I don't think anybody here has successfully disputed Jim in Ct's original claims at the beginning of this thread, nor his claim that you cannot have more than there is.

There are underlying abstract notions of "equity" and "fairness" in disputes over employment. And there is an attempt to achieve those notions through a balance of power where self-interest is preserved against domination by the other party. The traditional union approach is through strength in alliance versus the power of employers.

In classical balance of power theory, ideally, both sides act relatively the same way toward the same goal. But in reality, most humans not being idealists, both sides seek and fight over advantages toward separate goals. That is one of the major problems with collective bargaining. Advantages are won or lost over time until it becomes too onerous for one or the other party, and outside solutions must happen, i.e., jobs are "shipped" elsewhere, or a business or municipality is shut down and disappears or declares bankruptcy in order to survive.

The collective bargaining model, I think, would be most successful "in-shop." That is, where no outside influence such as national or international, or other conglomerate union bargains for the employees, and no such structure, such as collusion, would exist to give the employer advantage. The reality of in-shop economy would be more likely to dictate the results of negotiation. That does not negate the human tendency to achieve advantage, but it makes it more possible to achieve realistic results. The size of the "shop" also dictates the ease of reaching agreement. The larger and more complex it is, the more difficult it is and the more likely it is to fail, at least over time, and to require outside "arbiters" to settle. Which implies the failure of collective bargaining.

There is also the problem of sovereignty. Supposedly, in our system of government, individuals are sovereign. Employees are each sovereign, and business owners are sovereign. An employer should not destroy the sovereignty of an employee, nor, conversely, should the employees destroy the sovereignty of the employer. There can only be agreement or a parting of ways. Collective bargaining dissolves the sovereignty of the employee, and it brings the power of a state-like entity in conflict with an employer who is thus no longer sovereign in ability to negotiate with individuals. Nor, then, is the property of the owner a sovereign right. It becomes capital to be distributed in ways that are deemed "equitable" or "fair" by a collective or, ultimately by an outside party such as an emissary of the State. Ownership ultimately becomes public, and private property lurches toward extinction.

In order to diminish the right of private ownership and transform it into public ownership, the power of government is necessary. That has been happening by bits and pieces in many aspects of our society. "Reality" has eroded the power of unions in the private sector and so has stemmed that portion of the tide of public into private intrusion. But it has not eliminated it. Union power has grown in the public sector where it is now the most "relevant." And that is the sector, having the power of government, which can intrude on the sovereignty of individuals to own private property. The public sector has become a collective which increasingly demands more and nationalizes more of the private sector and diminishes the sovereignty of its individuals.

The unions in the public sector will eventually, and maybe sooner rather than later, have to confront the reality Jim in Ct speaks of, and will eventually lose much of their collective power, but the crises they create will add to the notions of "equity" and "fairness" which unions have engendered in our society over the last century, and which have been ingrained in enough of the population, especially in younger generations taught so through our statist schools, so that more will constantly be demanded of the private sector and its supposed sovereign individuals to contribute and accede to the demands of the public collective.

Of course, that is the trajectory that is creating our unsustainable fiscal mess. Unfortunately, we can't "ship" our selves or our government elsewhere. But, maybe, "reality" will return us to the great nation we used to be.

I have many friends who are teachers. When I say 'you can't have more than there is", they always respond, and I mean every single time, with something along the lines of "you don't care what kind of teachers your kids have, or if your kids are illiterate, or if teachers are eating cat food.'

It gets old...

I think the initial post is misleading. The proposal made employee contributions to health care rise significantly and the pay increase was incremental at a few percent a year, not a 14+ percent one time raise.

That's not a sweetheart deal.

-spence

"The proposal made employee contributions to health care rise significantly"

Rise to 10% of the cost of their healthcare. They were asking the mployees to pay fopr 10% of the cost of their healthcare. While that may be more than they are currently paying, it's still nowhere near what the average private sector worker pays (which is I believe 30% of the cost of helthcare).

"That's not a sweetheart deal."

Maybe not to a Bolshevik like you it's not. To the taxpayers who are paying for the deal, it sure seems like a sweetheart deal, because it's a hell of a lot more lavish than what they get.

The state of IL is in awful financial shape. As such, it's not in any position to offer "sweetheart" deals to its employees. As someone who claims to work in finance or business in some capacity, shouldn't you know this?

Just because you're in bad financial shape doesn't mean you don't have a government to operate. The deal looked to be a decrease in pay for healthcare offset somewhat by an incremental pay increase over the next 3 years. For many or most it's likely a net pay cut.

40% of the union members earn less than 30,000/yr.

This union represents those that work in the jail, nursing home, county health system, sheriff office etc…not exactly a lot of high paying jobs…and yet they show up day to day and get it done.

For this, you're outraged because you read a misleading FOX News story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w0Vzjf0b5M

-spence

"Just because you're in bad financial shape doesn't mean you don't have a government to operate"

I didn't say the govt should shut down when it's in terrible financial shape. But when you're in terrible financial shape, you take steps to get your financial house in order.

"For many or most it's likely a net pay cut."

Speculation on your part. Even if that's true, and it's a big 'if', that's what happens when those who pay your salary are broke. A pay cut is better than a pink slip.

"40% of the union members earn less than 30,000/yr."

The state is bankrupt Spence. If the taxpayers can't afford to pay 40% of the union $30k a year (plus insanely cheap healthcare, which you conveniently left out), then they have to find ways to spend less. Simple as that.

"yet they show up day to day and get it done"

They also ensured that pro-union politicians would get elected, and thus perpetuate the downward spiral.

As I said, honest people have been warning about this for as long as I have been alive. Unions didn't want to hear it. If they had listened back then, the required fix would not be as severe.

You can't have more than there is. And you reap what you sow.

The county seat of Will County is the fastest growing city in Illinois.

No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat. Even with best case scenarios for wage increases you're not talking a lot more per month…


Does your health insurance cost more? Then you're screwed.

The union deal is with the county and not the state.

And you can't grow if you can't provide basic services to the local economy. If anything this is trickle down economics. Invest in the infrastructure which promotes business growth.

Woa? Does that sound strange…I'll bet it does.

-spence

Wait, I thought you began by saying the county seat of Will County is the fastest growing city in Illinois? Wouldn't that be unlikely or "strange" to happen if the trickle down of providing basic services to the local economy and investment in the infrastructure to promote business growth wasn't already occurring?

Spence, what you are doing in this thread, as usual, is throwing one pro-union talking point after another, out there, hoping something will stick. When you rpoints are shown to be irrelevant, you simply move down your list to the next desperate explanation. It never occurs to you that if eeberything you say can be so easily refuted, perhaps you are on the wrong side of the issue.

My favorite...the county here, offered salary increases of 14.5%. In return, they asked employees to pay 10% of the cost of their healthcare (still a fraction of what those in the private scetor pay).

Your response? "Just because you're in bad financial shape doesn't mean you don't have a government to operate"

So in your mind, offering a 14.5% raise with increased healthcare copays, is equivalent to shutting the government down and firing all these people? How does one get so far detached from reality? Do you really, seriously, work in business in some capacity? Do your customers realize that you cannot differentiate between giving your employees a 14.5% raise, and shutting down th eoperation?

Stupifying.

stupifying; try the deal the Boston cops just got. 25% raise........

"No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat."

Using your assumptions, let's say one makes $30,000 a year. Health insurance costs $10,000 a year. And the county is asking that your share of paying for that, increases from 5% to 10% of the cost.

Today, your share of healthcare costs is 5% x $10,000 = $500 a year.

Going forward, your share is 10% x $10,000 = $1,000 a year. So your net pay is reduced by $500 a year, since your out-of-pocket expenses have increased by $500 a year.

Now, at some point (article didn't say how long it would take) your $30,000 salary increases by $14.5%. That is an annual raise of $4,350. That raise is offset by the $500 more a year you pay for healthcare, so the net annual increase is $4,350 - $500 = $3,850.

To someone making $30,000 a year, that increase is certainly not "squat'".

What did I miss, Spence?

I haven't thrown out a single talking point Jim, I'm just detailing what's actually in the proposal.

Also, you haven't refuted anything yet.

The likely reason they have a low contribution to their health care premium is because most are so low wage to begin with. It's called a...are you ready?

"COMPENSATION PACKAGE"

When my wife worked at an autism non-profit they had excellent health benefits. Why? Because the pay was pretty low...

Compared to other union stories this one is a snooze...With all the serious stuff in the world you're going on a rampage against prison guards and nursing home workers.

Well played...well played.

-spence

Well, you said that the 14.5% raise, when coupled with the hike in out-of-pocket healthcare costs, wouldn't amount to "squat". I think we now know that's not true, don't we? Isn't it, in fact, a significant net increase?

Spence, you claim to work in business or finance, although I cannot begin to imagine in what capacity. If an entity is spending more than it takes in, does it not need to address that at some point? At some point, doesn't mathematical reality trump idealism when you are drowning in red ink?

You can go on and on and on about how these people are being mistreated, and how awful it is that their salaries are so low. What you never do, what no liberal ever does, is propose a specific, somewhat-realistic way to pay for the goodies you feel obligated to distribute on my behalf.

You didn't do your homework. The 10% number is an average of all Will County employees. The county uses a progressive scale so the lower earners pay less and the higher earners pay more, but the proposal had the lower earners paying a higher ratio of their salary to health care.

Not every county employee is part of the union and I think we'd both agree it's a safe wager that the union represents the bulk of the lower earners.

So in effect the deal appears to have been disproportionately impacting the lower wage unionized employees and as such they didn't like it.

-spence

Correct, when I said "that" I mean of the salary and not the premium.

It should address it but not overnight.

I never said the unions needed to get what they wanted to create growth. Rather, as far as IL goes they appear to be in a better position than most.

-spence

Oh, I see.

So when you said they wouldn't get "squat", I'm sure you did a similar calculation using the accurate specifics for the lowewr wage earners. Can you send me a link that has the assumptions that you used for the lower workers? I want to make sure that I understand.

"they didn't like it."

They don't have to like it. They have to either accept it, or find another job with pay they like more. Average wages are down bigtime since Obama took control. No one likes that. But rational people realize that the economy stinks, and wages go down in a stinky economy (unless you are in a union, I oresume, in which case it's never acceptable to get anything other than a blank check).

Spence, show me a proposal that makes those people "happy" that doesn't bankrupt the citizenry. If you can't do that, then I wish you and your union bretheren would accept what everyone else accepts...that none of us makes as much as we would like.

Gimme, gimme, gimme...

Yea, those greedy nursing home workers that get to change the bed pans of those who can't afford to be at club med. Will County should be outsourcing the jobs to the lowest bidder. Perhaps they could save a dollar an hour.

-spence

Actually, what employees paid under the old contract was 1% of their salary for health insurance and 2% for family coverage. So under the old contract, if insurance only cost $10,000/year, a single person whose salary was $30,000 would pay only $300/year for insurance, and for family coverage the cost would be $600/year. Wow, that is nice?

The County's proposal for a new contract was 4.7%, not of the salary for someone making $30,000, but 4.7% of the insurance cost. So, the cost for a $30,000/year employee's $10,000 insurance would by $470 per year. Wow, still pretty nice. Times are tough, but I guess asking someone to pay an extra $170/year for insurance is just too mean. Actually, $300 a MONTH ain't too bad nowadays. But public employees do deserve a better deal than the rest of us. A really much better deal.

Apparently they've settled. Would be interesting to see how that turned out.

The 10,000 was a hypothetical, the plans offered by the appear to cost twice as much…the 600 dollars for a family plan would still increase more than the scheduled pay increase at a lower salary.

And as I said before, it's the package that's the consideration. Health Insurance is the same thing as money. If you want me to pay more for my insurance you'd better give me a raise to compensate or after years of stagnation I'm getting a pay cut.

County workers aren't the same as the free market. Without a sense of stability the local government can't function.

-spence

Why would you throw in a comment, then, that had nothing to do with the thread? And it might well be that Will County is in better position than most because it tries to keep its costs under control. In regard to the pre-strike negotiations the County Executive, Walsh, said "I have a responsibility to all residents and taxpayers of Will County. There is only so much money for the County's many needs. We must not only address our employees salaries and benefits requests, but also invest in critical infrastructure projects that benefit all our residents. We have a responsibility to be good stewards of the revenues that come into the county. That means not letting our buildings fall into further disrepair or failing to make investments for the future."


I assume you meant Will County, not IL when you said they appear to be in better position than most. Illinois is far from being in better position than most. Even the Illinois Democrats are seeing the light of fiscal necessity. The Democrat governor just signed a pension reform into law, which the unions, of course, will fight:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...5?feedType=RSS

So the executive of Will County was looking out for growth in ways you approve and bargaining a contract that aimed for fiscal responsibility.

At least . . . I guess so. Politicians are such in your face liars now . . . and unions fight lying fire with lying fire . . . I guess.

Jim was asserting that IL's fiscal state as a whole was troubling, which is true, my comment was that Will County appears to be on a better trajectory than the state, which you assumed correctly.

Ultimately, this thread that Jim started is about the appearance of rampant union excess. While this certainly does happen I don't see that's the case with this story. Collective bargaining on it's own isn't evil. By my read the union is just trying to keep pace with the times. Government workers aren't the free market. My corporation has to answer to shareholders, the county to voters who have a much different formula for earned value.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;1023786

And as I said before, it's the package that's the consideration. Health Insurance is the same thing as money. If you want me to pay more for my insurance you'd better give me a raise to compensate or after years of stagnation I'm getting a pay

-spence[/QUOTE]

Insanely hypicritocal considering what is going on with Obama Care .
You have to be joking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is so wrong. The public sector employment stability is and has been far greater than that of the private sector. But the free market requires every bit as much stability as does government. It is, in fact, a major reason a free market people instituted the form of government the Founders gave us. And the responsibility they gave it for producing good, stable money as well as creating predictability in laws and regulations is the very responsibility our government is shirking. And that is a major reason why the "economy" is sluggish and employment is too low and wages are shrinking. And why government workers need to partake of the pain that government is causing.

seems to be the model for what you described as "got nothing-ism"....continually throw out absurd conjecture and act as though you are really smart...never offering any facts to back up your assertions...just arrogance and condescension carry the argument out ad nauseum....in the case of lick, maybe a few distasteful, childish insults...but not much more

Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."


Jonathan Turley recently ("actual" Constitutional Law Professor who "actually" respects the Constitution)

"The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid."


predictable responses.....

Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, called the alleged problems with the Affordable Care Act implementation and Obama's actions, "hyperventilating and contrary to historical fact."

Exercising presidential judgment when executing laws is precisely what the Constitution requires, Lazarus said, and delays in implementing the health care law do not constitute a refusal to do so.


Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said he was not concerned that Obama was circumventing Congress so he would delay his signature health care law, but had real concerns about presidential overreach on war powers and surveillance issues. "Everything we're talking about today is laughable in the face of these problems," Nadler said.


you can't argue right and wrong......facts and fiction.....with people who cannot either accept or acknowledge the existence or importance when promoting their agenda....

it is "stupid" :uhuh:

seems to coincide with the construction of a(another) casino...casino tax revenue will be important once all of the cigarette smokers die.....if Exeter RI got a casino tomorrow, they'd be the fastest growing "city" in RI for quite sometime...

the New Bedford mayor was on 10 News Conference last weekend, he was asked why casinos and pot distribution centers weren't at the top of the list for economic development in New Bedford....he has some excellent...obvious...answers

here in RI...our governor declared on a previous 10 News Conference that gay marriage would be the catalyst for economic development in RI....I think RI unemployment rate just ticked back up....

this is where we are at.....frightening...:uhuh:

[QUOTE=spence;1023786

And as I said before, it's the package that's the consideration. Health Insurance is the same thing as money. If you want me to pay more for my insurance you'd better give me a raise to compensate or after years of stagnation I'm getting a pay

-spence[/QUOTE]



so we'll just raise the minimum wage :uhuh:

Gimme gimme gimme.

Earth to Spence. Since 2008, median wages are down, and medical costs are way up. Most people, therefore, have not seen wage hikes to offset their out-of-pocket medical costs.

Your union folk here certainly seem to embrace your "you better give me a raise or else" socialist dogma, don't they? What if they didn't do a good enough job to get a raise? Or in the case of a public entity, what if (1) not enough money exists to give them a raise, and (2) the citizenry can not absorb additional tax hikes?

Spence, it would be great if no one ever saw a decrease in take home wages. But we are several years into the worst recession since the Great Depression. This isn't the roaring 1920's. The private sector has sure reflected that (except in the case of CEOs). If wages for the entire taxpayer base are down significantly since 2008, by what logic must public employees be immune from that?

When you have less money, you need to spend less. That's not advanced calculus.

Detbuch -

"Wages are down on average in the private sector. Investment is down in the private sector. How does the public sector rate increases?"

Here's how - because when public unionized employees get raises, that ensures that more union dues get funnelled to Democratic political candidates who are pro-union.

In a rational world, Spence would freely concede that when the collective citizenry has less wealth to spend, then those who serve the citizenry (their employees) need to accept comparable wage decreases. That's clearly unfortunate, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary.