Apparently you fail to understand the bargaining differences between the government and the private sector, not to mention the fact that the government has never been known for treating its employees badly or to having created horrible working conditions.

Public sector employee unions negotiate contracts with a monopoly (the government). A monopoly has nowhere near the incentive to control costs that a non-monopoly has because the monopoly can push the costs onto the consumer and suffer few ill consequences. In this case the consumer is the taxpayer.

When the union and government negotiate a contract, they push costs onto the taxpayer. These costs are not easy for the taxpayer to see because they are taken from general tax funds, rather than from a specific outlay which is paid for via a specific tax. Furthermore, if the taxpayer doesn't like how teachers perform, or the DoL employee behaves, or the sign holder holds the sign, or the custodian cleans the government toilet, he has no option. He has to deal with these people and even if he somehow limits his interactions, the taxpayer still has to fund these people. The government has minimal need to drive a hard bargain, especially when tax revenue is flowing well, because there is no real consequence to negotiating a bad contract with the union.

When Ford negotiates a contract with the UAW, it has every incentive to control costs. If it negotiates a contract that soaks Ford on health benefits and disciplinary procedure costs, well guess what, Ford has to account for these costs in the price of its products. If a Ford product costs 5% more to produce than a comparable Volkswagen product, then a consumer has the option of paying for the higher priced Ford vehicle or it can purchase the cheaper Volkswagen.

Ford is well aware that it has to keep down labor costs and it will try to do what it can to negotiate with the Union so that it has less expensive products.

The private sector union also realizes that it has every incentive to keep Ford profitable because that is how it is paid. The union will try to drive a hard bargain, but it will at least have an incentive to be somewhat flexible because it knows that the higher Ford's labor costs, the higher the chance that there will be lost sales and therefore a higher chance of Ford laying off workers.

Public sector unions have no incentive to keep down government costs because it knows it negotiates with, as I said before, a monopoly. If the government negotiates a terrible contract with the union, oh well, the taxpayer will simply have to foot the bill. Further, the union will make sure that government officials have a secure voting block in future elections.

Or, just possibly, I understand completely well and do not believe that it matters. We can have a much better conversation if you don't go assuming things about me and think that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Then again, given your original poll, perhaps I expect too much from you.



All that does is make negotiations different. Does it give public unions more power than private unions? Of course. Is that your basic argument? You don't like the balance? You think they have too much power in relation to the other side? You don't complain when it's the other way around though, do you?

You see, Mike, the difference between you and me is that you want everyone to be equal in outcomes, even if it means that everyone is poorer for it, while I want everyone to be wealthier even if it means that some might be richer than others.

I wouldn't suspect that either. But then again, this has nothing to do with my argument.


You must be completely blind if you're seriously making this argument. Have you ever heard of rubber rooms in New York City?

Oh I love the Dead Kennedys, but I don't see how their song has any relevance on public employee unions debate.

Um, NO. I am not a communist.

What I want is an equal playing field -- where the bullies don't get to beat up the little kids just because they're bigger. Where everyone has the right to be treated the same, and where there's nothing wrong with banding together to have more power than you would have individually.

And I want a progressive tax system, where the amount you pay is not based on a simple % but instead based on how it will affect you. A tax of 20% of the income of someone only earning $20,000 a year means they have to not have decent housing, good food, or basic provisions for themselves and their family. 20% on a millionaire will hardly hurt at all.

So I'm about making the game fair for everyone. Those who are hard working, intelligent and talented can move in that system and won't be held back because the game is stacked against them, and those who are lucky enough to be at the top of the economic scale are willing to contribute back into the society that helped them get there.

Mike, you can't seriously be complaining about Caius simplifying the argument and accusing him of attacking you, while just on the last page you accused me of shilling for the rich as a way to brush off a legitimate argument.

Anyway, regarding the unions in the public sector - one other thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, is that they are one of the biggest opponents to innovation in the public sector. Merit Pay for teachers? Opposed! School vouchers? Opposed! Liquor store privatization? Opposed!

And then they wonder why people don't feel sympathy for them.

Awww, how quickly do you find nuance when it's YOUR beliefs that are being mocked.

First, I do not think that everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, professor. However, I do think that you are engaging in obfuscation by claiming that I am personally attacking you.

Second, I do not like public sector unions because I am required to pay for the increased costs of government that they inevitably incur without any corresponding increases in productivity.

Unions get two bites at the same apple: meaning, they vote in elections for politicians who can enact legislation regarding payment, working conditions, grievance procedures, benefit packages, sick leave, pensions, etc. Then, they also negotiate with the same government for a CBA. It is true that their preferred candidates do not always win, but they generally do not negotiate with an elected official, rather they do so with some unelected civil servant(s). Not to mention that in a way the public sector union's contract is voted on outside the normal budgetary system of the legislature.

Groucho, can you explain why there needs to be a public sector union? Is the government historically known for being a harsh taskmaster? For having terrible working conditions? For unfairly terminating employees?

That's not all unions are about. By that argument, no union needs to exist any more.

Unions are to provide an equal negotiating tool -- to give workers who individually have no power against the other side some ability to work out problems instead of having to just deal with it.

Your attitude is that public unions never make compromises and always demand unrealistic things. You've used examples that those who are anti-union always give, as if those complaints should offset all the good things they have done. And you ignore the fact that in this case -- the case for which this discussion is about -- the union was willing to compromise and the Governor said no, he only wants them destroyed, no compromise is possible.

When you have someone who wants to destroy you, who refuses to negotiate, who wants to use the full power of the government to come down upon you -- well, should I make a parallel with what is happening in the Middle East? When people are united, they can prevent the government from crushing them.

Just for the fun of it, let's assume that teachers that have unions and collective bargaining do make it so that bad teachers never get removed and therefore kids get terrible educations.

It would logically follow then that states that don't have such rights would have better students who would score higher on SAT tests and such, right?

There are five states where teachers are denied collective bargaining rights: NC, SC, VA, TX and GA. Let's see where they rank for student scores:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th

Just to let you know, Wisconsin ranked 2nd in the country.

Not sure where these are coming from, but are you seriously suggesting that there's only one variable at play when it comes to determining test scores? Man, talk about simplifying the debate...

The state rankings for the 2010 ACT show no such results. Furthermore, not all students of a state even take the ACT or SAT so the results may be skewed and are likely not comparable unless adjusted.

http://www.act.org/news/data/10/states.html?utm_campaign=cccr10&utm_source=data&utm_medium=web (ACT results by state).

Under the ACT, Wisconsin ranked 17th nationally with 69% of its high school graduates taking the test for an average score of 22.1 with the national average being 21.0.

Virginia also ranked ahead of Wisconsin, although not by much. North Carolina only had 16% of its high school graduates even take the test, Virginia 22%, Texas 33%, Georgia 44%, and South Carolina 52%.

I looked up the 2010 SAT results too for Wisconsin. http://professionals.collegeboard.com/p ... _03_01.pdf (it is a .pdf).

Here is the best comparison I could find between the states for the SAT:



http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/2010-sat-scores-by-state (formatting slightly changed, but not the data).

Again, I am not sure how much we can glean from this data, which has Wisconsin ranked #3, because there is only a 4% participation rate in Wisconsin for this test whereas Texas is 53%, Virginia 57%, North Carolina 63%, South Carolina 66% and Georgia 74%.

It's not just about wealth. It's about power.

And gravity!

Har: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/ ... -pensions/

What a crock of shit.

The taxpayers pay for ALL of state employees' compensation - salaries, pension, healthcare, etc. The arbitrary split between pension and salary is of absolutely no relevance - it's the total compensation packages that are in play.

And the comparison to athletes' deferred comp is bullshit too. The state pensions are GUARANTEED, so if the fund does not perform as it was expected, the taxpayers are on the hook. And that is the biggest reason state budgets in all of the U.S. are in deficit - underfunded state pensions.

Frankly I would expect better from Forbes.

The unions guarantee the state pensions, but not the state necessarily.

That's also bullshit. Where would the union get the money?

Depends on the state I guess. I think some legal loophole made this an issue in Illinois recently.

You're avoiding the question.

Public employee unions have no money that is not provided by the taxpayers.

The article roundabouts on it, yeah. I didn't really give my opinion on it.

Forbes recently published this informative piece: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions

Of course you did. This is the Grill school of debate: oh, I'm just trolling to get more understanding on the subject.

Puhleez.