Trump predictions

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Billionaire US President-elect Donald Trump has said he is not obliged to cut ties to his business empire when he takes office on 20 January.

His son-in-law Jared Kushner - a real estate heir who has no experience of diplomacy - could help forge peace between Israel and Palestinians (really and you all complained about the commuinty orignizer )


The US should not be a "nation-builder" in the world this I agree with.. but not sure his Cabinet are on the same page

And the right took a fit with Bill on a plane with the Attorney General . the Clinton foundation and donations from other Governments quid pro quo

But they remain silent with the suggestion he is unwilling to cutting ties with business with tie's or loans from other government..

And his administration will be going after Unions so much for working class America

You are suggesting that what Trump MIGHT do in the future, is the moral equivalent of what the Clintons actually DID in the past?

I also think they should sell their share in that business, it doesn't look good. But he hasn't even had the chance to do anything improper yet.

Unions, especially public unions, need to go. Why is it, that when workers are given the right to choose whether or not they wish to join a union, they overwhelmingly vote "no"? And why are liberals opposed to letting workers choose whether or not they want to support an organization like a labor union? I thought liberals were pro-choice, I am pretty sure I heard that somewhere???

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are suggesting that what Trump MIGHT do in the future, is the moral equivalent of what the Clintons actually DID in the past?

I also think they should sell their share in that business, it doesn't look good. But he hasn't even had the chance to do anything improper yet.

Unions, especially public unions, need to go. Why is it, that when workers are given the right to choose whether or not they wish to join a union, they overwhelmingly vote "no"? And why are liberals opposed to letting workers choose whether or not they want to support an organization like a labor union? I thought liberals were pro-choice, I am pretty sure I heard that somewhere???

As I said to Scott why wait until theres an issue where the push from the right for him to do the right thing their just remaining quite..

Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no ...

Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%

I see because you cant get what they have thru your Work place they (union workers) shouldn't have it in theirs

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

As I said to Scott why wait until theres an issue where the push from the right for him to do the right thing their just remaining quite..

Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no ...

Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%

I see because you cant get what they have thru your Work place they (union workers) shouldn't have it in theirs

"Sadly your wrong about people having a choice they vote overwhelmingly no "

Umm, no I'm not. That's why unions, and the democrats they own, are so adamantly opposed to 'right to work'.

"why wait until theres an issue "

So you're OK criticizing people in anticipation of them doing something wrong. Should we jail people ahead of time too, before the actually do anything?

"Yet only 11.3% of our total work force is Union in the United States and Republicans want to bring that number to ZERO Why is that?? thats a lot of effort to destroy the livelihood's of 11%"

If you ever bothered to listen to anyone, you'd know the answers. In the public sector, labor unions are bankrupting towns and states.

WTF is your evidence that getting rid of the union, will "destroy the livelihood" of the 11%? How do the other 89% manage to survive? If unions really added value to their members, people wouldn't overwhelmingly opt out when given the choice. But that's what they do in 'right to work' situations.

[Sea Dangles]

If a cop,fireman or teacher were a bad job,why is it they are so coveted? Teaching has got to be one of the most stress free jobs imaginable. Fire,police and corrections are for the most part jobs which require zero education and the compensation is generous to say the least.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

If a cop,fireman or teacher were a bad job,why is it they are so coveted? Teaching has got to be one of the most stress free jobs imaginable. Fire,police and corrections are for the most part jobs which require zero education and the compensation is generous to say the least.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree with everything except I think teaching is stressful and exhausting. But as you say, the competition for those jobs is fierce, because people want the financial security and especially the benefits, which in most left leaning states, are insane. CT will declare insolvency within ten years, it's not mathematically possible to pay for the benefits the unions got from the democrats they bought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

If a cop,fireman or teacher were a bad job,why is it they are so coveted? Teaching has got to be one of the most stress free jobs imaginable. Fire,police and corrections are for the most part jobs which require zero education and the compensation is generous to say the least.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure what education has to do with pay but clearly you have not done your research on those professions and the degree many officer carry ..

Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA sure you and do 20 \50% but less then 1% of people take that and Teachers have to work until like 65 to get close to 50%

you guys need real sources not just what you heard ..

I have 29 years at 50 if i left today i would get around 55% if i leave a 35 years at 55 I get 80% .. degree or no degree want my benefits my pay then do my job ... that goes for every profession...

funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make
Their envious and dont value success... but when a regular guy is doing better Via collective bargaining or the strength of their Union it becomes Vile and unfair ... thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

not sure what education has to do with pay but clearly you have not done your research on those professions and the degree many officer carry ..

Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA sure you and do 20 \50% but less then 1% of people take that and Teachers have to work until like 65 to get close to 50%

you guys need real sources not just what you heard ..

I have 29 years at 50 if i left today i would get around 55% if i leave a 35 years at 55 I get 80% .. degree or no degree want my benefits my pay then do my job ... that goes for every profession...

funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make
Their envious and dont value success... but when a regular guy is doing better Via collective bargaining or the strength of their Union it becomes Vile and unfair ... thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle

"Cops retiring at age 45 with 60,000 a year pensions? Teachers who make 100k, and can retire at age 59 with 75j a year pensions?

not sure were you got this from but thats not the case in MA "

It is very much the case here in CT.

"that goes for every profession... "

Not even close. In most professions which are in the private sector, we must convince customers to voluntarily give us money. In the case of public labor unions, you can take my money by force. HUGE difference. I cannot choose to not pay my taxes.

"funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make '

Read my previous comment. In the private sector, CEOs do not take one cent from any customer, unless that customer freely chooses to give it to them.

"thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle"

I am very informed. But yes I am disgruntled, because here in CT the public unions are killing the state. Here in CT, the unfunded liability to public labor unions for pensions and healthcare, is $19,000 for each of the 3 million people living in my state. That is insane, and can never be funded, not in a million years.

In the private sector, I put almost 13% of my salary into social security (my contribution + employer contribution) and if I am lucky, I will start collecting 35k a year at age 67. Teachers in this state put 5% of their salary towards their pension, which pays them 75% of the average of their highest 3 years salary (can easily be 75k a year) starting at age 59.

You tell me that makes sense and is fair.

How is this for a real source...

http://articles.courant.com/2014-03-...es-connecticut

[Duke41]

I predict he will be the next Reagan. The country is going to rise together.

[Sea Dangles]

I am not too sure why I was quoted before that statement. I do know there is a lot of incentive for police to get higher education.$$$$

As far as real sources....I spent years as a public employee in my home town which qualifies me as knowledgable enough to stand by my comments. There are few risks and many rewards for public employees. How much education is required at your job,or do you just have to show up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am not too sure why I was quoted before that statement. I do know there is a lot of incentive for police to get higher education.$$$$

As far as real sources....I spent years as a public employee in my home town which qualifies me as knowledgable enough to stand by my comments. There are few risks and many rewards for public employees. How much education is required at your job,or do you just have to show up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess my point is education alone is not indicator of success in any field or Job. nor should it produce a certain wage I know a lot of 4 year degree educated people who are horrible correctional officers and highshcool grad's who are the best .. Granted we aren't building Rockets. But in todays Job market even in corrections a GED wont get you in and a High school diploma with out Military service isn't much help. There are a lot of risks for public safety employee i am sure i dont need to list them .. and many rewards as well

Again I dont understand the endless assault on union working Americans who are 11% of the work force from Conservatives

you want America great again Trump supporters want the good times of the 50's and 60's places need to be unionized

The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35%

now we are at 11% and the middle class is weak

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

funny when people complains about the money big business CEO make
Their envious and dont value success... but when a regular guy is doing better Via collective bargaining or the strength of their Union it becomes Vile and unfair ... thats my issue with union haters uniformed and disgruntle

There are several problems in discussing labor unions and wages in the total market. An obvious one is comparing big business salaries with union wages. Both are extreme minorities in the marketplace. CEOs especially so. That is also the proverbial apples and oranges.

Probably more relevant to compare big business CEOs with small business managers or owners. And to compare union wages to their actual counterpart non-union wages of the so-called "working class."

And what's most material, at this time, is the comparison between public sector and private sector workers and unions.

As far as private sector unions go, in my opinion, they are perfectly fine if they are in-house. That is if a union exists solely within a given company rather than being a national or international organization.

Public sector unions are essentially different than private sector unions. First, and most glaring, the public sector is dependent on the private sector and is meant to be its servant not its master. But when public sector unions "bargain" they are doing so against the private sector without the private sector actually being at the table. The private sector pays the wages but doesn't have a bargaining say. Bargaining in-house in public sector is incestuous. It is public workers bargaining with themselves against the private sector.

I know you like the "big picture." In that picture, on the whole, the "working class" of the public sector does much better in total wage and benefit packages than their counterpart in the private sector. It seems to me that the picture is out of whack. At best, shouldn't there be equity rather than disparity? And if there is a disparity, shouldn't private sector wages, which pay for the public sector's, be higher?

And the perniciousness of in-house public "collective bargaining" with itself leads, even more than in the private sector, to the predictable unsustainable situations in which government at all levels cannot be afforded. The most glaring problem, similar to big business compensation predicaments, are the lifelong pension and benefits which become larger than what is being paid to those who are still working.

When the Progressive founder of forced "collective bargaining," FDR, along with the major union leaders at that time, said that government employees must not be unionized, that should tell you something. They knew what would happen. And it has.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1112790
Public sector unions are essentially different than private sector unions. First, and most glaring, the public sector is dependent on the private sector and is meant to be its servant not its master. But when public sector unions "bargain" they are doing so against the private sector without the private sector actually being at the table. The private sector pays the wages but doesn't have a bargaining say. Bargaining in-house in public sector is incestuous. It is public workers bargaining with themselves against the private sector. .[/QUOTE]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Great post, and that's the problem. Too many ticks gorging on the private sector dog, and when the parasite kills the host, that's all folks. Here in CT, we fill file for insolvency in 7-10 years, because those benefits can never, ever be paid for.

[Sea Dangles]

I don't blame you for supporting unions as they support you and the other 11%. I also am sure you understand it can create a bit of a fiscal issue for some of the municipalities that are burdened with the generosity the employees have earned. Six weeks vacation with 14 paid holidays plus a sick day per month and a couple personal days,throw in a clothing allowance,a three hour minimum callback for OT,maternity leave and around 75k per year and you have the guys who fill pot holes in my town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I don't blame you for supporting unions as they support you and the other 11%. I also am sure you understand it can create a bit of a fiscal issue for some of the municipalities that are burdened with the generosity the employees have earned. Six weeks vacation with 14 paid holidays plus a sick day per month and a couple personal days,throw in a clothing allowance,a three hour minimum callback for OT,maternity leave and around 75k per year and you have the guys who fill pot holes in my town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree.. But sadly those benefits were once only afforded to the private sector.. public unions fought to bring their members in line with the private sector who were giving it to their employees at that time.. but private companys decided to change or just went belly up leaving employees with nothing or just stopped providing good benefits once that happened we (union ) benefits started getting undo scrutiny from businesses conservatives

With U.S. private sector union membership sharply reduced, the right is training fire on public sector unions, seen as critical rivals.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...-sector-unions

Is your example of 7 weeks and 75 k a new hire ? if so thats crazy.. or is that the guy who's been there 25 or 30 years? then not so crazy

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I agree.. But sadly those benefits were once only afforded to the private sector..

That's not true. Public employees had pensions and health insurance, etc. before they became unionized. Even better, they had far more job security than private sector employees. And many, if not most, of the private sector employees at the time did not have company paid benefit packages.

public unions fought to bring their members in line with the private sector who were giving it to their employees at that time..

No, they fought to bring their members in line with the unionized private sector, not with the average of private sector compensation. And because of their support of and affiliation with the leftist political class, they not only maintained their far superior job security than even private sector union employees, but were then able over time to get even better benefit and wage packages. This was even more so in Democrat municipalities which had a symbiotic relationship with public workers and their unions. Their so-called collective bargaining was, essentially and politically, with themselves. So, because political power was more important than fiscal reality, they were able to get compensation which their communities were not able realistically to sustain. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the great Democrat hero who was responsible for "collective bargaining" in the first place, realized the danger of public sector unions and insisted that public employees must not be unionized.

but private companys decided to change or just went belly up leaving employees with nothing or just stopped providing good benefits

Exactly . . . the private sector is not secure. And because of the necessity for the private sector to maintain at least the semblance of fiscal responsibility, it has to adjust its workforce either in number or in compensation.

Government doesn't just go "belly up." It persists and its employees stay on and it takes a massive crisis to cut back on their compensation.

once that happened we (union ) benefits started getting undo scrutiny from businesses conservatives

No, the scrutiny is not undo. The public sector depends on the private sector. The public sector, for the most part, does not produce wealth or goods. It is basically a service sector which is supposed to serve the private sector (the public at large). The private sector pays the public sector to do so. When public employees demand compensation which is unreasonable compared to average private sector compensation, and when they get compensation packages which are unsustainable without draining the resources of the public at large, it is not undo to scrutinize that compensation.

With U.S. private sector union membership sharply reduced, the right is training fire on public sector unions, seen as critical rivals.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...-sector-unions

There should not be a rivalry between public unions and the public at large. If the private sector wealth waxes and wanes, so should that of the public sector that serves it. When it reaches the stage of rivalry, something other than compensation squabbles is going on. In my opinion, that something is politics.

The battle (rivalry) is not between Public unions and the "right," it is between socialistic form of government and free market form. Your article demonstrates that. That is the proper argument we should be having.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There should not be a rivalry between public unions and the public at large. If the private sector wealth waxes and wanes, so should that of the public sector that serves it. When it reaches the stage of rivalry, something other than compensation squabbles is going on. In my opinion, that something is politics.

The battle (rivalry) is not between Public unions and the "right," it is between socialistic form of government and free market form. Your article demonstrates that. That is the proper argument we should be having.

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem

there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest


no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ... yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security.. but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem

there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest


no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ... yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security.. but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place

"the right has disrupted private unions and now are after public one because they vote Dem"

I am critical of public labor unions NOT because they vote democrat, but because they are putting immense financial strain on public resources, and because they demand insane, INSANE benefits that were done away with, for good reason, in the private sector long ago.

"the battle is between the haves and the have nots "

I want my state to avoid bankruptcy. That means paying our public servants what we can reasonably afford to pay them. You can twist that into saying I only care about the rich, but my brother and sister-in-law are public schoolteachers here in CT, and they pull in over 100 large EACH, and they have immense pensions waiting for them. They are now "the haves". We can't afford it, we just can't.

"Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue"

CT is not suffering from a lack of tax revenue. It suffers from stupid spending. The #1 item on the list of stupid spending, is union benefits. Ct tax revenue is sky high. But we spend more. It doesn't matter what your revenue levels are, you need to spend less than hat you have. Right? If your state has less tax revenue, it needs to cut spending. Is that controversial? When a household has less income, it needs to cut spending. Same with a town or state.

"But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ..."

Remind me again, what's the "real cause"? I can say to you, it's much easier to ignore the real issue, and attack republicans as hating teachers and cops. I love teachers and cops. But we can no longer afford to overpay them. We need to reign in those benefits before too many Baby Boomers are retired.

[wdmso]

You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.

Sadly you assume history would have been the same if unions were not involved..
if these wealthy compaines which you say paid them so we'll
why the need for unions Without unions, we would still be working 12 hour days, seven days a week, with no paid holidays, no paid vacations, no pay raises. Can unions price themselves out of a Job yes and many have accepted that reality


The #1 item on the list of stupid spending, is union benefits.
Thats not the whole story is it ... The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax.. no money no spending bring back more min wage jobs and the 60 hr work week thats the answer

you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement or provide a valuable service to the state or town in which they work

INSANE benefits that were done away with, for good reason, in the private sector long ago.

what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Sadly you assume history would have been the same if unions were not involved.. could be better...who knows...we'd have fewer unfunded pension funds strangling municipalities...you are assuming it would be worse...the question is...for who?


if these wealthy compaines which you say paid them so we'll
why the need for unions there are lots of wealthy companies paying their employees well without the interference from unions..you act as though they don't exist

Without unions, we would still be working 12 hour days, seven days a week, with no paid holidays, no paid vacations, no pay raises. this is debatable and some of us refer to this a "self-employment"..been doing it most of my working life

Can unions price themselves out of a Job yes and many have accepted that reality


you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement or provide a valuable service to the state or town in which they work no one said any of this but the compensation and benefits are often way out of line with the private sector that was pointed out is paying the $ for that compensation..also..the retirement contributions don't appear to be sufficient to pay the benefit in most cases...



what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped

I love you Wayne but you dismiss and then launch right into a predictable rant...Detbuch took the time to make some really valid points but you seem to completely ignore them

I don't have a problem with unions generally but broadly they engage in much of the bad behavior that they criticize businesses and the private sector for through political activity, patronage, mismanagement of funds and corruption... and act as an entitled mob when the don't get their way...this accounts more for their loss of membership and prominence more than any vast right wing conspiracy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.

Sadly you assume history would have been the same if unions were not involved..
if these wealthy compaines which you say paid them so we'll
why the need for unions Without unions, we would still be working 12 hour days, seven days a week, with no paid holidays, no paid vacations, no pay raises. Can unions price themselves out of a Job yes and many have accepted that reality


The #1 item on the list of stupid spending, is union benefits.
Thats not the whole story is it ... The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax.. no money no spending bring back more min wage jobs and the 60 hr work week thats the answer

you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement or provide a valuable service to the state or town in which they work

INSANE benefits that were done away with, for good reason, in the private sector long ago.

what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped

"The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax."

I don't know what that means.

But I know this...when CT tax revenues were at an all-time high, it still wasn't nearly enough to fund those benefits. WDMSO, you can't have public servants getting pensions worth several hundred thousand dollars. You just can't. The math worked in the 1950s, because people only lived a few years in retirement. Now, people live for decades. Again, that's why the private sector did away with these pensions.

Here's an idea...you save whatever you can for your retirement, just like I have to do. However much you choose to set aside, that's how much you have. That's the way it works for everyone else, there is no earthly reason why it can't work for public servants. Your financial security is no more important to society than anyone else's.

"you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement"

Who the hell said that?

Yes, most union workers pay a small % of their pay into their pension. But that's a tiny fraction of the overall cost of the pension, and you expect everyone else to make up the difference. Why is that? Why are unionized employees so special? if I don't save enough to fund my own retirement, are you going to chip into my 401(k)? No. I have to pay for my own retirement. So should you.

"what benefits are those that were done away with good reason ?? I love to hear them ... and why they were or should be stopped"

Pensions and cheap healthcare in retirement. Those were done away with in the early 1990s. They should be stopped (for the tenth time) because they are impossible to pay for. That's why states have those deficits. Those benefits can never, ever be paid for. Never..

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You can twist that into saying I only care about the rich, but my brother and sister-in-law are public schoolteachers here in CT, and they pull in over 100 large EACH, and they have immense pensions waiting for them. They are now "the haves". We can't afford it, we just can't.

pretty sweet deal for 180 days a year

a part time worker putting in 3.5 days a week would be working 182

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

pretty sweet deal for 180 days a year

a part time worker putting in 3.5 days a week would be working 182

And their contribution to their pension, is 5% of each paycheck. For a 5% contribution, they will get an annual pension of more than 75k a year, starting at age 59 (compared to social security, where we contribute almost 13%, and at best will get 35k a year starting at age 67!!). That is INSANE. They could contribute 25% of their paycheck, it wouldn't fund that pension. And they expect the taxpayers to make up the difference.

I tell my brother and sister-in-law all the time to make other plans. They will not be getting that full pension, no way, no how - and they need to prepare for that. The state will declare insolvency long before they are dead, probably before they retire. Then we will re-negotiate those contracts.

And that's the irony. In the end, the people who get hurt the worst, are the union members who believed the unions and the politicians, who made ridiculous pension promises, in return for union dues and campaign contributions. It's beyond bad policy, it's evil. But when I warn people about what's coming (and it's coming, make no mistake), they say I hate teachers and cops.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the story clearly outlines how the right has disrupted private unions

Economics has "disrupted" private unions. Private unions "disrupted" the economic conditions of private companies.

and now are after public one because they vote Dem
there is no grand plan because between socialistic form of government and free market form. as you suggest

Your article talks about "new battle grounds and initiatives", and about "A high stakes battle." It says "Prominent in many states since the 1970s, public sector unions have delivered a one-two political punch – helping to elect liberal Democrats to state and local offices and then pushing those officeholders to expand public services like health care and education. Even at their heyday, most private sector unions struggled to have much impact in state politics, so by undercutting unionized public employees conservatives can weaken their most powerful adversary, clearing the way for legislatures and governors to achieve right-wing priorities such as tax cuts, sharp reductions in social spending, and the elimination of regulations."

It ends with "So far, however, progressives have not had much success at defending public sector unions – in large part because, since 2010 and 2014, Democrats find themselves holding historically low numbers of seats in state legislatures where rights for public unions are decided. Liberals tend to focus on national politics and campaigns for the presidency, but clearly state governments are equally important arenas – above all for fights over public employee unions that are likely to influence the future balance of power between liberals and conservatives in American politics overall."

Your article is clearly pushing for a new plan, "grand" or not, of having public unions be more active in turning state legislatures from "conservative" to "progressive." "Conservative" is code for free market capitalism and "progressive" or "liberal" are now clearly labels for progressive style government which is a form of socialism which ultimately trends toward total fascism if not total socialism.

Your article is clearly about the nexus between politics and unions. And it explicitly says that unions support, and require, progressive government. It clearly lays out the battle between conservative government and progressive government. That's the battle that must be won if public unions are to thrive.

So your article does propose a battle plan which elevates the struggle between two forms of government--a free market form and a socialistic form. And public unions are a byproduct of that struggle. And they depend on the socialist form to survive.

no the battle is between the haves and the have nots .. no one cared about public sector unions until private companys put the screws to the private sector ...

The battle between the haves and the have nots is one of those union mantras that is not quite accurate. Modern battles between unions in the private sector is between the wealthy "haves" usually big companies, and their employees who are usually not wealthy but are well-off "haves." Public sector unions, the not wealthy but still well-off haves, battle against their public-at-large tax cash cow private citizens who overall on average are often not as well-off.

Oh . . . and yes, some, including FDR, your Democrat (Progressive) hero and creator of forced "collective bargaining" did care about public unions right at the beginning of it all and well before private companies supposedly, as you put it, "put the screws to the private sector." FDR and prominent labor leaders at the time such as Samuel Gompers said that there must not be public unions--for the same reasons that I have mentioned. They knew the pernicious problems public unions would create.

yes there is little risk for a public worker when it comes to job security..

Absolutely correct. A big plus over what many private workers (you know--the ones who pay for the public workers security) face.

but the right thinks you can privatize all area of Government and thats their Goal.. there is no private police or fire compete with there never has ..

I haven't heard about privatizing ALL areas of government, but some areas could actually better serve the public at less cost. Detroit (the administration is not "conservative" but very "progressive") has contracted with a private trash and garbage pickup company in order to divest itself of some of the legacy costs that helped bankrupt it. And the service is actually better and more reliable. And the company took on most of the drivers that had worked for the city.

Many city and town legacy cost have become un funded mostly do to lack of Tax revenue for who else but big business in my town alone where taking a hit from 2 shut down coal electric plants who where taxed on output other places give generous tax breaks to companys who promise jobs then bail after the tax incentive expires..

I may be wrong, but don't the employees who work for those companies pay taxes on their wages. And don't they spend money and buy homes and pay property taxes and gas taxes and fuel the economy of other local retail businesses all of which boosts the overall tax revenue of the community? Why on earth would you expire tax incentives when they help infuse economic blood into your system. And, basically, the dirty little secret is that companies don't pay as much in taxes as it appears. They mostly pass the tax burden back on to consumers. So another bonus of tax incentives is that it saves the public some money when they buy the products.

But is much easier to attack the teacher or Cop or fireman then the real cause ... But lets make America Great again Counting on the company's to come back to the states, give the a big tax break and be thankful for more min wage jobs .. all this from the companys who screwed us in the 1st place

Actually, the companies brought you an economic base from which you could better yourself--in the first place. What happens in the second, third, or whatever place after that is not as simplistic as you and Michael Moore make it out to be.

It sounds as if you're not in favor of having the companies coming back to the states unless the unions and the government can impose on them the things that chased them out--in the first place (or was that the second, or third, place?). And if you don't have the companies that brought enough wealth to your community, in the first place, to pay for those teachers and police and fire fighters, who is "attacking" those folks by not providing a tax break which keeps the companies in town?

Right now, without those treacherous companies, some places are left only with those minimum wage jobs that you complain about. Many blame a great deal of that on our benevolent illegal alien population. But Trump is a "racist" for trying to remove that element. Of course, those treacherous companies are said to want the illegals because they can pay them less. Can you blame them for wanting to reduce their costs? I hear a lot of big businesses, and Wall Street, you know, those dastardly money grubbers who devastate the country, are afraid of trump. Hmmph. Probably because they don't like racists.

You do realize that the so-called "middle class" is a by-product of capitalism? Unions did not create the middle class. They benefited from working for wealthy companies which paid them well--much more than they would have gotten otherwise--even before they were unionized.

That in socialism there is no middle class--just the ruling elite over all the rest? In equalitarian societies everybody is equal, there is no class, except for the head honchos, they are always more equal than the rest.

[Nebe]

Hey. Melanoma Trump is having her shoes made in Ethiopia now. Screw China! Oh wait. Labor is cheaper in Ethiopia.

Make America great again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Hey. Melanoma Trump is having her shoes made in Ethiopia now. Screw China! Oh wait. Labor is cheaper in Ethiopia.

Make America great again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's where you get the best elephant leather

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's where you get the best elephant leather

Elephant scrotum makes the best bowing ball bags you will ever see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated. For some of his early term the Repub. controlled the Senate (Conn. wasn't always as blue as now). Many state employees were getting like a 9-11% raise each year for like 5 years bc the state went from a 35 hour week to a 40 hour week over that 5 year period. Current state ees have like 2 or 3 different pension/benefit plans based on when they where hired. Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees. Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg. When the economy tanked he illegally layed off state union members and Conn's liablity for that is now like $100M.

Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits.

Fault lies with both parties.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated. For some of his early term the Repub. controlled the Senate (Conn. wasn't always as blue as now). Many state employees were getting like a 9-11% raise each year for like 5 years bc the state went from a 35 hour week to a 40 hour week over that 5 year period. Current state ees have like 2 or 3 different pension/benefit plans based on when they where hired. Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees. Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg. When the economy tanked he illegally layed off state union members and Conn's liablity for that is now like $100M.

Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits.

Fault lies with both parties.

"Roland was governer when the current contract(s) where negotiated"

(1) John Roland is not anyone's idea of a conservative
(2) the governor doesn't write the contract language. That is done by the legislature.

Forget about party, let's use the terms liberal and conservative. It is a liberal notion (regardless of party affiliation) to give unions a blank check and to think that's good policy. It's a conservative notion (regardless of party affiliation) to believe in fiscal responsibility.

"Fault lies with both parties"

The fault does not lie with conservatives, who have never had even a whisper of a voice in Hartford.

"Roland signed a deal in like 1997 that made it very hard to limit pension and other benefits for state ees"

Is that true? The contracts are in place for that long? Wow...well, if the government doesn't want to limit those pensions, then the laws of arithmetic will be happy to oblige. because regardless of which party is in control, you still cannot have more than there is. A check with insufficient funds to back it up, will bounce regardless of the party membership of the idiot who signed said check.

"Conn. had budget surpluses in the years those contracts where neg"

But a budget surplus only consider expenses that need to be paid in that year. Even when there were budget surpluses, the actuaries were warning that the pensions could not be funded. Same thing with Social Security, which always generated massive surpluses - the actuaries knew that regardless of any current year surpluses, the plan could not bear the weight of the Baby Boomer effect. A one-year surplus doesn't matter, this is long term debt.

"Malloy has made some strides in funding the unfunded pension benefits"

Sure, he spent a ton of my money to delay bankruptcy by a month.

Paul, why do I need to pay anything for their pensions? If I have to find a way to retire on whatever I manage to save in my 401(k) (as does everyone in the private sector), why can't public servants do the same thing? If a teacher wants an annuity paying 75k a year starting at age 59, LET HIM PAY FOR THAT HIMSELF. if I have to fund my own retirement, why is it also my responsibility to fund theirs?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Sadly you assume history would have been the same if unions were not involved..

Obviously, I did not say that history would have been the same. If I assumed that, then why would I care one way or the other if unions existed or not?

And, perhaps, you did not notice that I said in-house unions in the private sector were perfectly fine with me. What I object to is international or national unions which bring outside influence, money, and power to muster against a company which by federal law is prevented from so called "colluding" with other companies to fight back. More reasonable wages and compensation packages which fit a particular company's financial structure can be arrived at when outside power is not involved.

An example which I was personally involved with is what the UAW used to do with every new contract negotiation. Back then the US auto industry mainly comprised of "The Big Three"--Ford, GM, and Chrysler. The same union, UAW, represented the workers for all three. The union tactic was to pick only one of the companies to bargain with. The company would put up as much of a fight as the union was willing to accept, but in the end, it knew that if the union did not get what it wanted, they would strike, leaving the company without production while their two competitors were cranking out cars to sell. The company could only hold out briefly during a strike, while the striking workers were subsidized by the collective union funds. When both sides came to the inevitable agreement, the result became the blue print for contracts with the other companies. Actual competition between the companies for labor, and the need to offer better wages and conditions, was eliminated.

The union would claim the victory of achieving a great contract, making them hero's to the workers, but two years later it would claim that the contract was not so great, that the workers were still oppressed. So the phony dance of workers who were so happy to get a job in the first place that paid them way more than their skills could have gotten them elsewhere, switched every three years and decided it was no good and the fight against a fictitious oppression would be repeated.

Naturally, the price of cars would go up a few hundred dollars, which would add to the inflation of the rest of the economy, so prices in general would rise, so when the new contract was due the gains from the old one were to some extent lost--a loss aided by their own demands.

Would a strictly in-house union even need to automatically have a new contract every three years? Could it not, without outside influence and agitation, recognize when some adjustments were needed and reasonably discuss the problems with the company? Wouldn't in-house negotiations which reflected a company's financial status be more reasonable?

if these wealthy compaines which you say paid them so we'll
why the need for unions Without unions, we would still be working 12 hour days, seven days a week, with no paid holidays, no paid vacations, no pay raises. Can unions price themselves out of a Job yes and many have accepted that reality

They DID pay them well in relation to general pay scales especially for unskilled labor. Factory jobs were coveted even before unions. It was kind of humorous to me after the 8 hour day was instituted how many workers were glad to get overtime so they could get a larger paycheck. Sort of like self-employed people who work way more than 40 hours a week to pay for a better life, or even to break even. Ford Motor Co. actually instituted the 5 day 40 hour work week in 1926 before it was unionized. And not long after that most manufactures in the US followed suit. They found that giving the time off actually added to productivity.

Maybe you're assuming that evil manufacturers are just out to squeeze the last ounce of life out of their workers in order to generate the last penny of profit. Maybe you're assuming that employers simply cannot be enlightened, or are slave masters, and that they must be FORCED to act like normal human beings.

The manufacturing segment actually lifted people out of the poverty of the pre-industrial age. Even with the initial long working hours, the workers had more time to themselves than they did when they had to eke out a life from the land. As technology advances, work becomes easier, production increases, the demand for human labor in time and effort decreases. Even without workers of the world uniting, technological advances along with increased understanding of human motivation and the importance of workplace satisfaction brings about better working conditions. And actual competition, an actually free market rather than an over-regulated one, creates the competition for labor which includes competitive wages and working conditions.

you act as if Union members dont pay taxes or contribute into their own retirement or provide a valuable service to the state or town in which they work

No I don't act that way. The taxes that public sector workers pay are taken from the money they get from the private sector taxes that pay their salaries. And their contribution into their own retirement also is derived from the private sector taxes which gives them the money to contribute. And all pension money they get is either from the taxes that paid for it or from their pension bureau investing in private sector sources. So all the money, in one form or another, is derived from private sector either through taxation or investment.

And the service provided to the state or town should be valuable, or if it is not, why should the citizens pay for it.

Public sector unions are the big issue now. That was the thrust of your article. That is the remaining "big" problem with unions now. As I've said several times now, the creators of enforced collective bargaining stipulated that the public sector must not be unionized. The very problems they, FDR and labor leaders of the time, foresaw have happened.

Your article didn't address any of that. It was all about public sector unions being tied to the fortune of progressive politics and those unions being the tip of the spear in the battle to transform predominantly Republican state legislative bodies into Democrat ones.
How that was supposed to solve the problems that FDR warned against and which have occurred was not addressed. Apparently, per the article, there is no problem.

When I first encountered public sector unionization, I worked for the Detroit Public library system. At the time it was one of the best in the nation. Before the librarians were unionized we had an in-house employee organization which elected library employees to negotiate compensation. Most of the management negotiators had worked their way up through the system. Bargaining was amicable and reasonable. The financial books were open, and everybody knew what was feasible without crippling our ability to serve the public.

The library, as well as the city as a whole, had a history of protecting its employees and paying enough to live comfortably somewhere in the scale of middle class America. Even in hard times, including the Great Depression, layoffs were unheard of. And, before unionization, we all had pension and benefit packages. Civil service jobs were sought after.

The city's non-management employees had recently become unionized, represented by A.F.S.M.E. or other skilled labor orgs. The younger librarians were not satisfied with the status quo, especially the wages which they thought were too low for their status as degreed professionals. So they wanted to be represented by a more powerful outside union. The UAW was chosen, a vote was taken, and the UAW was chosen over the old in-house professional organization.

I had been a UAW member before when I worked for GM. I thought, oh crap, the stupid three year dance with the antagonistic labor management relationship and the importation of fiscal problems that the auto companies had. And, yeah, all that happened. When I retired the library had shrunk from a staff of about 1,100 employees to a bit over 300. Many branch libraries were closed. Book collections were downsized. Service quality deteriorated. None of that happened before, even in bad times such, as I said, during the depression.

And the rest of the city began its precipitous fall from greatness to bankruptcy.

Was that all the fault of unionization? Obviously, it was more complex than one single issue. But unionization was a piece of the big picture. Unionization, in terms of big national and international organizations, has become a branch of political power. The politics which strives for collective power and identity finds its home in big centralized government, collectivism versus individualism, big corporations rather than scattered small or little businesses. And big unions thrive in that climate if they support it. And they do support it, financially and ideologically. They propagandize for it. I still get the UAW "Solidarity" magazine. The propaganda disinformation it publishes is astounding. One issue proudly proclaimed that the Constitution protected the "right" of collective bargaining. No, the Constitution doesn't, but big progressive government with its crony judges does.

So, yeah, the big unions played their role in destroying Detroit. They are part and parcel of the politics which created business flight out of the city and even out of the country. And without that tax base, the intransigent employee demands became too onerous to sustain.

As an aside the inflation graph of the US by date shows a peculiar rise when compared to the advent of expanded unionization, especially public sector unionization. Right about the time when manufacturers were more generally becoming unionized, inflation begins to show a bit of a rise. And just about the time public sector unions began to take hold, the graph shoots up dramatically. Are correlation and cause connected? I don't know. I think there is some correlation/cause connection.

[wdmso]

"The new revenue erosion and higher pension costs together would swell the projected deficits to $1.5 billion next fiscal The chief culprits behind the latest declining forecast were the state income tax."

I don't know what that means.

http://ctmirror.org/2016/11/15/debt-...ext-ct-budget/

Paul, why do I need to pay anything for their pensions? If I have to find a way to retire on whatever I manage to save in my 401(k) (as does everyone in the private sector), why can't public servants do the same thing? If a teacher wants an annuity paying 75k a year starting at age 59, LET HIM PAY FOR THAT HIMSELF. if I have to fund my own retirement, why is it also my responsibility to fund theirs?

not to answer for paul.. however if you want their benefits do their job.. for 30 -35 years.. seems don't know many private sector guys that have been with the same company for that long in todays world 30years ago most of the NE did work in the same job same company 20 plus years who screwed who?