher’s comment (while interesting and perfectly appropriate in my opinion!) was not, in fairness, addressed to the main substance of Rep. Winslow’s post.
<
p>David and Charley have often likened BMG to a dinner party, and I think there is a lot of truth to that, at least as an aspirational statement. As at a dinner party, tangential questions are worthy, and so are folks saying, let’s steer the conversation back to the point at hand.
<
p>Of course, at a dinner party, politics is supposedly a forbidden subject, so this is not a very ordinary party, to the extent it is one at all.
<
p>
Let’s make that metaphor a reality. How about a BMG dinner party, featuring provocative but thoughtful speakers from varying views, to engage in a roundtable discussion? I’d truly like to meet the posters on this blog and engage them in person if I can. Charge a fair fee to cover the cost of the dinner, with any proceeds to be donated to some nonpartisan cause such as disabled vets. Might need to keep the alcohol to a minimum however….
We’ll have to try to make that happen at some point.
This whole sub-conversation, as to whether Christopher’s comment was relevant or not and as to whether PP’s comment was fair or not, is beside the main point of this diary, and I’m a little sorry that we’ve gone off onto this huge tangent.
<
p>But, if we are going to wander off into meta, let me add, that as a dinner party guest, PP spends an awful lot of time complaining about the accommodations without, as here, being particularly ingratiating. Taking a break from a position as Officer in Chief of the Hypocrisy Patrol to tell someone his observation of hypocrisy is beside the point seems a bit, well, ironic, no?
This month any reference to “management rights” raises my eyebrows a bit.
As I have recently posted on these pages in another context, I condemn toxic partisanship whether from far Right or far Left, http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d… Barney Frank is one of the most liberal politicians in Massachusetts and I think he got it right in 1980 by introducing better balance in the labor management relationship. I realize that I’ll be personally attacked for raising this policy issue, but it’s a serious conversation we need to have and I answer to 41,000 people in the 9th Norfolk House district and no one else. So let’s have the discussion.
Or on seniority, experience, merit exams, or what? I think there should be exams for all stare and local employees, for both hiring and promotions. Also, since we’re taking health care off the barganing table (I guess), we should immediately elimate health insurance for the stare legislature and all executive-level state positions and managerial appointees. Save a few bucks there maybe.
The vast majority of state employees are ‘provisional’. They have the job until another exam is held, and then must pass it to keep the job. We could lose the vast majority of hack hires that really cannot do the job by holding an exam – and yet we don’t.
…that Representative Winslow’s proposed legislation (a copy of which, courtesy of his office, I have before me) is not something from the fevered brain of Scott Walker. While reserving the right to disagree after I do a serious mark-up, it seems pretty reasonable, based upon a preliminary read.
Public employees, and especially public employee unions, are the enemy! They are what is driving the deficit and running our economy into the ground! You cannot seriously support allowing public employees to bargain collectively with the very people they help put in office with their union muscle on election day!?
<
p>Or, at least, you cannot seriously support that and still expect the likes of Red Mass Group to continue supporting you.
Can you provide a link to where I can download your legislation – or could you send it to me. You have my email addresses. The advantage to a link, though, is a think several of my colleagues on this site would read it and then form and report their responses. Thank you for a sensible and useful post.
Here you go: http://www.malegislature.gov/B… There’s a typo in the title, which refers to management rights of “employees” when it should read “employers” but the text of the bill is accurate. It’s nearly identical to the MBTA Management Rights law that already is on the books.
Thanks for boosting this discussion David. Not most public employees I know or have had the privilege of working with. Some of the most dedicated, hard working and talented people I’ve ever worked with have been local or state public employees. That’s why it’s important to keep the conversation respectful and focused on the important policy discussion at hand.
<
p>I’m fine with unions. They do what unions do and they’re obliged to their members to provide such representation. I’ve collectively bargained with public sector unions and I know the value of vigorous negotiation that results in a contract. Where we suffer in the public sector in Massachusetts is from lack of the countervailing balance of a strong, empowered management.
<
p>The recent Herald story on parking lot attendants at MassPort is a good example. The job of parking lot attendant pays about $54,000 yearly (I’ll refrain from asking why we pay teachers so little by comparison), but with overtime the highest paid parking lot attendants at MassPort make over $100,000, http://bostonherald.com/news/r… With unemployment pushing 9% or more of our citizens, wouldn’t it make more sense to give an unemployed person a part-time job at 50% savings per hour compared to overtime pay? Management at the MBTA can do that. MassPort cannot. Nor can other local or state agencies. The basic tools of good management should be reserved to management for the benefit of the taxpayers. That’s not an attack on public employees by any stretch, since the traditionally bargained topics of wages, hours and working conditions would be preserved under the proposed Management Rights Law.
<
p>It’s easy to write off a good idea as “union bashing” or to dismiss me for raising the proposal a month ago, but I hope we get a chance to debate this proposal in the House. And if the existing Management Rights Law is not extended to other local and state governments, I’ll be interested to see other legislators’ proposals to save hundreds of millions of dollars in the state and local budgets to avoid cutting core services to people truly in need.
Meaning that management would be able to cease paying any portion of health insurance premiums, unilaterally, and probably without a commensurate increase in wages?
But wages would still be negotiable and negotiated. The fact is that public employers would need to provide the market value of benefits if they hope to be competitive for good talent. Hey, give me credit on this one–Deval wants to take health care off the table all the while telling you he’s for collective bargaining 100%.
I wonder whether we’ll ever really get insurance premiums “under control” for everyone, or if we’ll just keep debating how to spread the misery to as many workers as possible. If municipal and state budgets are being busted by exploding premiums, it seems that eliminating health insurance subsidies is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying disease.
But, like I say below, if you’re going to do this to union workers you should take away the legislature’s (City Councilors’, Congresspeople’s, etc) health insurance first, to be fair. Also, take that perk away from commissioners and department heads. Spread the misery upward a bit, if that is indeed the game.
I have some experience with the public sector unions in MA and I recognize many of the concerns. I think the issues of salaries and benefits are totally overstated, but there are very serious issues around discipline and termination. It is too hard to get rid of bad people. I think this is particularly important for teachers. With teachers, I think one of the worst things we can do is keep poor teachers in front of classes. They all should be paid much more than they are, but bad ones should definitely be fired. (How we rate teachers is another discussion, and I wouldn’t endorse purely objective factors like MCAS scores.)
<
p>Presenting it like you did with your first paragraph, however, isn’t going to win you many liberal supporters. It really hits a nerve with liberals when we see Republicans calling Obama’s health care plan not only a bad idea, but an unconstitutional government takeover of health care. It was a Republican idea, afterall. If you really care about reducing toxic partisanship, you might want to cut out those digs at the other side.
Thanks DM.
A good idea proposed by a Liberal Democrat is still a good idea if proposed by a Republican…as you point out, Gov Walker IS NOT proposing what Barney Frank proposed.
<
p>Here’e another riddle: How does a fiscal crisis explode on to the scene, even when all financial concessions are met to avert the crisis? Answer: When the “financial crisis” is really an excuse to stripe away the fundamental right of workers to bargain collectively and to break the unions.
<
p>Even here’s even another riddle: What determines which unions should lose their collective bargaining rights? Answer: By who they supported in the last Governor’s election!
Dan,
<
p>Thanks for looking to what has worked in the past and seeing how it can be adopted to meet current requirements regardless of which party had originally proposed it. I continue to maintain that good ideas do and can come from all sides of an issue and that neither Party has a monopoly on the solutions to the ills that confront our Commonwealth and nation. I like how you propose something, follow through and engage all sides on the issue in what has been a respectful and open matter.
<
p>I also applaud David and the other editors for their front paging of this diary/post and their engagement with you. The editors at BMG have continued to show their willingness to engage in serious and respectful debate of issues facing us all. I may not agree with them, but they are respectful in their approach and that is most welcome. Even more important, when they see a good idea they point it out regardless of from whom it comes. We need more, not less, of this dialogue.
<
p>Dan, I look forward to your legislation receiving a full and fair hearing as it is a necessary change needed in MA and USA. Collective bargaining is an important part of the management – employee relationship we need to work to ensure its existence while working to provide means to better manage in our current economic situation. We all have to sacrifice, putting the “blame” on any one group or organization will not help us move forward, let’s get back to the table and work together on our issues.
that doesn’t require the rich to make any sacrifices. We should definitely cut services for the poor, bust the public sector unions, and slaughter Big Bird- just keep your dirty hands off my hundred billion- I stepped on a lot of people to earn that money.
What are these basic tools?
* Are health care benefits a basic tool of management and not subject to negotiation under your bill?
* Are pensions a basic tool of management and not subject to negotiation under your bill?
* Are vacation and sick days a basic tool of management and not subject to negotiation under your bill?
* Is replacing 10 full time workers with 25 part time workers a basic tool of management and not subject to negotiation under your bill?
* Is laying off the more highly paid workers and replacing them with younger, less expensive workers [if nothing else, the insurance is cheaper] a basic tool of management and not subject to negotiation under your bill?
<
p>
<
p>You kind of glossed over the things you’d remove from the bargaining table, mentioning only three specific things you’d keep [wages, hours, working conditions]. I’d like you to list the things that unions currently have the right to negotiate that they’d lose under your bill.
That is already expressly mentioned as a subject for collective bargaining under the current law, which requires negotiation
<
p>
<
p>So, would class size issues continue to be a working condition subject to negotiation or a basic tool of management “to plan and determine the levels of service provided by the employer,” as Rep. Winslow’s bill provides?
<
p>Rep. Winslow’s goal of changing the status quo requires repealing or amending aspects of the current law (rather than simply adding a new section to the law and then leaving it up to the courts to figure out what the Legislature means). Spelling all that out would help us with Stomv’s excellent questions.
<
p>To quote a law professor of mine, let’s hear it for semantic hygiene.
<
p>
If the money isn’t there to hire enough teachers to get class sizes down, there are going to be larger classes. Or is the idea that other concessions would be made to accomodate teachers if class size cannot be worked out?
I asked something about health insurance above, and still haven’t heard back from Representative Winslow- granted, it is Sunday.
If this measure would indeed allow managment to somehow circumvent negotiations about benefits, it is a perhaps less innocuous than many here seem to have originally assumed.
Stormv. As usual, you make excellent points. Yes, yes, yes, no, no. Workers cannot be terminated except for good cause under this proposal. So it’s a canard (I’ve always wanted to use that word in a blog) to suggest that part-time workers would replace full-time workers. Instead, part-time workers would replace overtime which will save millions of dollars yearly while still paying full-time employees their negotiated wages. And it would put people (many of whom have been jobless for a year or two or longer) to work. A good thing, no? I’ll be on air with Jim Braude and Margery Egan on Monday morning drivetime (I think 8:20 a.m. on 96.9, WTKK) so please call in and let’s continue the discussion in more detail.
Late Sunday night invitations to Monday morning radio don’t work so well for me.
<
p>I’m a bit frustrated — I asked a specific question (which got seven excellent ratings), and instead of an answer I got an invitation to a radio conversation, which is a terrible place to have a good discussion about this stuff IMO.
<
p>Sir, I appreciate that you use BMG as more than a press release dumping ground, but please answer the question.
It’s yes, yes, yes, no, no in response to each of your questions.
In that case I oppose your bill. Easy enough.
<
p>But, you still didn’t actually answer my [big] question. You seem to be a bit cagey. Instead of responding to my specific examples, please simply
<
p>
Economic balance occurs through many diverse means and methods. Natural or man-made disasters can shift economic balance; policies and regulation/de-regulation, war and peace all have impacts.
<
p>Recession is an opportunity to put “sacred cows” on the table for re-evaluation but not necessarily wholesale butchering. I come from the left and reach over to the right to build consensus when the idea/proposal merits appealing to those differently winged.
<
p>It is good to see you here reaching, “across the aisle” to explore ways to conserve tax revenues. The savings are needed to fully fund other programs and services. And that is why Progressive Democrats should be engaged in streamlining government services and implementing greater efficiencies.
<
p>I suspect DW’s motive may not be to shift savings to other programs like I would like to see, but to reduce and eliminate the tax revenue supporting the current systems.
<
p>There are those to the right that want to carve gaping holes in the fabric of our society with fiscal Hara-kiri and those to the left who refuse to look at any reductions even when told that the status quo is unsustainable.
<
p>Most folks are trying to find balance and sanity in a very troubled economic era. So, let’s put it on the table for review just like we (at least Deval Patrick and I) embraced the Salem State college professor’s proposals touted by the Pioneer Institute and Kerry Healey for pension reform.
<
p>
convened for a bailout? A little bit of a different situation here Dan. Apples meet oranges. You can’t just throw Barney Frank’s name and start blaming everyone. I find it odd that you are the one that keeps on push party and blaming everyone else for doing the it.
<
p>So why don’t you tell us why management rights later stripped away in your example of the MBTA.
<
p>Please don’t say the evil liberals did it.
when this bill was passed. It’s still a fiscal mess, and that’s with much higher fares.
That makes me suspect that whatever else this current bill does, it won’t solve our fiscal crisis, short term or long term. It won’t keep our taxes low, either.
The mess at the MBTA was and is caused by the intentional decision to gut its funding. The MBTA could have perfect and flawless management — then and now — and it would still be collapsing. The best management and labor practices in the world cannot solve the problems created by refusing to fund the investments in infrastructure, maintenance, and operating expenses needed to provide the public transportation required by Massachusetts in the twenty-first century.
<
p>Similarly, our fiscal crisis is not caused by labor costs. It just isn’t. In the immediate post-WWII era, we built a thriving economy based on consumer spending. Beginning in with the Reagan administration, we sucked the wealth out of the consumers who sustain that consumer economy. Today’s loud arguments about how we distribute the pittance that is left for the bottom 99.9% of today’s Americans after the top 0.1% have sucked everybody dry is, literally, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
<
p>It does, however, rile up the masses and provide yet another distraction to keep attention away from the real problem.
<
p>This may be a good bill. I’m as disgusted by public-sector abuses of taxpayer money as anybody else.
<
p>Nevertheless, it not only does not address the far more urgent needs that we face, but in fact hurts the effort to do that by siphoning away the political energy needed by all sides to solve the real and enormous problems we face.
cease from romanticizing the post-war period. Perhaps you grew up in a bourgeois home in Maryland but my family, and most people in our neighborhood didn’t have a pot to piss in until the mid to late fifties. I remember what a big deal it was in 1951 or so when one of our neighbors actually bought a car and everyone who lived on the street came running out to see it. One neighbor had a tv set and invited us to see Milton Berle on Tuesday nights. Enough with this “thriving economy of the fifties” bullshit; maybe for the upper middle class it was, but for the working class it was nowhere near as rosy as you make it out to be.
I grew up in a working-class home that sounds similar to what you describe. One bathroom. No basement. Three bedrooms, one tiny kitchen. My parents paid $6,000 for their house in 1951, it was a LOT of money to them. They were still paying that mortgage when they bought a larger home in 1967 after my mother received her professional credentials. I remember our first TV, in 1956. Nobody I knew had color TV until the sixties. We, and everybody we knew, had one car (in our case a 1951 Chevy Bel-air, followed by a 1957 Chevy Bel-air, followed by a 1963 Plymouth Valiant) and considered ourselves fortunate to have it.
<
p>Let me offer a different measure. How did the average worker of 1951 fare compared to that worker’s counterpart in, say, 1936. How many hours did the average worker of 1951 have to labor to pay his or her monthly nut (either rent or mortgage), compared to fifteen years earlier? Was the public education available to the children of that worker better or worse than their counterparts fifteen years earlier? What portion of young married working-class couples were able to buy their own homes in 1951 compared to 1936? What portion of those who wanted full-time work for a livable wage in 1951 were able to find it, compared to 1936?
<
p>Now ask similar questions about today’s average working-class family, compared to 1996. Even more dramatically, compare opportunities open to today’s average working-class family with those available to their counterparts in, say, 1978.
<
p>Massachusetts desperately needs to invest in public transportation. Massachusetts and America desperately needs to recapture a portion of the wealth currently being hoarded by the top 0.1% (by wealth) and get it back into the hands of consumers.
And how many houses built in the last 30-40 years have only 1 bathroom and two or three bedrooms with a small kitchen? And we haven’t even mentioned all the expensive technology gadgets which have become de rigueur today.
Compare today with the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s and you have a much better point to make. Some of you are trying to make a case that since tax rates were higher on the wealthy back in the 50’s and times were better than now,ergo, we should raise taxes on the wealthy. The facts about how we lived in the 50’s show otherwise.
You wrote:
<
p>I wrote:
<
p>I argue that wealth concentration at the very top of the wealth distribution is much more pronounced today than it was during the fifties, sixties, and seventies, and I assert that our consumer economy is suffering as a result.
<
p>I think we are saying the same thing.
part of the impetus we need to get the economy going again. Let’s not make the mistake of the Republicans by assuming that removing one scapegoat (for them it is collective bargaining) will solve fiscal problems.
Edgar, I have written in numerous comments here that I oppose a graduated income tax rate.
<
p>I have not chosen the wealthiest 0.1% as a “scapegoat”. Instead, I suggest that the most urgent problem that we face today is excessive concentration of wealth at the very top of the wealth distribution. The only way to solve that problem is to transfer a portion of that wealth back into the consumer economy.
<
p>In my view an important distinction between the Republican focus on collective bargaining and mine on excessive wealth concentration is that the former is unrelated to the current fiscal crisis, while the latter is its root cause.
Dan, the problem with that is the lack of any likelihood that Walker would have any interest. He wants to gut collective bargaining completely; nothing less will satisfy the special interests to whom he is playing. A moderate proposal like yours, while a useful subject of discussion in a reasonable state like Massachusetts, would be a non-starter in WI these days.
<
p>And I’m pretty sure you know that. So while I appreciate your putting this proposal on the table, your unnecessary digs at Democrats (here and elsewhere) are counterproductive and tend to undercut your professed desire for actual dialogue.
David. Aside from brotherly needling, what digs have I taken at my friends across the aisle? If I’ve offended, my sincere apologies since I mean never to detract from the merits of the debate. This is a fantastic discussion on an important policy issue and my thanks to you, Bob and Charley for hosting it. Moveon.org called me out by name during Saturday’s protest so I’m happy to engage the discussion, but it’s too difficult to respond to each post. Instead, I welcome any and all to call in on Monday morning at 8:20ish am to the Jim and Margery show on 96.9 and we can discuss it on air directly.
<
p>”Cowering” is an insulting word and seems to have been intended as such. I found the usage distasteful, particularly when – as I explained above – your proffered alternative to said “cowering” was not a sensible one.
<
p>That said, I’m wholeheartedly in support of your “dinner party” idea expressed elsewhere on this thread. Let’s think more about how to make that happen.
…for this guy to get attention. Because Wall Street caused a fiscal crisis…and states lose revenue…we have to take away the human rights of state workers. This makes alot of sense (snark). In Mass there is no collective bargaining for health care or pensions at the state level. At the local level their is for health care but not pensions. The state lost 12% of its revenue in one year because of Republican financial mismanagement. Thanks but no thanks Winslow.
it’s obvious that the level of trust between progressives and “allegedly friendly” conservatives is pretty damned low. Winslow’s level of specificity is, for me, telling. Should management have some rights? Sure. The two sides approach the table as equals…so goes the theory. But I fail to see what rights they lack at this point, and Winslow ain’t tellin’ so far.
I’ve been “in the biz” for a very long time; and removing poor teachers is almost always a case of malfeasance…or non-feasance…on the part of management, coupled with incessant whining about “how hard it is.”
A good, talented, persistent, and caring administrator is worth his or her weight in gold…and scarcer than hen’s teeth. Howzat for mixing metaphors?
For schools, included we must presume, he wants to
Appoint and employ employees and to determine the standards for employment, including confirming fitness for duty;
They already have this power.
Fire employees for good cause, subject only to grievance arbitration, or no cause in the event of insufficient appropriation;
They already have this power, although the standard is just cause. Why weaken that?
Plan and determine the level of service required to be provided by the agency;
For schools they already have that.
Direct, supervise, plan, control and evaluate the agency’s programs;
For schools they have that power, though it is more honored in the breach–but whose fault is THAT?
To create job classifications and determine the duties and standards of productivity for each classification;
For schools, they already can do this. If they want them CHANGED, they have to come to impact bargain it…with them in control.
To determine and develop levels of staffing and training, subject only to grievances based on employee safety;
Already an unfettered management right for schools, except for class size provisions, presnt in some (not all contracts); but those are as much student-protecting as anything.
Determine whether goods and services should be purchased or leased, on a temporary or permanent basis;
For schools, already there.
Assign and apportion overtime;
Overtime? don’t make me laugh.
Hire part-time employees;
Should ALWAYS be subject to union-busting prevention language. Therefore, SHOULD be bargained.
Exclude overtime pay from pension calculations;
Overtime? Don’t make me…oh…I already said that.
Excluding automatic cost of living indexes.
For schools, I have never heard of this.
<
p>He’d have to accept changes before I could accept this; but they are possible.
The devil is in the details, and as Pablo points out, the inoffensive-sounding generalities of the management rights enumerated on Rep. Winslow’s site offer plenty of room for the diabolic. With that said, Mr. Winslow’s tone is commendable: reasonable and arguable (Qualities all too frequently absent from the national GOP).
<
p>It’s kind of funny that “management rights” need to be put into statutes. They are typically part of a contract. This union says a clause delineating management rights is usually part of every contract. An example of such rights are stated in the University of Washington/UAW employee contract. “Management rights,” according to the Center for Labor Education and Research, “usually include decisions such as corporate structure, production levels, and plant size. What is and what is not a ‘management right’ is negotiable, and may be defined in the contract.”
<
p>Rep. Winslow’s usage of the term “management rights may have some unintended propaganda value, suggesting that unions have rights, which management lack. But management has at least as many rights as employees. Last time I looked, collective bargaining takes place between two sides. It’s called bargaining for a reason–both sides “bargain.” Unions exist simply to equalize the power between employees and employers.
<
p>In spite of Rep. Winslow’s reasonableness, his bill for management rights is basically an attempt to increase the power of management at the expense of labor.
Long gone are the days of private sector employer/union employee cooperation. When there were troubled times, instead of working together, each side blamed each other. The proof is in the pudding and the actions by our corporate heads during the meltdown three years ago show us that even when times are tough and everything is collapsing, the powerful take theirs and the rest of us fight for whats left. I have been both management and union so have seen both sides and I can see how long mistrust has been bred.
<
p>I find it hard to believe that Mr. Winslows employer…not us the public, but Mr. Brown and Mr. Romney fought SO HARD against financial reform legislation designed to protect us, the average worker…yet now he supports efforts to regulate collective bargaining as a shot at the worker. It’s lip service frankly. We don’t need regulation to improve the system, we need cooperation.
<
p>Not the kind that resulted in 1998 when in exchange for a Cellucci Gov endorsement a 21.7% pay increase over 5 years was granted to the MBTA union segments…by the way most of the mgmt rights changes are now gone at the MBTA. We need the cooperation that occurs between local govt and labor unions where we sit down and discuss why changes are both good for them and the employer. It happens but not enough. Can’t blame just the employee unions for this but everyone is to blame.
<
p>So lets stop the charade. Most of this proposed statute already exist in contracts and as an employer I can hire part timers, or contract out and we are now limiting cost of living, but its done in the open not forced. Is it easy? No. But it can be done. Lets have true comprehensive reform that is two sided. Not this farce. If it was so good when Frank did it, it would still be working.
<
p>This is just an attempt by Winslow to continue to try and make a name for himself as he prepares to run for Governor. I can’t wait..there is so much more that you will all want to know about him!
” the Wisconsin Democrats should be proposing a statewide Management Rights Law as a way forward for Wisconsin.”
<
p>Would you also call Senate Republicans cowards for exercising their veto power? Was Abe Lincoln a coward for doing the same thing when he was in the Illinois legislature?
<
p>Do you expect to draw support by attacking legislators who we believe to be doing the right thing?
<
p>As to the specifics of the proposal – non-supervisory employees have seen their power erode rapidly in the last 31 years. It’s not a coincidence that what a family could afford on one typical salary in the 1970s can hardly be had with two salaries today.
<
p>It may be a good proposal, I don’t know: It’s difficult for me to see all of the ramifications, I’ll leave that to people smarter than me. However, I think it’s clear that what’s most important is to start returning to those policies that made all Americans prosperous from 1933-1980, rather than thinking about new ways to move a little further to the right.
Republicans are using it because it is one of those nasty words on the list that Newt Gingrich gave out in 1993. Part of their perpetual PR campaign.
<
p>Leaving the state is a bargaining tactic. It has nothing to do with bravery.
That was the point I was trying to make, perhaps not artfully.
That seems a weak element of your argument. Why should we want the entire commonwealth to emulate the MBTA.
<
p>This seems like a solution in search of a problem. I think a stronger argument would be: here is specific problem A. My bill will solve this with specific solution B. So, along those lines, do you have any specifics to support your general arguments? For example, you wrote that this measure “would help solve the budget crisis.” By how much? What is your basis for saying that, beyond a loose comparison to unspecified MBTA savings.
<
p>As to snark, I agree with David: comparing Massachusetts legislators to Wisconsin Democrats “cowering across state lines” does nothing for your position. First, they are not cowering, they are upholding the quorum requirements in the state constitution. Surely you support the principle of constitutional government? Second, and more importantly, the Republican governor has poked two stiff fingers in the eyes of everyone in the state who disagrees with his radical “rogue” agenda: he won’t even discuss a compromise, according to news reports. So I your idea that comparable legislation would solve the WI crisis comes across as uninformed or insincere. It surely is not either — I’m just talking about appearances — but it doesn’t help your cause.
As an aside…Before the changes were reversed during the 90’s, one study said it saved 15 mill another said more. Not downplaying the changes but lets face it, it was a wage freeze action…then the Cellucci deal. Only the part time provision remains now. Lets face it, the system ran much better prior to republicans taking over in the 90’s because you had a governor who was committed to transportation. The 2000 forward funding changes killed any ability to fix problems.
<
p>With all due respect to my political hero Barney Frank I don’t consider this a good idea. That’s what’s good about us liberals: we can disagree with each other.
<
p>To the extent that management lacks ‘rights’ it is due to a deliberate and well chronicled history of abusing them.
<
p>The premise of this seems to be that management and labor are equals and the countervailing force of government regulation is here only to see that each side ‘gets it’s fair share’. But management and labor are not equals and the sole and only purpose of labor laws is to ensure that labor is neither exploited nor abused by management. There’s nothing in it for management save continuing to exist in the good graces of the law.
<
p>The counterargument that has been made to me in the past is that labor has itself abused their position and needs now to be ‘reigned in’. I don’t buy this for even a nano-second. The notion that unions ‘coddle’ bad workers (teachers union) has never been put to the test. I want numbers. Solid facts that prove or disprove this thesis. The only other serious charge I’ve ever heard is that the pay and pensions they’ve negotiated are too ‘generous’… though none ever so ‘generous’ as those which CEOs and upper management give themselves… But what it really comes down to, time and again, is that those same CEO’s simply want more direct and unchallenged control of their workforce. They can’t have it. They don’t deserve it. And we’ve seen what happens when they did have it. We’re not going back there.
<
p>
<
p>The long declining share of unions as a slice of the economic pie mitigates against labor being a cause of the ‘deep trouble’… If you ask me, and I kinda think you did, more and stronger unions would benefit the economy as a whole, as it did when unions were, well, more and stronger…
<
p>