IL unions get offered 14.5% raise, go on strike

[Jim in CT]

Imagine if your employer offered you (1) a 14.5% pay raise, and (2) to pay for 90% of the cost of yoru health insurance. Imagine being offered that, and choosing to reject it, and then to go on strike.

That's what the public sector unions did in one Illinois county.

These unions have come a long way sice the coal mining days, when unions actually served a defensible purpose.

What selfless public servents.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...y-raise-offer/

[tysdad115]

Now is the time to can them all , and hire all new people. Unions served a purpose at one time. That time has passed.

[Slipknot]

[TheSpecialist]

How long is the offered contract? Many times there are more things than wages at issue, however most times that all we hear about.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

How long is the offered contract? Many times there are more things than wages at issue, however most times that all we hear about.

+

I don't know the answer to that question. I'd respond by asking, why do public servants deserve the security of a contract, when no one in the public they claim to serve, has that luxury?

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

+

I don't know the answer to that question. I'd respond by asking, why do public servants deserve the security of a contract, when no one in the public they claim to serve, has that luxury?

Because they are union. Individual employees do not have the ability to negotiate on their own regardless of performance etc. Regardless of how good a current deal is, it's only value is for how long the contract is offered. I am not a huge fan of unions but in some areas it is helpful. Currently public work force is full of nepotism and politics. Can you imagine how bad it would be if managers were allowed to spend public money with out contractual boundaries. I realize the system isn't perfect but it's better than having individual managers handing out raises carte Blanche to brothers sisters etc. With little recourse.

I also understand the unions perspective because in this day and age with so much of our manufacturing base etc. Being sent over seas there are few jobs left for the middle class American worker. It is a difficult balance. More and more private companies are contracting out former skilled labor jobs at a reduction to the bottom line but losing in quality and customer service.

Look at the cable company for example. How often does your cable TV signal degrade or go out completely? How often do you lose electrical or telephone service for no reason? One industry works almost exclusively with contractors the others have trained employees that maintain the service and know the trade inside an out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

what if the employees are being paid at a current level that is 30% lower than in neighboring counties?

Not everything is black and white.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

what if the employees are being paid at a current level that is 30% lower than in neighboring counties?

.

If that's the case, if the public decides to pay wages that are lower than the average....than the folks in that town live with the consequences, that they may get fewer, or less qualified, candidates. That's fair, and it's exactly what happens in the private sector.

That's why I cannot stand unions in the public sector. In the private sector, if a company wants to give its employees insane benefits, that does not impact me at all, unless I freely choose to purchase the product or service of that company. It's very easy for me to avoid those consequences.

Not so in the public sector. If the police union or teachers union in my town gives huge campaign contributions to politicians who reward them with insane pay, I cannot choose not to pay my property taxes. I am forced to fund those benefits, or they take my house and put me in jail.

And that's the rub. No company in the private sector could ever survive while offering these benefits, because no one would choose to pick up the price tag. In the case of public unions, those people take from us, with force of law, that which no one would ever freely choose to pay for.

What could be less democratic than that?

[Jackbass]

Look I feel in the past 100 years unions are the best thing to happen for the American Middle Class( one could argue unions created the middle class) unions are also the worst thing to happen to the American Middle Class.

Unions elevated the American worker to a comfortable living wage. They went too far in the manufacturing industry bankrupting The auto industry and pushing most of the jobs overseas. Killing entire towns states etc.

However public unions are in place they are not going away. Municipalities have the ability to negotiate as they should. If they come to an impasse there will be a strike lockout what ever. One side will cave and there will be concessions. The public union may be holding back due to length of contract etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

Look I feel in the past 100 years unions are the best thing to happen for the American Middle Class( one could argue unions created the middle class) unions are also the worst thing to happen to the American Middle Class.

Unions elevated the American worker to a comfortable living wage. They went too far in the manufacturing industry bankrupting The auto industry and pushing most of the jobs overseas. Killing entire towns states etc.

However public unions are in place they are not going away. Municipalities have the ability to negotiate as they should. If they come to an impasse there will be a strike lockout what ever. One side will cave and there will be concessions. The public union may be holding back due to length of contract etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll grant you that there was a time when unions did a tremendous amount of good. That was a long time ago. As you said, in the long run, they also priced themselves right out of existence, except in the public sector.

Today, public unions are doing a tremendous amount of economic damage in many places. You still haven't touched on that.

"public unions are in place they are not going away."

Tell that to the teachers in Wisconsin (of all places, Wisconsin!). Public opinion is turning rapidly against public unions. They may go away when people open their eyes and see just how much of their future earnings have been confiscated by the unions.

"If they come to an impasse there will be a strike lockout what ever"

Wrong. In many places (everywhere in CT), when they cannot agree, there is something called "binding arbitration", where a neutral third party comes in and makes the final decision. This could not be less democratic. The guy who has the ultimate say, the arbitrator, is not an elected official, therefore he isn't accountable to me, I cannot vote him out of office, yet he single-handedly decides what my property taxes will be.

And when there are strikes, the union has all the leverage, because those on strike may be responsible for public safety, or teaching our kids. It's completely imnmoral for those people to strike over cheap healkthcare and the right to fatten their already bloated pensions with overtime.

You also failed to mention the inevitable conflict of interest that occurs when public labor unions give huge campaign money to the same politicians who then decide what benefits to award the union.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

They went too far in the manufacturing industry bankrupting The auto industry and pushing most of the jobs overseas. Killing entire towns states etc.

Unions were only part of the equation.
Cheap crappy products.
Greedy executives.
Inability to accept the same garbage they'd been schleping on the public was 10-15-20 years behind their European and Asian competitors.

Face it, American cars are garbage. The only thing we seem to get right are full sized trucks.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by likwid

Unions were only part of the equation.
Cheap crappy products.
Greedy executives.
Inability to accept the same garbage they'd been schleping on the public was 10-15-20 years behind their European and Asian competitors.

Face it, American cars are garbage. The only thing we seem to get right are full sized trucks.

Valid point. But also at one point in time it cost less to have the vehicles produced by less expensive foreign labor while still paying for Americans to not work.

Not to mention the same Asian vehicles are being assembled in the US quite successfully in open shops.

US auto manufacturers had this country by the short hairs for ever if they just did their jobs. During the years that we fell behind. Design was an issue but fit and finish were major problems as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

US auto manufacturers had this country by the short hairs for ever if they just did their jobs. During the years that we fell behind. Design was an issue but fit and finish were major problems as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Design, performance, fit & finish have ALWAYS been issues.

It was a brief blip that American automobiles were 'desired', but how much of that had to do with availability? Sure muscle cars had their day but there wasn't really anything anyone else in the world was making like that at the time. Euros etc. were interested in going to work, not investing in an oil company to keep their cars going. But the muscle cars did what? Go really fast in a straight line aaaaand that was about it.

Right now there isn't a single american (or asian as far as im concerned) car that can touch the gf's Jetta TDi as far as a true combination of comfort, performance, AND economy in its size and class. Comfy car, sport mode with all that torque and you can slam down the country roads, and at 70 on cruise control you're tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g along at around 43-44mpg. About the only thing better that I know of offhand is an Audi A3 TDi, which is basically the same car with more leather slightly lighter and stiffer ride.

[Sea Dangles]

Yup
I am selling my suburban and looking for a yetta
the best car ever??? Hahahahaha

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

one could argue unions created the middle class

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

huh??

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

huh??

I presume (could be wrong) that he means unions provided one potential path to a middle class existence, especially for those who didn't go to college. There was a time when a high school graduate could go to the auto plant, and if he worked enough hours, could carve out a middle-class lifestyle. And much of that was thanks to the unions.

In my opinion, saying that effect was a good thing, is awfully short-sighted. It worked out well for the generation that's just older than the Baby Boomers, who rode that wave and never had to suffer the consequences. It's not working out so well for everyone who came after them, nor is it working out so well for those just about to retire, who will never know for sure if/when the pension checks will stop coming because the company is bankrupt.

T

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by scottw

huh??

In modern times post industrial revolution. Prior to unions the common man was not getting anywhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

In modern times post industrial revolution. Prior to unions the common man was not getting anywhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But what about today? Are today's 'common men' better off thanks to unions? I'm not sure how you could say yes. Far fewer jobs, and if you are lucky enough to make it to retirement, you will never be able to rest easy that your pension is safe. The pension isn't safe, because even labor unions are governed by this one rule...you cannot have more than there is. It took them too long to accept that, and in the case of public unions going on strike rather trhan accepting a 15% raise and practically-free healthcare, they still haven't accepted it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

In modern times post industrial revolution. Prior to unions the common man was not getting anywhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The industrial revolution and capitalism tremendously improved the life of "the common man." It moved him out of the poverty of the aristocratic class system where he was stuck in mostly rural subsistence of poor health, short life, lack of mobility or improvement, into an overall improvement of all those conditions.

The market has always been the only method "the common man" could improve his lot. The market was the key element to bringing freedom and higher standards of living to "the common man." It is still the only viable method to maintain the best life for "the common man."--even in the so-called post industrial revolution.

The common man was "getting somewhere" during and after the industrial revolution due mainly through the market's ability to get him there. Unions may have helped him to get improved working conditions, which were improving anyway, and which were one of the greatest benefits of the industrial revolution and free market capitalism. As far as wages go, they were already higher in industries than elsewhere before unions were formed. The union demands only consistently escalated the cost of labor which had to be passed on to consumers and which were a part of the inflationary spiral that has existed since the New Deal.

Unions were not the reason for the "rise of the middle class." That rise was due to market capitalism and its empowerment of the consumer and individual entrepreneurs. Unions were the beneficiaries, not the propagators, of the rise of the middle class and the wealth created by the capitalistic market. The wealth first had to be created before there was any meaning for union existence. And there had to be an appreciable size to a business for the union to make demands. There are no unions for mom and pop stores. At the most basic levels where competition is most crucial for existence, unions would only be destructive. It is at the more secure levels, such as large corporations, and now, especially so, governments, that unions are "relevant." And it is in government where they are the most destructive.

If anything, in this post-post industrial revolution era the large conglomerate unions are an important part of a socio-political revolution. A revolution that is destroying "the middle class" and attempting to bring about an egalitarian society which discards capitalism, market forces, and even individual freedom. They were given their power by government intervention and mandate, and their main implementation is not for the benefit of the worker within his corporation, but the broader political power to destroy market forces in favor of a non-competitive, homogenous, and centralized, and yeah, Marxist, economy. They are making the idea of the "common man" one of meaning a humanity which is completely common.

[Raven]

they should head North to Canada me thinks

[TheSpecialist]

I forgot to mention. I work for a multi billion dollar corporation. We had a contract expire a couple of years ago. Our corporation has many entities or divisions. When I started in this company 18 years ago they funneled profit from our side of the house to another side of the house that wasn't profitable but was an up and coming thing. Now the shoe has reversed a little, our side is not as profitable as it was, but the other side make BILLIONS. We have a product that everyone wants but they refuse to move profit back to us to invest in the new product. They refused to bargain in good faith, in other words they threw out the old contract, and wrote their own new contract. Usually the sides pick some stuff in the contract they want changed and they negotiate back and forth, the company didn't want that, they wanted to write a whole new contract their way. We went on strike, they panicked because they had a ton of work that we do, and no one who could do it. After two weeks they begged us to come back, they would negotiate everything would be great. Most of us wanted to stay out, we had them over a barrel, get the contract done then go back, but we went back reluctantly. It took over a year for a new contract to get done. In the end we all had to pay roughly 40-70 per week more for health insurance, we lost a couple of holidays, we lost a portion of our tuition reimbursement, we got o raise for the first year, no retroactive check for the second partial year and the second year raise didn't go into effect like normal, it went into effect after the contract was ratified. So we ended up losing pay, roughly a dollar an hour, and our medical plan goes up every year, our raises over the 4 years of the contract add up to 12 percent, 3 percent a year, normal for any job out there,union or not. My wife works for a non profit and her raises average 2 1/2 -3 percent so we are reaping in the dough. If we had no union, most of the employees would be gone, and they would have contractors, or $10 an hour workers. Yet this corporation makes Billions of Dollars in profit every year..

[scottw]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

I forgot to mention. I work for a multi billion dollar corporation. We had a contract expire a couple of years ago. Our corporation has many entities or divisions. When I started in this company 18 years ago they funneled profit from our side of the house to another side of the house that wasn't profitable but was an up and coming thing. Now the shoe has reversed a little, our side is not as profitable as it was, but the other side make BILLIONS. We have a product that everyone wants but they refuse to move profit back to us to invest in the new product. They refused to bargain in good faith, in other words they threw out the old contract, and wrote their own new contract. Usually the sides pick some stuff in the contract they want changed and they negotiate back and forth, the company didn't want that, they wanted to write a whole new contract their way. We went on strike, they panicked because they had a ton of work that we do, and no one who could do it. After two weeks they begged us to come back, they would negotiate everything would be great. Most of us wanted to stay out, we had them over a barrel, get the contract done then go back, but we went back reluctantly. It took over a year for a new contract to get done. In the end we all had to pay roughly 40-70 per week more for health insurance, we lost a couple of holidays, we lost a portion of our tuition reimbursement, we got o raise for the first year, no retroactive check for the second partial year and the second year raise didn't go into effect like normal, it went into effect after the contract was ratified. So we ended up losing pay, roughly a dollar an hour, and our medical plan goes up every year, our raises over the 4 years of the contract add up to 12 percent, 3 percent a year, normal for any job out there,union or not. My wife works for a non profit and her raises average 2 1/2 -3 percent so we are reaping in the dough. If we had no union, most of the employees would be gone, and they would have contractors, or $10 an hour workers. Yet this corporation makes Billions of Dollars in profit every year..

wait.....the evil multi billion dollar corporation "begged" you to come back to work and then you got screwed in the final contract negotiations?....sounds like you need a better union...they screwed you

Indian Call Center workers BTW, make about 3 times the average wage in India and the jobs are highly sought after for a number of reasons, so while an American might not be able to live on the wages that are paid in "many" parts of the world recognizing that there are differences in standards of living and costs, many of the jobs that Americans create overseas improve the lives of many people...you do know that there are foreign companies that create jobs in the US as well and employ Americans, it's just not always as attractive to set up shop here....

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

wait.....the evil multi billion dollar corporation "begged" you to come back to work and then you got screwed in the final contract negotiations?....sounds like you need a better union...they screwed you

Indian Call Center workers BTW, make about 3 times the average wage in India and the jobs are highly sought after for a number of reasons, so while an American might not be able to live on the wages that are paid in "many" parts of the world recognizing that there are differences in standards of living and costs, many of the jobs that Americans create overseas improve the lives of many people...you do know that there are foreign companies that create jobs in the US as well and employ Americans, it's just not always as attractive to set up shop here....

Indian call centers are slowly getting smaller and smaller, nobody wants to talk to them anymore or hear the same boring script over and over. Their jobs are going away while lucrative US companies, not foreign are farming out the work for a reasonable wage here or noted corps are taking it back internally again and effectively.

Also higher level 'tier 2' support is getting farmed out here in the US and is a money maker for the giant corporations.

[spence]

Scott is about 10 years behind the times.

Rapid wage growth going to kill outsourcing and offshore manufacturing.

-spence

[likwid]

I forgot to mention also support is tiered heavily these days.

If you've got the bottom of the barrel DSL connection, you're gonna get bottom of the barrel (india) support.

If you're paying for a 100mb FIOS/Cable connection, you're gonna get someone (reasonably) competent in the US.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Scott is about 10 years behind the times.

Rapid wage growth going to kill outsourcing and offshore manufacturing.

-spence

do you have a relevant point?

British, Australian and American companies continue to outsource to India...and elsewhere...because..."noon want to talk to them anymore"...right?

probably don't need this ...right?

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/sta...s/201311140235

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

do you have a relevant point?

British, Australian and American companies continue to outsource to India...and elsewhere...because..."noon want to talk to them anymore"...right?

probably don't need this ...right?

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/sta...s/201311140235

Politicians, like you, are 10 years behind.

You do realize when Michael Dell took Dell back over he pulled back most of their sales & support? And that was.... alot of years ago.

That t-mobile outsourcing was over a year and a half ago.

But thats not sensational is it?

Like I said, the bottom rung is still being outsourced, and helping some customer with their cellphone is, well, bottom rung.

edit: clearly you didn't bother reading your article at all, because you would notice that those who outsource get shamed (won't happen if it passes), and those who don't get perks (will happen if it passes).

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

Politicians, like you, are 10 years behind.

You do realize when Michael Dell took Dell back over he pulled back most of their sales & support? And that was.... alot of years ago.

That t-mobile outsourcing was over a year and a half ago.

But thats not sensational is it?

Like I said, the bottom rung is still being outsourced, and helping some customer with their cellphone is, well, bottom rung.

edit: clearly you didn't bother reading your article at all, because you would notice that those who outsource get shamed (won't happen if it passes), and those who don't get perks (will happen if it passes).

you are rambling....

what you said was.."Indian call centers are slowly getting smaller and smaller, nobody wants to talk to them anymore or hear the same boring script over and over."

this is from...today

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...jobs-lost.html

there are more from the recent weeks if you'd like to be "current"....India and the Phillipines...which would dispute your claim that nobody wants to talk to them anymore and that their jobs are going away

you've wandered far from the original point which was the ridiculous wages comment by the specialist, to not make much of a point at all....

stating that those who purchase expensive (top rung) cellphones and service plans will somehow get better(top rung) service...is not really a revelation..... and it's more than just cell phone customer support

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...sourcing-india
(interesting to read why these jobs are going to India)


this is awfully funny...I only "half" read it...it's in the Huff Po...so it must be true

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-a...b_3861333.html

best comment
"Pelosi told us Obamacare would create 400,000 jobs almost immediately. She didn't tell us those jobs would be in India. "

[likwid]

Wow, I didn't realize this was striped-bass.co.uk! Silly me!

So I assume you're a dirty inbred pom?

You haven't posted a single relevant article that supports your argument.
We'll just chock that up to you grasping for straws about something, once again, you have no clue or concept about.

Maybe you're a pikey?

I'll give you another chance to redeem yourself instead of flailing, show us the comparison of US based support and India support via Netpromoter scores (a globally recognized standard for scoring customer satisfaction).

Let us know when you come up with those.

[detbuch]

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.