It wasn’t that long ago in this country that the thoughts of cutting back on entitlements and “anything” regarding union benefits was off limits. But the incredible surge of energy and popular movements like the Tea Party and the courageous moves by leaders like Gov Scott Walker, Gov Mitch Daniels have shown regular people that we do have power.
Talks about entitlement reform, pension reform, state workers benefit reform… were next to impossible, but we have seen the shift from “NO reform” to a negotiation of “how much reform”. Still not everything I would like to see (pensions based on last three years of employment… WTF???) but still it is progress. There will be window dressing reforms like our Gov’s Flagman/Police detail sham, but there has also been some real reform in state’s which are true two party states.
But this story may mean there’s a chink in the armor here in MA…
Unions won’t oppose teacher-seniority measure
Seniority’s role would be cut
The American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts scrapped plans to fight legislation that would reduce the role of seniority in teacher staffing decisions and instead will remain neutral on the issue, the state’s second-largest teachers union announced Wednesday.
I’m sure there is still a large group of politicians in the pockets of Labor, but maybe they are hearing the loud voices of many citizens who are tired of the out of date excuses of why some dogma of the past (teacher seniority) is not valid anymore. Maybe we can see some changes that truly would have impact since teaching our children is the goal of education, right… as opposed to not upsetting the applecart of union teachers. I would guess that if we could give some teachers who blog on this site some “truth serum” and asked about some of the more “senior” teachers, they would point to many who should be dropped in favor of some younger, energetic, brilliant superstars.
Scott Walker is the latest leader who has created an environment where citizens can expect results or make changes and not be stuck with what they inherited. He’s given people more power and they reconfirmed their original vote for him which I think shows they support his methods and direction. Another great move by him is allowing teachers and other union members to NOT pay union dues instead of the unAmerican rules we have now which forces teachers to pay the dues whether they like it or not (how can Liberals support such a rule?).
I hope this US and MA trend continues through 2012 and beyond…
Personally, I’d like to get back to when it was more obvious that “the unions” and “the people” are largely the same, or could be. Union members teach our kids, put out our fires, keep us safe, build and fix our homes, build and fix our highways. They are our neighbors. Unions brought you a 5-day/40-hour week, minimum wage, workplace safety, paid vacations and sick time, though we are still behind many other nations in those measures.
Time to come clean, johnd, why do you hate unions so viscerally? Have you spent all your life in management having to deal with an uncooperative union? Did you get beat up by an alleged “union thug”? Unless you are the 1% you should be pushing for all those who are employed to be brought up to union standards rather than tear unions down. Even if you are 1% it’s possible to have a social conscience about these things too!
The top 1% of the middle class are public sector unions with their obscene benefits. You ask to those in NJ to contribute just 1% toward health insurance, and you would think Chris Christie was asking for their first born.
It is not hate to point out the excesses, especially when everyone else is belt-tightening. Too many cases, unions prefer layoffs to modest concessions. They remind me of pro athletes crying over contracts that hardly any of us can comprehend.
Scott Walker is someone to admire b/c he touched the third rail of politics, but it was Gov. Christie who led the charge.
Check the news out of Illinois. Dems asking retiree’s to contribute toward their health care, to show some mercy to the taxpayers. Surprise, surprise, the unions are crying.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-quinn-signs-bill-requiring-retirees-to-pay-part-of-health-insurance-20120621,0,2875681.story
If you want to gripe about the whining coming from athletes who only provide entertainment, make multimillion dollar contracts, and don’t need an education to do it, I’m right there with you. Teachers, firefighters, and cops mostly make five-figures and should not make less than the high end of that given their value to society, which is much higher than the aforementioned pro-athletes. Of course, we should go to single-payer health IMO and make that particular negotiation point moot.
I Agee with single payer, but we r off topic.
Why is it when a FD or police officer position opens up, thousands apply for it? Because of the Bennies!! All I am saying is let ‘s get real, pay what the market demands.
I compare the whining of unions to pro athletes and yes, the are similar, and u know it.
Did 900 people flock to apply for 21 call center jobs paying $38< to $40K because of the "bennies"? Hundreds apply for part-time jobs at Marshalls paying $8/hour without benefits? Hundreds line up for temporary jobs at a cannery paying $10 to $17/hour?
I agree some pension rules need reform. But I’m also curious what you think the “market demands” for a job where you’re asked to give up your life to protect others. I know two people who lost loved ones, firefighters, on the job (one on 9/11, the other in the Verdome fire in ’72 that was commemorated last weekend). And frankly, I think people who do those jobs deserve to be earning more than minimum wage.
Who says pay minimum wage? I know in Boston, many fire fighters do shift swaps and never make up the time, they get paid, but likely pay their partner cash,under the table. They do this to do second jobs, usually painting, etc, and under bid the other contractors, because they don’t need to buy health insurance, they get it thru the Boston FD. End the abuses and excesses.
We agree on the need to end abuses. I’m a taxpayer in the private sector, I don’t feel like funding pensions where people get to retire at 55 and pull down six-figure retirements based on the last few years and overtime. However, I think abuses need to ended in the private sector as well as the public sector. Speaking of soldiers, how come private contractors get paid so much more than our own soldiers? PBS reported that private contractors in Iraq typically received $400 to $600/day and those working for Blackwater were pulling down up to $1,000/day. I don’t know what they’re earning in Afghanistan but I don’t hear a lot of screaming about that.
The difference here is that I don’t know anyone personally, regardless of political party, who supports public pension abuse. But I do know people who refused to criticize what Bush was spending in Iraq.
But I digress; back to the comment thread. I take exception to the implication that ‘thousands’ are applying for police and fire jobs because they’re so unbelievably cushy for everyone. I think a lot of people are applying for jobs anywhere, and of course any job that pays a living wage is going to attract lots of applicants. But there’s a lot of room between “decent wage” and “extravagant.”
I tell ya, when I wrote to the guy running for state senate or something, I asked if he supported capping pensions at 75k and taxing any pension grater than 50k at the MA income tax rate, since they pay zilch, even those over 100k. I couldn’t get one person to agree with me!!!! Not one, until you came along and agree that major reforms are needed. Actually, the candidate avoided my questions like the plague.
I do believe, for the most part, those jobs are coveted b/c of the bennies like retire at 55 with 80% pension and health care retiree benefit, and you have a secure job, that is for sure. But all public and state employees get these bennies, as you must know, which are no longer offered in the private sector. And u know what some say to me? Form a union at work!! Ya, where I come from, your job can be moved to Pheonix, Atlanta, or overseas with a click of a mouse. They don’t live in reality, some of the people here. Then they call me names, meanie, etc. Keep in touch
Just about ANY worker who gets minimum wage (or close to it) works a second job. Many workers stay in jobs they hate in order to maintain health insurance for their spouse and family.
The out-of-control spiral of health care costs, and how we get them under control, is a central issue of this election — it is hardly “off topic”. I, and most of the participants here, enthusiastically agree that we should end the “abuses and excesses” of public employees. Destroying health insurance and retirement benefits for public service employees will only further damage the already dangerously weak government services that all of us need — this is another goal of the relentless assault of the wealthy predators that own the GOP.
The assault on workers (public and private) is the centerpiece of the GOP campaign. No sane and informed worker who understands what unions have done for workers and what the wealthy predators who champion the effort to destroy unions have done to workers can support the GOP attacks on unions.
Regarding your question about what we should pay soldiers, my own opinion is that we should reinstate compulsory national service and jettison the entire concept of our current mercenary military.
Large corporate donors and the super wealthy have been waging a nonstop war against Unions for decades. Why? Because once Unions are finally crushed they can bask in the glow of a one party state. Unions provide much of the donations and nearly all of the foot soldiers for Democratic political campaigns. As go the Unions so go the Democratic Party. This is an iron law and as of the foreseeable future I do not see a way for the Democrats to change this paradigm. The campaign has been waged so thoroughly and completely that it is now common place for people to complain about over paid teachers and fire fighters. That is so far from reality and how the world actually works that it boggles the mind.
While certainly establishment Democrats share a lot of blame for running away from their supporters we can never forget what we are up against and who the true foe is. Those that want to destroy the working class labor values and belief system that pulled us up from the depression, created the wealthiest middle class in the history of the world, developed a top rate public school system, and of course provided those that teach our children, protect our streets and pulled our elderly from burning buildings with a secure and prosperous life.
…and no I am not a member of a Union unfortunately I am just a reality based realist that is tired of watching a select few destroy the lives not only of Union members but of working people everywhere.
The unions that built America were the ones in the private sector. They were the ones who needed the help in the 90’s and their only friends were Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot and Dick Gephardt. Funny thing, Rick Santorum voted against NAFTA. So when they were evicerated by Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, the public sector was next. Oh, Barney Frank voted against the free trade deals too, so kudos to him.
Republicans in the House voted for NAFTA 132-43. Democrats opposed it, 102-156 (details), including Olver and Moakley as well as Frank. Torkildsen, a Republican, voted for it. But yes, both Mass. Democratic Senators supported it.
So with a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and Dem-Clinton in the White House, do you place more or less blame on the Republicans? Just curious. Do you even care b/c I heard not a wimp from public unions when all this went down, just Perot and Buchanan.
I wish there had been more safeguards about worker standards in NAFTA, but I’m not really sure that protectionism is going to work all that well or is even in our overall best interests. It’s a pretty complex issue and I see both sides of it.
I see your point about the public unions not trying to protect other union jobs, although I don’t remember any more who was actively opposing it and who wasn’t.
Perot debated Gore on Larry King in 1993 and do u know who Gore referenced in the debate? Yep, Rush Limbaugh, who supported Nafta too. Buchanan ran in 92 and 96 against the trade deals, I guess you didn’t bother to listen.
1. You didn’t answer my question who do you blame more for NAFTA.
2. If you don’t feel it necessary to protect private sector unions, then I guess the same goes for public sector unions as well…..break them up….just sayin.
I’m not sure how I feel about NAFTA. Which was my way of saying I’m not sure I would assign “blame” to something I’m not sure I oppose.
I don’t consider myself to be extremely dogmatic, despite some of my passionate posts here. I believe it’s possible for taxes to be too high as well as taxes to be too low. I believe it’s possible for government spending to be too high as well as government spending to be too low. And I believe it’s possible to have too many regulations as well as possible to have too few regulations. The wise person tries to find the sweet spots here.
Unfortunately, political discourse has moved too far to the right in this country. Taxes and government are not inherently bad any more than banks are inherently bad. Good government is good, bad government is bad. Well-run, well-regulated banks are good. Deregulated financial institutions taking wild risks with my money and giving me crappy returns while giving their executives enormous salaries are bad.
I believe strongly in capitalism and the free markets, but I also believe that markets need some regulation and that capitalism is best where markets have certain conditions: transparency and consumer choice among them, as well as possibly ease of entry, among other things. It’s why I believe fervently in the free market for things like Internet commerce but don’t for things like local hospitals and prisons.
I’m not sure where NAFTA fits into my view of things. I don’t consider myself a knee-jerk supporter of all unions everywhere. I’ve never been in a union and have never sought to join one. I’m well aware that some bad union rules have sometimes made for inflexible workplaces. I’m also well aware that there are some bad employers who abuse workers. The wise person tries to balance the needs of employers to have flexible workplaces and control costs with the needs of workers to have a living wage and decent working conditions and in the case of the private sector have a reasonable share of profits when times are good instead of seeing almost all the rewards of productivity gains the past 20 years go into the hands of a few.
Going back to your original post, I think Scott Walker went way too far in stripping public workers of the right to collective bargaining, given that the public employees were already willing to agree to his financial concessions.
Who is primarily responsible for NAFTA and GATT passing, Dems or Reps?
While I appreciate your thoughtful post, it is like pulling teeth to get answers to simple questions. I get the five D’s-dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge (line from Dodge Ball).
See, I think Walker didn’t go far enough, he should have included cops and fire fighters in the reforms as well.
beyond the Clinton administration. Which particular legislators? I don’t know; despite Clinton’s support, Democrats in Congress opposed it while Republicans supported it. And honestly I don’t care enough to go deeply research lobbying efforts from two decades ago.
Then you were not listening dan. Public Unions did not support NAFTA and Clinton was warned repeatedly he was pissing off the people that elected him. The Liberal establishment has betrayed working people many, many times but you are wearing blinders dan…why mention that Perot and Buchanan opposed NAFTA and not bring up the fact that Jesse Jackson, Chomsky, and yes public and private Unions opposed NAFTA overwhelmingly. The idea that we abandon a nearly century old movement within the Democratic Party to follow….who? Santorum who would not support a minimum wage law, equal pay laws and would do all he can to weaken Unions even further. The Democratic Party is still worth saving while the Republican Party does the bidding of the plutocrats.
Obama needs to be reelected, Brown needs to go down and the real work needs to begin. That is just how politics works. There is no way around it.
I mention Buchanan and Perot b/c they, in fact, RAN FOR POTUS in 92 and 96, when this all went down.
If what you say is true, then why didn’t the powerful public unions run a candidate against Clinton in 96 or Ted Kennedy in 94 or John Kerry in 96?those three are the biggest sell-outs of hard working men and women. I gladly mention Buchanan because at least he had the guts to run against a sitting Prez with a 90% approval rating at one time. You just say, well, Dems are less damaging than Republicans horse-dung. The public unions fell in line, like good little children, and that makes me want to puke!
elections are simply not the best place to START a popular movement. That is why Perot and Buchanan did nothing more than to help elect Clinton the guy they both hated far more than they did the Republican establishment. Lets ignore for the moment that Perot was an enemy of working people and Buchanan a racist, sexist, homophobe that wants to force the women that are my friends and family to have an unwanted pregnancy. Leaving all that aside, while both parties favor corporations over people the Republicans favor extreme wealth of the rest of us and have channeled understandable working class anger into rage against immigrants, unions, gays, police, teachers, fire fighters, laborers, etc anything that can divide us and concentrate power at the top. As I think your posts illustrate to be honest.
After Obama wins reelection in November the bipartisan consensus will turn to dismantlement of social security and Obama will attempt to go along with this. This does not mean we turn this country over to the Romenybot and the super rich that own him, it means we fight to defeat him in November and then fight to keep the wolves hands off of social security whether or not they call themselves a Democrat or a Republican.
I believe anyone who voted for those fre trade agreements are the enemy of the working people. So when you claim Perot is the enemy or Buchanan is a racist/sexist/homophobe, you simply like to smear people. You know Buchanan railed against the Iraq War, right? Yet, you likely voted for John Kerry in 04, who supported it. As I said before , the enemy is within your own ranks.
If you truly believe Obama will dismantle social security, then I guess you favor gridlock? Might as well give the controls to Paul Ryan, at least he has the map on how to do it.
First, is that you talk of benefits as if they are a bad thing. If you don’t want to drift into single-payer on this thread, fine, but if that’s going to be covered through employment it had better be covered well. As I’ve mentioned before, don’t try to take from those who get good benefits, but you should rather advocate to ADD for those who aren’t so fortunate.
Second, these are absolutely NOT position that should be paid by what the market can take. If they were they would be private rather than public sector. The public sector operates on what is best for society, not market principles, and I really wish people would stop equating the two sectors.
1. You really think private companies could afford pensions and health care retiree benefits? Seriously, you actually believe this? I don’t want to take away the Cadilac benefits, but it is simply we can no longer afford them. We are tapped out, no more to give.
2. When I see the protests in Madison or even here in Waltham, the muni employees stormed City Hall when a motion was brought forth to migrate everyone into the GIC, they were not protesting for the betterment of society, they were simply being greedy!!!! And people are getting sick and tired of it.
Equity investors routinely achieve returns of 20% to 30%, often times even higher – that’s too high. Now we can debate whether they actually deserve to get any return for investing stolen money, but the fact of the matter is, if returns to capital were lower, labor’s income could be higher.
We’re not tapped out, we just allocate capital in a way that benefits the wealthy.
Europe and Canada do better providing for their workers; in fact there are laws requiring that they do so. You may think talking about single-payer is not the topic of this thread, but it’s all related because that would take one major benefit off the table from an employment standpoint. We used to know how to do this. People would work all their lives for one company and the company would give them a nice pension. If you’d rather we can let private employers off the hook in exchange for greater Social Security benefits, which I suppose we can do for the public sector as well. We will need to take away the income cap on which that is paid, however, and I’m more open than some to nudging up the retirement age a touch. It’s not greedy to want the best health care you can get – it’s human! When you say we can’t afford something you seem inclined to give up whereas I’m inclined to find the money, but hey, God forbid we raise anyone’s taxes, especially those who can most afford it!