It's always the Union's fault. Without Unions business and government can pay minimum and provide no benefits. A lovely society ensues...like Brazil, where middle class kids roam the streets because their parents can't afford them, and are gunned down by the police like the little vermin they are. Profits are maximized, people are screwed. What's not to like about doing away with Unions?
Posted by phidipides at June 14, 2005 10:21 AMRaising dues for political activities could pose problems for the unions. Remember Beck vs CWA, U.S. Supreme Court, ca. 1986?
This could backfire. I hope they have done their homework; it was Bush I who signed the executive order implementing (mandatory notification) Beck during his first weeks in office.
Without Unions business and government can pay minimum and provide no benefits.
Even worse. The conservatives would love to see real 'freedom of labor.' That is, each individual is allowed to make their own employment deal. So if one chooses to work a 90-hour week for $1.20/week that's good because one's economic freedom is preserved. They see the minimum wage us a heinous intrusion by the government into the economic transactions of private individuals.
Here's a thought I had last night: "The 'free market' is like the lottery: for evey winner there are millions of people who don't even realise they didn't have a chance."
Posted by Daniel Maskit at June 14, 2005 11:07 AMRaising dues for political activities could pose problems for the unions.
Only if it's a closed shop. As long as you're not forcing people to join the union, as a condition of government employment, the First Amendment shouldn't come into play.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 14, 2005 11:09 AMTo clarify: If you're a union, and you speak for a whole group of laborers--some members, some not--you can charge laborers who benefit from your collective bargaining a fee to offset bargaining-related costs. They don't need to be members of the union.
To charge fees which you spend on political advocacy, though, the laborers must be union members. If they are members, though, you can certainly charge for political advocacy.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 14, 2005 11:17 AMGreat post, Steve. I have one little nitpick, though. It's spelled "serfs", not "surfs". Though, since you're out in California, "surfs" might be a good term to invent. ;-)
Posted by Blue Jean at June 14, 2005 12:34 PMThank you, Blue Jean, I will fix that now.
It's paradox--thanks for the compliment, but I'm not in Mr. Soto's league.
Posted by paradox at June 14, 2005 12:39 PMVoters in CA aren't happy with the $80 million taxpayer cost of the special election. Can unions mobilize that anger with the added insult that they have to spend millions more of union funds to defeat these stupid intiatives.
Posted by Marie at June 14, 2005 02:00 PMAs a liberal, pro-union, Californian, I am a little shocked about some of the large pensions promised to some public employees. As a San Diegan, I understand that our own city council has mismanaged these pension funds and so has exacerbated the problem.
However, I wonder how we taxpayers can be expected to fund pensions that we can never hope to receive from our non-public employers. Yes. I'd love it if my employer offered large defined-benefit pensions as well as health care, but this will not happen. I don't advocate public vs private employee feuding. Yet I just wonder how we the (pension-less) taxpayers can pay for these promises forever. Isn't it time to move new public workers over to 401k's?
Posted by Dianne at June 14, 2005 02:50 PMIsn't it time to move new public workers over to 401k's?
If you do, you can kiss the last of the talented government workers goodbye. The benefits are the only thing that keeps good professionals working for the government; the prestige is nonexistent, they don't give you the tools to do your job, and the pay compared to similarly-qualified workers in the private sector blows chunks.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 14, 2005 03:04 PMWhy should we move to what business always wants? Why can't we all move back to pensions instead of 401k's?
A lot of what passes for union criticism is simply rank manipulation of people's jealousies. Union members get job security and pensions, how come we can't?
The answer isn't to take them away from the unions. The answer is to give the benefits to everyone so unions don't seem unique.
Posted by paradox at June 14, 2005 03:11 PMI think it would be wonderful if we all had defined-benefit pensions with health care but we don't and I don't see this happening in my lifetime. Though I've heard that private companies pay more for similar public jobs, this has not been my experience. I've not had a raise in 2+ years and don't expect one anytime soon.
Yes. If there was a possibility of a union at my marketing firm, I'd vote for it. But this won't happen either.
Again, speaking as a taxpayer (and a employee (with a 401k where the employer matches 3%) whose salary is pretty static) in a state that is unlikely to vote for any tax increases, the increasing pension costs will result in reduction of other services unless something is done to begin to fix the problem of rising state costs and not-rising state revenue.
Posted by Dianne at June 14, 2005 03:23 PMAs I understand it, Dianne, there wasn't even an issue for costs of public California pensions, it was simply the way they were administered that drew the ire of Arnie.
The pension plans invest for liberal causes and exposed corporate malfeasanse. Of course it drives the Republicans batshit.
Pensions are usally factored in as part of payroll costs in accounting. It's just what it takes to pay a person, some of it is saved, that's all.
Sure it costs more than what business does with 401k's. For this workers have given away a huge chunk of their retirement security. The issue should be why so many workers lost their pensions, not why unions are allowed to keep theirs.
Taxes for pensions are way down on my list of things to be concerned about as far as State spending goes. Chopping the prison budget in half is a lot more important to me.
Posted by paradox at June 14, 2005 03:31 PMSorry about the mistake, paradox. Thanks for pointing it out. And please don't tell yourself you're not in Steve's league--I think you are. :)
Posted by Blue Jean at June 14, 2005 03:52 PMAgain, speaking as a taxpayer (and a employee (with a 401k where the employer matches 3%) whose salary is pretty static) in a state that is unlikely to vote for any tax increases
Doesn't matter. The state is contractually obligated to fund those pensions for existing employees. Cali can cut costs on future employees, like you say, but as I said before, the state should be prepared to turn into Mississippi.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 14, 2005 04:19 PM"However, I wonder how we taxpayers can be expected to fund pensions that we can never hope to receive from our non-public employers."
Diane,
We taxpayers have long gotten many years of service from public employees at wages below what they would be paid in the private sector. Not in every case, but in most cases. I went from the public sector to private about 10 years ago and doubled my salary. But I lost that fixed benefit retirement. You get what you pay for.
What Schwarenegger would like to do is to abrogate all those agreements with all those public employees over the years.
Hey, if Bush-lovin' Enron can screw their former employees into the ground, why can't Uncle Arnie? Or so he apparently believes.
Posted by blue nurse at June 14, 2005 04:22 PMI guess I missed the boat on finding those high-paying private sector jobs you cite. I don't believe I'm alone, especially in the economy of the last 4 years and being over 50 years old.
I understand that the state and counties, etc. are on the hook for the pensions already promised. And I would be happy if there were a way for all workers to have either big salaries or big pensions.
I understand that Arnie's first round of fighting with the public unions has been lost and so he's gone onto other ways to reduce union power. But the pension issue is the "elephant in the room".
I don't begrudge anyone the benefits they've been promised. Here in San Diego, some incredible promises were made by "fiscally responsible" Republicans and I believe those contracts need to be honored. However, as a taxpayer who can't afford to pay much more in taxes, I am concerned about the growing cost of public pensions. Who will pay?
Beck could pose problems for the unions: If so-called "full" union members don't agree with their organization's political positions/advocacies, they can resign,(pursuant to Beck, but only if they are members in good standing with no pending charges against them) take "Beck" status, and retain their jobs with all of the union-negotiated benefits. I have personally witnessed two implementations of Beck. (On a third case, after the union "proved" that 90% of the petitioning member's dues were used in the implemention of the applicable collective bargaining agreement under which the petitioner was employed, the member had a change of heart-one will recall that the CBA implementation percentage in Beck was 10%; perhaps the possibility of a 90% dues reduction may have seemed too tempting for this clown.)
My point is this: Many of us have heard educators or civil servants who, as union members, have PUBLICLY spoken out against their respective unions and in support of the governator and his so-called reforms. IF such lovely human beings are full union members when they don't have to be, the raising of their union dues to support political positions to which they do not agree could pose a risk, more political than financial, for the unions.(unless my knowledge of whatever exists of post-Beck case law has changed during the past few years) And, with the insidious and rampant anti-unionism of the Schwarzenegger crowd, I would expect the latter to encourage this sort of thing.
Perhaps what we need here is fewer lay person's opinions and, instead, some substantive editorial contributions from a labor attorney well-versed and experienced in the language of Beck. And perhaps h/she could explain the need for the Beck-type of language the governator seeks.(isn't it already there?)
If so-called "full" union members don't agree with their organization's political positions/advocacies, they can resign...
Yeah, so what's your point? If union members choose to give to their union to support anti-Gropenfuhrer campaigning, there's nothing--nothing--that CWA v. Beck has to say about it. If they choose to quit, they pay only fees that are related to collective bargaining costs, not collective bargaining benefits.
Begone, troll.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 14, 2005 08:09 PMA lot of what passes for union criticism is simply rank manipulation of people's jealousies.
Exactly.
Posted by phidipides at June 14, 2005 09:05 PMDianne, you are 100% correct.
Matt is wrong, of course, because I don't see state jobs going vacant. Somebody will want them.
I believe state workers can opt out of the part of the union dues that go to political contributions, by sending an annual letter. I'll check with a friend and post what you need to send to the union. If that's the case.
Posted by muckdog at June 14, 2005 09:48 PMMy husband went to college in California, but left after graduation to work in another state. Even though the costs of living and housing in California are drastically higher than where we live, my husband makes 1/3 MORE than his friends who stayed they do and has much better working conditions. California schools have been gutted. They have huge classroom sizes, no library, and half the time they seem to have to beg parents to buy toilet paper and paper towels. Aside from the fact that we would have been completely squeezed financially, it's a terrible shame that the schools have gone from being among the top schools of the country to being what, 40th? My friends who teach in California are committed and caring, but they're trying to bail out a flood with a dixie cup. Teaching sounds like an easy job, but consider the reality of actually doing it, of actually being responsible for these 35-40 souls each day all day long, of teaching them and preparing for them and grading them. From what I've seen of what my husband and friends do, it is an incredibly draining job.
Posted by Alexandra at June 15, 2005 04:52 AMMatt is wrong, of course, because I don't see state jobs going vacant. Somebody will want them.
Sure, somebody will want them. But the quality of personnel that fill given jobs tends to go down as the attractiveness of the position goes down. If the position sucks, the person filling it will, over time, suck too.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 15, 2005 06:23 AMMatt is wrong, of course, because I don't see state jobs going vacant.
Yeah, because of the benefits. Lose the bennies, you don't fill those positions.
Of course, you pose an interesting question. Let's try our all volunteer military with no health care, no housing, no education bennies, no retirement, no veterans bennies. If they get shot or blown-up they better hope they have private pay health insurance (or go on medicaid). Shit, they can buy their own fucking uniforms and guns, and drive their personal cars to battle, lazy no account military free-fucking-loaders. They should be happy they have a God damn job, right muck?
Posted by phidipides at June 15, 2005 08:05 AMWell, Matt, everybody knows government workers don't represent the top rung of the academic ladder. A lot of folks work for the government because they're unable to find employment in the private sector. Or, they've made a quality of life decision, and have decided that they'll trade a higher salary for lots of time off, benefits, and a fairly stress-free job.
Posted by muckdog at June 15, 2005 08:55 AMToday, Gov. Arnie announced that California's Prop 13 Tax Reduction will be endangered if his initiatives don't pass
California needs new tax income to provide for schools and basic services -- whether or not the Gov's initiatives pass. Most discussion centers on raising taxes of the highest income groups and corporations. Prop 13 has dramatically reduced the overall tax income from those groups that could otherwise run the schools and the state.
Prop 13 shifted the balance of taxe income from corporations to individual taxpayers, when property values for corporations and old ladies were frozen at 1970's levels, except when property was sold. The biggest Prop 13 beneficiary has been the freight railroad industry, which owned huge land grants designated for future railroad lines (or development). Prop 13 passed in the 1970's to shelter seniors from inflating taxes as their home values skyrocket -- without mentioning the corporate beneficiaries.
The Governator's intiatives will not reduce the need for additional income to support schools and state functions. The Gov's initiatives are aimed at reducing the benefits for state employees (firefighters, police, teachers, nurses (with modest impact on the state budget, though huge impact on state employees), reducing the ability of unions to impact political campaigns, and rewarding the Gov's conservative corporate supporters.
Posted by MS at June 15, 2005 09:15 AMA lot of folks work for the government because they're unable to find employment in the private sector. Or, they've made a quality of life decision, and have decided that they'll trade a higher salary for lots of time off, benefits, and a fairly stress-free job.
Government workers are dumb as posts, stupid, and lazy. Ergo, they deserve nothing for their poorly paid work. Walks like a neo-con, flaps like a neo-con, and quacks like a neo-con. You must call yourself a social liberal. Bwaa Haaa Haaa Haaa! Oh, the mirth!
Well, the government generally outsources the work anyways. The government employees are entrusted to run the potlucks and Christmas parties. bwah.
Posted by muckdog at June 15, 2005 10:24 AMRight now your taxes rank amongst the highest in the country, and yet your education system ranks down there with Texas and Arkansas. What gives, where has the greatest education system in the country gone? Before Prop 13, California lead the country, now what 42cd? Virtually no resources for teachers to use. Many must pay for resources out of their own pockets. Where are your priorities? Certainly not the kids, and certainly not the teachers. California has 85% of its budget mandated now. In comparison the national budget is only 70-71% mandated. Sure our national budget can run deficits and states can't, but the state budget must have more flexibility than the 15% currently. Prop 13 may have been a very nice deal, but whatever you've added to it sure has messed up your ability to provide for education.
And lets compare where California is today to where the US will be in 2020, when SS starts to enter mandated areas in our budgetary process. The national budget will be entering areas that California are experiencing today. Wait, do not fix SS now and the whole country will be where y'all are today. And y'all will be a lot worse.
So how do you want to fix these problems? Where are you going to get the money to improve your education system? You've got a guy trying to lead. Your legislature sure isn't. If you keep the statis quo, where will you be? How soon till your education system is at the very bottom, and is that what you want? Highest taxes gets you the worse schools. Are you getting what you've paid for?
California has always lead the nation, now you're leading the nation in a downward spiral. Come on show us, the other 49 states what to do OR not do to fix our budgetary problems. Lead us
The view is great, everything else stinks.
Posted by peter at June 15, 2005 10:40 AMAll of my life, I've heard that CA doesn't spend enough on schools. I'll probably hear it the rest of my life. We could pay teachers $1 Million a year, and it wouldn't make a difference.
Now, some are complaining about the exit exam. Well, sorry, if you don't pass then why should you graduate? Might as well just give you a diploma at birth, and skip those K-12 years in school if you're not interested in passing a test. What's the point?
Lack of money isn't the problem anyways. It's socioeconomic. Some kids would rather join gangs and do other things than work hard in school, go to college, and get jobs. They're not interested in homework or tests. How does higher taxes and more spending solve that?
Posted by muckdog at June 15, 2005 11:29 AMMuckdog,
Aren't there some butterflies in your backyard that need to have their wings plucked off? You could be MUCH more helpful if you went off and did that instead of kicking in everyone's teeth here.
On California education: (1) California schools were once ranked at the top in the country, and today in the bottom fifth; the slide started PRECISELY at the same time as Prop. 13 was passed. Coincidence? Unlikely.
(2) Teachers are not paid $1,000,000 a year, and the amount EACH teacher is paid is not the problem. The problem is too many kids in each classroom; insufficient variety of classes to include critical thinking skills, art and culture (which REAL science proves will improve both a student's ability to learn AND their desire to be there so that they can learn); a serious lack of materials necessary to properly teach, including up-to-date textbooks and computer technology; and dilapidated, even dangerous, infrastructure that destroys any possibility of an adequate learning environment. In other words, the problem is that there are NOT ENOUGH TEACHERS, and NOT ENOUGH FUNDS to do the job properly -- since the business interests have been "starving the beast" [thank you, Grover Norquist] since Porp. 13 was adopted.
(3) Schwarzenegger violated state law by "balancing" the budget by reneging on a $2 billion funding for schools, an amount equal to one-half -- get that, one-fucking-half -- of the amount that state law required the state to fund. Could you survive for a year on one-half of your annual income? Survive, maybe, but thrive and claim your life is close to normal, let alone actually improve your life-style? Again, unlikely. Schools can't do that, either, when there is not the political will to pay for what we expect schools to accomplish.
Muckdog, if you want to hammer schools, or unions, or progressives, fine. But stop acting like a troll by simply crashing around in your "out-of-control elephant in a china shop" manner. Give facts, do some research and data-gathering, use some empirical evidence, and then do some intellectually honest analysis. THEN your contributions here might be useful towards furthering a fair discussion of serious matters of economic and political realities in the everyday lives of typical outside-the-beltway Americans. Until then, please stop blathering and go away. Thank you.
Posted by Analytical Liberal at June 15, 2005 01:04 PM(1) Wrong. There's been a demographic change in CA, and an increase in people on the lower socioeconomic rung.
(2) Wrong. Doesn't seem to bother the affluent kids, who are also in crowded classrooms.
(3) Wrong. School funding has increased. You're just playing semantic games. This is the kind of stuff straight out of the unions' handbooks. People who believe that schools are getting less money now than the previous year, are in my opinion, complete idiots.
Finaly, you have no facts, just conjecture. That's "wild ass guesses," in case you didn't know.
Posted by muckdog at June 15, 2005 01:33 PMSchool funding has increased... People who believe that schools are getting less money now than the previous year...
Why is this point of yours valid muck? Because progressives protected our future from the axe.
(2) Wrong. Doesn't seem to bother the affluent kids, who are also in crowded classrooms.
So bad conditions don't hurt some kids? Hoo-fucking-rah. That "demographic chage" coded racist BS or yours for "Mexicans" is a rehashed lie. In WWII, there was a huge influx of Southern blacks, with the same conservative calls as we hear now to punish them. You know what? CA k-12 was in the top 10, and college was literally free to all smart hard working kids. No more on both counts. But who cares as long as the rich kids are still doing well?
Posted by Pacific John at June 17, 2005 09:53 AMThis is Tom, the Beck-post comment person.
For the record: I am not a "Troll." I am a member of a union, have walked picket lines, been an on-site elected employee rep, a shop steward, and have also sat at arbitration tables as an appointed union representative.(documentation available)
I regret posting about Beck even though I believe it is indeed relevant to the California wars. Unfortunately, and obviously, it is too involved a subject for this forum, at least at the present time.
Mea Culpa.