PDA

View Full Version : More Unions out of touch.



imported_WILDJOKER5
11-19-2013, 12:56 PM
14% payraise? Bah, thats not enough. 90% of health care covered? WE NEED MOOOORE!!!

Yep, public sector unions are crazy and even FDR didnt approve of them. If a private sector union gets too crazy like this, the company goes bankrupt and the union workers no longer have a job. Public sector though will never go bankrupt and the civilians will suffer.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/19/ill-county-employees-strike-over-paltry-145-percent-pay-raise-offer/

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 01:14 PM
14% payraise? Bah, thats not enough. 90% of health care covered? WE NEED MOOOORE!!!

Yep, public sector unions are crazy and even FDR didnt approve of them. If a private sector union gets too crazy like this, the company goes bankrupt and the union workers no longer have a job. Public sector though will never go bankrupt and the civilians will suffer.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/19/ill-county-employees-strike-over-paltry-145-percent-pay-raise-offer/

I hesitate to analyze without more details, this news article presents the information in a misleading fashion designed to push an agenda while sharing little of important substance, assuming, often correctly, that this will be enough to snare a person who lacks critical thinking abilities into carrying on the narrative themselves without spending the time to really think things through.

An example, 14% increase from what wages to begin with? That's kind of important, also, what is the cost of living in this locality? There are a whole slew of relevant questions to be posed here that this article fails to communicate.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-19-2013, 01:19 PM
I hesitate to analyze without more details, this news article presents the information in a misleading fashion designed to push an agenda while sharing little of important substance, assuming, often correctly, that this will be enough to snare a person who lacks critical thinking abilities into carrying on the narrative themselves without spending the time to really think things through.

An example, 14% increase from what wages to begin with? That's kind of important, also, what is the cost of living in this locality? There are a whole slew of relevant questions to be posed here that this article fails to communicate.

True, what kind of jobs are they doing is another question.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-19-2013, 01:26 PM
From the linked story. (http://watchdog.org/116705/touch-unionized-public-employees-strike-14-5-percent-raise/)

“County employees pay one percent of their salaries for single coverage and two percent for family coverage,” a press release from Will County Executive Larry Walsh states. “The new plan calls for employees to cover an aggregate of 10 percent of the cost of their insurance.”

...

“Will County employees want what all working people want: Fair pay and affordable health care,” Lindall said.

When most of Americans are paying well more than 2% of their paycheck towards health insurance, how the hell do you say that is NOT "affordable health care"? Not to mention most everyone is having their health insurance increased thanks to ObamaCare.

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 01:30 PM
True, what kind of jobs are they doing is another question.

I have done a bit more digging on the local levels, this article does pretty decent at providing a more level discussion with more pertinent information.
Will County Employees on Strike: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/23848756-418/will-county-employees-on-strike.html

sandsjames
11-19-2013, 01:50 PM
The misconception about unions is that they always want more. The truth is, most strikes/contract negotiations take place because the company is trying to TAKE something from the employees. Very seldom is there a strike strictly for an increase in pay/benefits.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2013, 02:22 PM
The misconception about unions is that they always want more. The truth is, most strikes/contract negotiations take place because the company is trying to TAKE something from the employees. Very seldom is there a strike strictly for an increase in pay/benefits.

In my personal experience you are correct. My former company wanted the union at one location to pay more for their health insurance as the company had been eating the cost increases for years. They wanted a family to pay more than $86 dollars per month. They wanted them to pay $110 per month. This was in 2009. The union went on strike for 9 weeks.

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 02:36 PM
In my personal experience you are correct. My former company wanted the union at one location to pay more for their health insurance as the company had been eating the cost increases for years. They wanted a family to pay more than $86 dollars per month. They wanted them to pay $110 per month. This was in 2009. The union went on strike for 9 weeks.

In the case we're discussing at least, a lot of this has to do with the frozen pay for four years running, if the mods ever decide to unleash the article I linked a little bit ago it will go into better detail. Too much going on right now to find it again unfortunately.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2013, 02:50 PM
In the case we're discussing at least, a lot of this has to do with the frozen pay for four years running, if the mods ever decide to unleash the article I linked a little bit ago it will go into better detail. Too much going on right now to find it again unfortunately.

If the company's profits showed a continued increase during those four years then the union is justified in its stance. Don't think for a moment that I doubt that case. That same former employer I cited in my example is completely capable of abusing its employees if allowed to.

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 02:52 PM
It's the Government of Will County we're discussing, nothing in the private sector.

Edit: This is precisely why I felt the original article was insufficient.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2013, 06:43 PM
Ok, here is the article, I hate to work the system as such but I hate post limbo!
Will County Employees to strike:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/23848756-418/will-county-employees-on-strike.html

Can someone explain to me the substantial difference between a pay bump (when not tied to merit) and a raise?

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 06:57 PM
Can someone explain to me the substantial difference between a pay bump (when not tied to merit) and a raise?

Simplest answer with Government Service at least is they typically get payraises annually (much like the Military does) that are across the board increases (meaning it applies to everyone) rather than just towards an individual. For the last four years, from the Federal government on down, these pay increases have stopped, I'll leave the viewership to speculate all they want towards the reasoning. This was designed in a manner to allow people who work in a government service position to work at often comparably lower than the private sector salaries to adjust for rising prices in the locality without having to actually promote them or even commit to a step increase (the scales are similar yet different to military pay in the way it tends to work.)

The arguments the unions are making, is that the condition of especially the lower wage grade employees is now untenable because of the freeze consistent through four years, thus the wage increases would be made to accomodate the situation. Businesses in the private sector sometimes do this as well and like you mentioned they are typically pay bumps not tied into merit.

To answer your question specifically though, the substantial differences are in terms of who it applies to (an individual vs. everyone) and whether or not personal merit is involved. If you were looking for something more substantial, quite frankly there isn't anything of such that I personally can think of.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-19-2013, 07:36 PM
In my personal experience you are correct. My former company wanted the union at one location to pay more for their health insurance as the company had been eating the cost increases for years. They wanted a family to pay more than $86 dollars per month. They wanted them to pay $110 per month. This was in 2009. The union went on strike for 9 weeks.

Thats pretty understandable, especially if the company isnt gaining those kinds of profits. If the company cant cover that kind of increase, why shouldnt the workers start paying a little more for their health insurance?

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-19-2013, 07:49 PM
Simplest answer with Government Service at least is they typically get payraises annually (much like the Military does) that are across the board increases (meaning it applies to everyone) rather than just towards an individual. For the last four years, from the Federal government on down, these pay increases have stopped, I'll leave the viewership to speculate all they want towards the reasoning. This was designed in a manner to allow people who work in a government service position to work at often comparably lower than the private sector salaries to adjust for rising prices in the locality without having to actually promote them or even commit to a step increase (the scales are similar yet different to military pay in the way it tends to work.)

The arguments the unions are making, is that the condition of especially the lower wage grade employees is now untenable because of the freeze consistent through four years, thus the wage increases would be made to accomodate the situation. Businesses in the private sector sometimes do this as well and like you mentioned they are typically pay bumps not tied into merit.

To answer your question specifically though, the substantial differences are in terms of who it applies to (an individual vs. everyone) and whether or not personal merit is involved. If you were looking for something more substantial, quite frankly there isn't anything of such that I personally can think of.

The problem is, people that work for the public sector have to rely on taxes to float their checks. Now if the political lords have made living in the city and making a business work to hard or expensive because of taxes or regulations, then the revenue of taxes goes down. But with these unions, they make it to where the wages or personel cant be dropped to balance the budget. Raising the taxes on the remaining businesses and home owners and the such just makes the living expenses higher while driving out even more businesses and other civilians who dont want to pay such high prices. Its a down ward spiral progressives get themselves in and its lock in place by their big campaign contibuters from the unions who refuse to back off even to save the town/city.

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 08:11 PM
The problem is, people that work for the public sector have to rely on taxes to float their checks. Now if the political lords have made living in the city and making a business work to hard or expensive because of taxes or regulations, then the revenue of taxes goes down. But with these unions, they make it to where the wages or personel cant be dropped to balance the budget. Raising the taxes on the remaining businesses and home owners and the such just makes the living expenses higher while driving out even more businesses and other civilians who dont want to pay such high prices. Its a down ward spiral progressives get themselves in and its lock in place by their big campaign contibuters from the unions who refuse to back off even to save the town/city.

That is a factor simply, and the funny thing about state and local governments is that people can easily "Vote with their feet" regardless of who wins in the local elections if they significantly disagree with the local policies. Such was the case certainly with Detroit, but in that case specifically I believe the cost burden was more a factor of retirements benefits packages for both the public and private sectors rather than active government employee wages at the time. The big consideration here is whether the wages are sufficient to meet a certain standard of living in that locality after four years of inflation with no commensurate increase in salary, especially at the lower grades. If not, nobody will want to fill those positions because they would have to do that and an additional job, and quite a lot of government work is full time employment. Fundamantally, this is a problem that could realistically solve itself absent the unions, however, people are choosing to utilize these unions and I support their right to do so. I do sympathize a bit with people who work in government these days because a lot of them are faced with the lack in pay increases, relatively low wages to begin with at the lower grades (and even the upper grades when compared to their private sector equivalents), and the security that government work used to entail simply is not there so much any more either. Every time we come up to one of these budget deals the Active Duty Military component gets demagogued so much that politicians have a little bit more reluctance to use us as a bargaining chip, although they still do. That reluctance just isn't there for the government employees because they're essentially the bastard children of government service when politics get involved. Then they undergo furloughs and the like without anyone batting an eyelash in the matter.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2013, 09:25 PM
Simplest answer with Government Service at least is they typically get payraises annually (much like the Military does) that are across the board increases (meaning it applies to everyone) rather than just towards an individual. For the last four years, from the Federal government on down, these pay increases have stopped, I'll leave the viewership to speculate all they want towards the reasoning. This was designed in a manner to allow people who work in a government service position to work at often comparably lower than the private sector salaries to adjust for rising prices in the locality without having to actually promote them or even commit to a step increase (the scales are similar yet different to military pay in the way it tends to work.)

The arguments the unions are making, is that the condition of especially the lower wage grade employees is now untenable because of the freeze consistent through four years, thus the wage increases would be made to accomodate the situation. Businesses in the private sector sometimes do this as well and like you mentioned they are typically pay bumps not tied into merit.

To answer your question specifically though, the substantial differences are in terms of who it applies to (an individual vs. everyone) and whether or not personal merit is involved. If you were looking for something more substantial, quite frankly there isn't anything of such that I personally can think of.

My understanding of the union's beef is with pay increases for everyone (union members). Therefore to me a 'raise' and a 'pay bump' would be the same.

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 09:40 PM
My understanding of the union's beef is with pay increases for everyone (union members). Therefore to me a 'raise' and a 'pay bump' would be the same.

It's probable that I did not correctly interpret the meaning of your question exactly right in this case. I'll admit your comments regarding "company profits" had me a bit thrown for a loop to begin with. My first thoughts there were essentially "what are you even talking about? The government is the employer, profits don't even factor into their budget decision making!"

As such my comments were of the impression that your concern was about how exactly government compensation works, which would be nothing against you personally, it's a pretty complex ordeal to understand if someone hasn't either been receiving it for a significant period of time or had an occasion to research it in some level of detail (which I've had such occasion in line with one of my previous duty stations)

As towards whether you'd refer to it as a raise or a pay bump the difference is partially in semantics and how a person defines a "raise". When I think of a "raise" I tend to think of something that is directed at an individual and tends to be merit (and sometimes seniority) based. Since the term itself is used fairly loosely in my experience I can certainly see how you might have a broader definition and I wouldn't even go as far as to say either definition is strictly "correct" or "incorrect" usages of the term.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2013, 09:45 PM
It's probable that I did not correctly interpret the meaning of your question exactly right in this case. I'll admit your comments regarding "company profits" had me a bit thrown for a loop to begin with. My first thoughts there were essentially "what are you even talking about? The government is the employer, profits don't even factor into their budget decision making!"

As such my comments were of the impression that your concern was about how exactly government compensation works, which would be nothing against you personally, it's a pretty complex ordeal to understand if someone hasn't either been receiving it for a significant period of time or had an occasion to research it in some level of detail (which I've had such occasion in line with one of my previous duty stations)

As towards whether you'd refer to it as a raise or a pay bump the difference is partially in semantics and how a person defines a "raise". When I think of a "raise" I tend to think of something that is directed at an individual and tends to be merit (and sometimes seniority) based. Since the term itself is used fairly loosely in my experience I can certainly see how you might have a broader definition and I wouldn't even go as far as to say either definition is strictly "correct" or "incorrect" usages of the term.

I my first post was before the article was posted and therefore was a comment more on the private sector.

I really believe the union official is playing spin-doctor and is indeed playing with semantics.

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 09:51 PM
I my first post was before the article was posted and therefore was a comment more on the private sector.

I really believe the union official is playing spin-doctor and is indeed playing with semantics.

Probably so, and since Union officials tend to be politicians themselves these days it's not to a great deal of surprise.

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 09:59 PM
I my first post was before the article was posted and therefore was a comment more on the private sector.

I really believe the union official is playing spin-doctor and is indeed playing with semantics.

Aha, part of the problem was I missed the phrase you were talking about in context when you read the article. It hadn't stuck out at me in the same fashion at first so when you asked it I thought it was more in referring to the difference in general! There's the source of confusion!

kool-aid
11-19-2013, 10:51 PM
Not a fan of unions, from personal experience the spend more times keeping lazy, terrible workers on the payroll than protecting worker rights. And they seem pointless to me because if you're job is treating you crappy or not paying enough - look for another job like the rest of us do.

AJBIGJ
11-19-2013, 11:44 PM
Not a fan of unions, from personal experience the spend more times keeping lazy, terrible workers on the payroll than protecting worker rights. And they seem pointless to me because if you're job is treating you crappy or not paying enough - look for another job like the rest of us do.

I am okay with the principle behind unions because I think, if applied in an essentially free market environment, it is one of the more powerful mechanisms toward making essential market corrections towards wages and compensation. However, this concept has been long since perverted since government entities became involved with the process because, like many other things, it tried to set its own set of rules and has essentially made it beneficial for the unions AND the businesses but very bad for the employees whose choices for employment become severely limited as a result of such. In the case we're discussing here the employer actually is a government entity, which muddles the complexity of the situation even more. The problem here is now politicians are doing all the negotiations for the taxpayer which creates its own set of problems...

This being said, I have to be sympathetic to the government employees quite a bit in this situation because, all considered, I would much rather have them working as employees of the government than I would have them being welfare recipients under the government. When you consider the demographics most frequently employed under a government service entity becoming a welfare recipients is the most likely alternative in most cases of at least lower wage government employment. The one caveat I would throw in here is on the condition that the position itself they hold is one of a legitimate function of that government entity.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-20-2013, 04:46 PM
Not a fan of unions, from personal experience the spend more times keeping lazy, terrible workers on the payroll than protecting worker rights. And they seem pointless to me because if you're job is treating you crappy or not paying enough - look for another job like the rest of us do.

More people that are working associated with the union means more union dues. Yay for voting for another tax on our selves while crying the the big guys arent paying their "fair share". Oh, and also now the union workers are not paid enough now to live off of.

RetC141BFCC
11-20-2013, 07:09 PM
More people that are working associated with the union means more union dues. Yay for voting for another tax on our selves while crying the the big guys arent paying their "fair share". Oh, and also now the union workers are not paid enough now to live off of.
I am sorry I have to disagree with you. Most contract talks nowadays is all about keeping what we already have. I will give you some recent examples. I work for a large regional airline. After 911 like most airline unions my union took cuts in pay and benefits to keep the airline afloat. Fast Forward to 2005 company has had major profits and is well in the black. Contract talks open up first company proposal is a 30 percent cut in wages and benefits. Meanwhile supervision is being given record bonuses. If I did not belong to a union I would have had no choice but to take what the company gives or quit. I wish you would do a little research on unions. Do you enjoy weekends off 8 hour shifts sick pay vacation pay you owe all that to unions. Why should a CEO make more in a hour then a highly skilled Aviation Mechanic make in a year? Do you have an idea what it takes to get a Airframe and Powerplant License. You must have a minimum of three years’ experience or spend over 30K to go to a A+P school after that it is three separate written test given by the Federal Government. Then you have a two day oral and practically hands on test with a designated FAA inspector. Not everybody passes the test the first time around and they are not cheap.
Ok let’s go to the second example US Airways mainline mechanics. They have been without a contract for over two years. The Company and the Union are in federal mediation right now. The union falls under the railroad labor act. Basically that means they cannot strike without the government permission. US Airways mechanics have taken major pay cuts and have lost their pension due to mismanagement by the company. Doug Parker the current CEO refused to settle till after the merger. The union representing the mechanics has asked to be realized from mediation. If that happens and the company and the Union due not agree after 30n days the mechanics can go on strike. US Airways mechanics have done it before and will do it again. The mechanics at US Airways have taken major cuts in pay and benefits to keep the airline going. Now that the Airline is making record profits they would like a little back. Did you ever wonder why when a company goes out of business the little man loses his pension and the CEO get q million dollar golden parachutes? If I was you I would not make any plans to fly US Airways after the 1st of the year.
You should not ask why someone gets a pension you should be asking why do you not get one.
Here is a quick run down on whats going on How the CEO took a 40 percent pay raise.
http://www.iamdl142.org/Bulletins/2013/USA_2013%20M%20AND%20R-128.pdf

CYBERFX1024
11-21-2013, 09:40 PM
I am sorry I have to disagree with you. Most contract talks nowadays is all about keeping what we already have. I will give you some recent examples. I work for a large regional airline. After 911 like most airline unions my union took cuts in pay and benefits to keep the airline afloat. Fast Forward to 2005 company has had major profits and is well in the black. Contract talks open up first company proposal is a 30 percent cut in wages and benefits. Meanwhile supervision is being given record bonuses. If I did not belong to a union I would have had no choice but to take what the company gives or quit. I wish you would do a little research on unions. Do you enjoy weekends off 8 hour shifts sick pay vacation pay you owe all that to unions. Why should a CEO make more in a hour then a highly skilled Aviation Mechanic make in a year? Do you have an idea what it takes to get a Airframe and Powerplant License. You must have a minimum of three years’ experience or spend over 30K to go to a A+P school after that it is three separate written test given by the Federal Government. Then you have a two day oral and practically hands on test with a designated FAA inspector. Not everybody passes the test the first time around and they are not cheap.
Ok let’s go to the second example US Airways mainline mechanics. They have been without a contract for over two years. The Company and the Union are in federal mediation right now. The union falls under the railroad labor act. Basically that means they cannot strike without the government permission. US Airways mechanics have taken major pay cuts and have lost their pension due to mismanagement by the company. Doug Parker the current CEO refused to settle till after the merger. The union representing the mechanics has asked to be realized from mediation. If that happens and the company and the Union due not agree after 30n days the mechanics can go on strike. US Airways mechanics have done it before and will do it again. The mechanics at US Airways have taken major cuts in pay and benefits to keep the airline going. Now that the Airline is making record profits they would like a little back. Did you ever wonder why when a company goes out of business the little man loses his pension and the CEO get q million dollar golden parachutes? If I was you I would not make any plans to fly US Airways after the 1st of the year.
You should not ask why someone gets a pension you should be asking why do you not get one.
Here is a quick run down on whats going on How the CEO took a 40 percent pay raise.
http://www.iamdl142.org/Bulletins/2013/USA_2013%20M%20AND%20R-128.pdf

That's one of the exceptions where I do agree with the Unions. But with most federal/state/local workers you get your pay and some benefits that are really great. But the majority of unions just want more and more without giving up anything, and it's almost always at the disservice to the customers.

CYBERFX1024
11-21-2013, 09:41 PM
$110 a month for healthcare for a family. Wow.... I would love to pay that, I just found out that my healthcare is going up over $130 a month next year.