In an amusing exchange in the comments to J.P. Friere’s article at the Washington Examiner about the Wisconsin impasse, someone named “Holyshiiite” wrote reprovingly,
“Union members ARE taxpayers, you freakin’ idiots.”
“Sistersuzey” deftly clarified the matter:
“They are payed with our tax dollars in the first place, so the taxes they pay are payed with our tax dollars. So basically we are paying their taxes for them.”
“They are payed with our tax dollars in the first place so the taxes they pay are payed with our tax dollars. So basically we are paying their taxes for them.”
Yup, and if taxes overall go up 5% you can bet the pub unions will either demand a 5% increase to make up for it or go out on strike.
Unions are either the leading cause of inflation or the underwriters of the political party that causes inflation.
“Unions are…the underwriters of the political party that causes inflation.”
Exactly. J.P. Friere’s piece in the Washington Examiner hits on that very point (emphasis mine):
“Taxpayers are becoming acutely aware of the have-yours as a class — something like Angelo Codevilla’s ruling class — whose gains in salaries and benefits aren’t associated with harder work and important innovations but political access. Public-sector unions rallying in Madison aren’t even taking a hit for their political activism, given that their protest is made possible by paid sick days, negotiated for them by their collective bargaining units who, it must be said, donate to the very people with whom they negotiate.”
I like the phrase “the have yours” — as in, we’ve got the “haves”, the “have-nots”, and the “have yours.”
Of course, union members pay taxes, too. And if they’re government employees e.i. building roads, patching you up at the hospital, their work is part of the country’s wealth or Gross National Product as much as anyone else’s.
What they are worth or should earn is a fair debate, as is how evenly the cutbacks need to be shared. Gov’t. employees need to understand that, too.
It’s the totally unnecessary ones not doing anything useful that are a drain on everyone. An elected representative signed off on them, too. Does anyone remember Prime Minister Stephen Harper telling the people in New Brunswich working at the Cdn. Firearms Centre that their jobs are secure.
A contract that hinders innovation or improved productivity had to be signed by two parties. Thus both are responsible.
Just like the guy who signed the subprime mortgage contract knowing he wouldn’t be able to pay once the rate increased. Both he and the lending institution and the gov’t. edict that supported that all share in the responsibility.
I spoke to a construction worker today who, not being unionized, this “Family Day” holiday simply means another day without work, and fewer days earning a paycheck.
Recently, one of my employers has been outsourcing much of the work to a basket case third world country.
As a consequence, those of us left, spend an increasing amount of time apologizing to customers for their mistakes, trying to correct them and cover them up.
There is reasonable and there is unreasonable. If you depend on people to show up and do their job well, they have to be paid well enough to be able to afford to do that.
Boy if you could outsource the civil service, now THERE’S savings!!
Of course, union members pay taxes, too. And if they’re government employees e.i. building roads, patching you up at the hospital, their work is part of the country’s wealth or Gross National Product as much as anyone else’s.
No, their “wealth” is just recycled. Gov’t employees create no new wealth. The wealth already existed before it was taxed away to build roads, run hospitals, etc.
Same with the taxes paid by gov’t employees, recycled.
Larry, your comment – your take – isn’t unreasonable except for the fact that you’re jumbling private sector unions with public sector unions. Sistersuzey’s narrow point, that *public sector* union employees “are payed with our tax dollars in the first place, so the taxes they pay are payed with our tax dollars, so basically we are paying their taxes for them“, is unarguably true. It doesn’t apply to non-public-sector unions.
Payment of taxes by government employees is another means of hiring yet more people to work for the government to process those tax payments. The whole system is an elaborate make-work project that is supported by the ever shrinking minority of people that actually produce wealth in N. American societies.
Service industries are a ponzi scheme which assume that there is an endless flow of money coming in from somewhere. In N. America, this money comes from offshore rich people who have always wanted to live in the US or Canada who buy expensive real estate in N. America and spend their money here on buying coffee at Starbucks, fast food, going to bars to see strippers and buying Chinese made goods at Walmart (the manufacturing of which is probably how they made their money overseas in the first place).
The problem with this economic system is that other countries are now able to duplicate N. American intellectual achievements and do a better job at it as they have educational systems which actually teach students something more than “self esteem” at a far lower cost/student. Not only that but population IQ in China is about 10 points higher than in the US and Canada.
Time to convert savings into things like canned food and even more ammo while those items are still cheap as the crash, when it comes, isn’t going to be very pretty.
Not only that but population IQ in China is about 10 points higher than in the US and Canada.
That’s a lie, just like the lie that Jiang Yuyuan and He Kexin were 16 years old at the 2008 Olympics when in reality they were only 14.
The Chinese will do anything to make themselves look better than they really are.
Sorry fiddle, but by your reasoning all wealth is recycled. If I buy a new computer and HP takes that profit abd invests it in new production somewhere they’ve recycled my wealth (such as it is).
“Service industries are a ponzi scheme which assume that there is an endless flow of money coming in from somewhere.”
Exactly. Regardless of what the service is.
“No, their “wealth” is just recycled. Gov’t employees create no new wealth. The wealth already existed before it was taxed away to build roads, run hospitals, etc.
Same with the taxes paid by gov’t employees, recycled.”
Nonsense. Or at least nonsense in the idea that these wages are any different than any service sector wages. Taxes are a cost of doing business in western economies for which services are derived. EVERY product or service has costs associated beyond the intrinsic material cost of the product or service. Whether you are paying taxes or tolls in a transaction is immaterial – these are fixed costs. Whether the fixed costs are affordable is another matter. Like all costs of business, the cost of doing business will be afforded by some, not by others.
Thought experiment: Civil servant makes say, 60,000 pa, pays 20,000 pa taxes. So Gubmint pays him 40,000 pa net. Now pass a law saying that civil servants don’t pay tax, but take a paycut to, in this guy’s case, 40,000 pa. Gubmint pays him 40,000 pa. Or double his tax-rate to 66%, and pay him 120,000 pa. Gubmint pays him 40,000 pa.
So you can set the tax rate at anything you like, and still come up with the same net payment. That’s absurd. It’s impossible to get that result where the employer is not the Government. Civil servants don’t pay real tax. It’s just a book-keeping convention.
Skippy Math, if I, the government steal, confiscate your property via taxes and give it to someone else to spend. I am creating wealth. The more I confiscate from you, and give away to who I choose. The more wealth I create. You are obviously a government parasite. Taxes have risen 1700% since 1961, Taxes now consume more of the average Canadian Family Budget than Food, Clothing and Housing combined. Total Public Debt is now 3.5 T Federally. Ontarios Total Public Debt is 310B more than Greece, Quebec’s is 420B. Canadians need to demand 60% cuts in program spending and 60% reduction in civil servant staffing. The size of Government is taking food from the mouths of families.
RFB, yer an idiot. No idea how wealth is created, or even what money is. You’re not creating wealth, you’re creating inflation. The government doesn’t “steal” anything – you elected the government – your elected officials decided you should share the cost of providing the services no one will pay for otherwise. If you don’t want a large goverment, quit demanding that government take an increasing share of your personal responsibility, and be prepared to lower your standard of living. Its not the fault of civil servants that your taxes are too high. They are a necessary response to a country’s demand for blanket services.
The present western economy is built with the cost of government at part of its business structure. Say you cut staffing by 60% – what do you do with the people, shoot them? What do you do for the private sector businesses, mostly service sector in Canada, who rely on their cash flow as part of their business model? Your taxes pay for things the private sector used to charge you for, but you paid, regardless. Did you know that roads in Ontario used to be privately built and you were charged an individual toll to use them? The standard of living that exists in this country exists because of the taxation system, not is spite of it. If you want to see how well private sectoring works for infrastructure management, you only have to look south.
What we can’t afford is our lifestyle and our population densities. As long we continue to outsource our manufacturing, food production, and other primary sustenance requirements, the problem will continue to get worse. The salary budget of the Canadian federal service represents 7% of the cost of government. Billions of tax dollars are annually defrauded by your public sector industry and used for private gain.
Tackling public service unions might be great sport, but at the end of the day, there are mouths that still have to be fed. Until the decision is taken to return real wealth creation back to the community that needs it, the situation will only continue to get worse. Don’t forget, money is only a barter exchange surrogate. Its position as wealth is only relative to its exchange power.
While everyone thinks a return to an 1850s business model will fix the ailing western economy, most forget that in that model they will be poor, practically destitute, and in worse shape then they are now. The problem is not about the current distribution of wealth, its about how wealth is created in the first place. If and when the world turns to a complete global economy, the end result will be that most of the world’s population will be universally poor.
As long as you’re willing to go to Walmart and shop Ebay and export cash without fostering the creation of new industry at home, there is no place to go but down. Increased taxation is a direct result of the export of your bartering capital, not the cause of it.
“The standard of living that exists in this country exists because of the taxation system, not is spite of it.”
Then why is my standard of living suffering because I am paying too many taxes? If you keep raising my taxes to the point I lose my house and car has my standard of living increased? It seems my friends with government jobs are always buying stuff and going on vacations. Their standard of living seems to be increasing everytime we have a tax hike.
Perhaps when I retire they will let me sleep on their couch. Then I’ll have some idea of what this standard of living/taxes formula you speak of is.
“If and when the world turns to a complete global economy, the end result will be that most of the world’s population will be universally poor.”
ah, a bit of prophesy there.
all in keeping with the korporate model of capitalism which is to isolate the vast share of said wealth, regardless of how it is created, into the hands of a few who supposedly ‘know better’ how to ‘create’ it. and then harp ad nauseum about ‘trickle down’ economics. (hint: pyss also trickles down)
otoh:
“The standard of living that exists in this country exists because of the taxation system, not is spite of it.”
ummm, hate to break it to you skippy but the model you promote has a finite lifespan. and that lifespan has most certainly been reached. I’m just glad I got mine in time to hand it over to my kid and she doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of the lieberal/new democrap TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX SPEND SPEND SPEND SPEND SPEND mode of thinking which still has quarter in the recesses of certain minds in Ottawa and other capitals of the free world.
capitalism at its finest !!!
SkippyMath. Another Uneducated Liberal Nitwit takes pen in hand. Skippymath and the holocaust. No one is talking about cutting roads or infastructure. Fool. We are talking about endless programs, that do not work and never have worked. That is what needs to end and now. How about the return of the 9B in taxdollars that PM Martin squirreled away in Liberal Trust Funds to finance thinks Like the Pierre Trudeau Foundation. Or Billions wasted on useless Dr. Feelgood Liberal Programs like c68, the billions pumped into NGO’s. Taxes have risen 1700% since 1961 google NP article. Over 850,000 working poor families in Canada now use food banks each month to stretch their paycheques. Google Foodbanks. You are obviously a civil servant parasite earning up to 48% more in pay and benefits than the average Canadian working in the private sector. Theft is theft. End useless programs and fire the 60% of civil servants working in those programs. Let them get jobs at the Golden Arches for all I care. The level of taxation in Canada is at criminal levels. Think of yourself as a criminal parsite stealing bread of working Canadian Families Mouths. You pompous a*s.
RFB, exactly.
RFB said: “…if I, the government steal, confiscate your property via taxes and give it to someone else to spend. I am creating wealth.”
No, you’re just moving it from the guy who earned it to some guy who didn’t. Government does not create wealth. -Except- when they do things like run a hospital or a provincial park, where they charge admission. There they provide an actual good or service, which potentially creates wealth, aka value.
The problem is government parks and hospitals cost more than they make, which net destroys wealth through inefficiency. This is an inevitable consequence of the hierarchical nature of government and the centralized planning structure. Like gravity, it is inevitable.
Government is one of the necessary costs of having a civilized society. Like all costs, it should be made as small as possible. Unions and liberals are intent on making it as large as possible, which we see on parade in Wisconsin. Like everything liberals do and think, this is @$$-backward.
“Then why is my standard of living suffering because I am paying too many taxes? If you keep raising my taxes to the point I lose my house and car has my standard of living increased? It seems my friends with government jobs are always buying stuff and going on vacations. Their standard of living seems to be increasing everytime we have a tax hike.”
Because your standard of living is falling. Its been falling for the last 20 years. It will continue to fall as long as you export your cash out of your community. Propping up somebody else’s community does nothing to support yours. And when that community is not even in your local economic system, there is no return of cash to you. You must produce new, just to stand still, and you don’t (you collectively, not personally). You’re a net exporter of wealth. Your friends are operating on a net loss measured against inflation. Ask them how they are doing it. Many of my colleagues have two jobs, working nights and weekends to supplement their pay.
“Perhaps when I retire they will let me sleep on their couch. Then I’ll have some idea of what this standard of living/taxes formula you speak of is.”
Glad you will be able to retire. I will not. I have a single income household and the pension won’t kick in enough soon or be big enough to permit me to retire. Life doesn’t always favour everyone equally. Enjoy your time on the couch contemplating.
You need to be asking more where your money is going. How many of your tax dollars are being exported? In your municipality, how many of your tax dollars are being exported out of the community? The city of Hamilton want to spend 25 million of its taxpayer’s money and another 25 million of somebody else’s tax money to maintain a private business venture that has lost money more times then it made over the last 20 years, and pays its players 6 figures plus. Yet the city can’t keep its roads together and its aging infrastructure continues to collapse at an accelerated rate. Hamilton would be much farther ahead to boot the Ticats and burn down the old stadium. Let some other locality carry the loss for a few years – maybe export the franchise south so the American taxpayers can build another new stadium that will never pay for itself. Its not the civil servants who are sucking your tax dollars dry, its the politicians that believe your piggybank is their piggybank.
So beagle, trying to troll both sides of the argument at once? Novel idea.
By the way, you ignore the fact that wealth concentration is not a feature of Capitalism per se, but rather of fascism where companies defeat their competition by government fiat. End the government cheating, things even out.
What problem do you have with -less- government anyway? Or is it that you’re just mental?
“No, you’re just moving it from the guy who earned it to some guy who didn’t.”
This is largely fallacious. Some of the tax revenue is granted out to support social services (whether you agree with them or not), some is given away on international obligations (whether you agree with them or not), some is stolen (billions by everyday Canadians, as well as politicians). But all of it is returned to the economy in the purchase of goods and services by the “government” from indivduals outside the government (ie private sector), either directly, or indirectly as wages to civil servants.
High taxation is a symptom of a much deeper structural problem in the economy, and governments are doing what is more difficult for the private sector to do – raise prices because the cost of business is going up. If you want to reduce the impact of government on your personal wealth, you need to quit exporting your capital and your responsibilities.
And RFB, if you think I’m a liberal, you really are out to lunch.
“You need to be asking more where your money is going.”
I know where it’s going. Down a big tax sink hole.
“Ask them how they are doing it.”
As I mentioned, they have goverment jobs.
I well aware of what’s going on in Hamilton and don’t like it either.
Look Skip this is a BIG problem and the fight starts somewhere. Starting with government employees is a good place to start. After all they will be the ones running interference against all the other changes that need to be made.
One step at a time. We can start doing massive cuts on government waste once the government unions are neutured.
Some things to consider:
– The unions representing Wisconsin teachers, secretaries, janitors, etc. have all stated a willingness to make concessions to their present bargaining agreements. Gov Walker has refused to entertain these proposed concessions, focusing instead on eliminating the unions’ right to bargain in the first place. This is less about public sector employees “refusing to make sacrifices,” then, and more about the basic right of employees — public or private — to band together to establish a stronger position when negotiating with their employers.
– Wisconsin unions are apparently corrupt, self-interested, and/or a drain on the state economy…except the police and firefighters unions, which have been exempt from Gov Walker’s push to eliminate collective bargaining rights. Incidentally, police and firefighters have historically tended to lean Republican.
– “The earnings equation estimates indicate that state and local government employees in Wisconsin are not overpaid. Rather, local and state public employees are undercompensated. When we make comparisons controlling for education, experience, hours of work, oganizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability, both state and local public employees earn lower wages and receive less in compensation (including all benefits) than comparable private sector employees.” – Economic Policy Institute, Are Wisconsin Public Employees Overcompensated?, 2011
skip;If what you say is true then we should ALL work for the government and generate lots of wealth.Where it was tried (USSR),they had NO taxes as they knew that govt employies dont pay taxes,THEY ARE PAID TAXES.In fact if there is a federal govt employee that is paid sixty thousand dollars a year after tax,and knowing how much federal income tax you pay,how many skips does it take to pay that persons salary?
RFB, exactly right.
An interesting study would be a comparison of the birthrate of the Have Yours, versus the Pay For Yours households.
And in the first group include all those who arguably incur no significant economic penalty or risk, by procreating. Ensure you examine as part of the study such categories as welfare, refugee and native populations, and not just the Have Yours enablers of the bureaucratic industrial complex.
The choking levels of taxation in the western world strangle its ability to continue to exist.
Don’t count on any academic sociologist tackling this objectively…their vested interest lies in perpetuating the scam.
Ah yes….the public sector.
Public sector unions are a terrible concept.
If the “service” provided by the public sector department is essential, then the right to strike, work to rule, or any of the other Bolshevik concepts should – of necessity – be stripped from those departments. After all, the “service” is “essential”.
If the service is NOT essential, then outsource the damned thing.
Post February 22, 2011 8:52 AM claims that it is the government that creates the standard of living.
“If you don’t want a large government, quit demanding that government take an increasing share of your personal responsibility, and be prepared to lower your standard of living.”
While it is true that the government creates standard of living for those that have their mouths firmly stuck to its teat, it is also true that the government takes billions of dollars from those that actually create wealth and makes them poorer in the process.
It is true that to say that government is consumer of wealth created by others.
That the ruling class gives it to their selected favored does not mean that everyone demands. One suspects that a significant amount of the extorted money is spent on people that have not moved a finger to help themselves or paid taxes.
There are thousands of old people from around the world coming here every year that demand all the services that Canadians worked for and paid in taxes for, while have not contributed a penny. This is done by the government departments, paid for by the same people. Keeps a lot of bureaucrats employed, in nothing short of guaranteed and better paid jobs than those that pay for it. And of course then you have the lawyers that skew and screw everything to their advantage.
It is no wander that people from countries that are way behind, think and praise Canada for the largesse.
Go to any government office, at any level, and see how many programs are the bureaucrats pushing so they themselves can have jobs. Wander how many working people get an attack of anxiety to even step in a government office, it’s almost like stepping into some kind of asylum.
..working people get an attack of anxiety to even step in a government office..”
Too right lev. They are condensending mean spirited people who enjoy making your life miserable. Which is probably the main reason people are enjoying putting the boots to them now that they are down.
Once they lose the right to strike (Harper has talked about doing this as well) then we can start shutting down all the lefts pet projects that are sucking the money out of our wallets and giving money and power to our enemies.
joey: “If the “service” provided by the public sector department is essential, then the right to strike, work to rule, or any of the other Bolshevik concepts should – of necessity – be stripped from those departments. After all, the “service” is “essential”.”
Fine, as long as the ability to make funding cuts to those public sector departments is stripped too. After all, the “service” is “essential”, right?
By the way, FYI – declariing something an essential service means that its workers can’t strike, but they typically get some sort of arbitrated wage settlement option in lieu, which are often more lucrative than collective bargaining agreements.
Davenport said: “This is less about public sector employees “refusing to make sacrifices,” then, and more about the basic right of employees — public or private — to band together to establish a stronger position when negotiating with their employers.”
Yes, we know. We, the tax payer, are the ones they are banding together against.
But inevitably I must disagree with you a bit. The problem is not what public employees take home. Its the tail that follows them after they leave for retirement. With the existing system in place, employees collect retirement longer than they work, on average.
Looked at from a wider lens, it amounts to paying ten people to do a job, nine of them stay home and one works. The number who stay home grows every year. No conceivable company or government can do that and stay solvent. Its mathematically impossible.
Therefore Davenport, it is not about rights at all. Its about an economic force as predictable and powerful as gravity. You are arguing -against- it, as are the union types in Wisconsin. You can see how that might negatively impact your credibility.
fiddle: Gov’t employees create no new wealth. The wealth already existed before it was taxed away to build roads, run hospitals, etc.
You’re defining “wealth” too narrowly. The construction and maintenance of roadways create new wealth (i.e., value) for society, not least because most public roadway networks, while providing far-reaching benefits to and for its users, would simply not be built if left entirely in the hands of the private sector.
Davenport
I’ve considered your points and I think they are moot.
Point one: the negotiating is finished. The GOP has the necessary votes. The “issue” is nothing but grandstanding. The Govener has no reason to negotiate; especially under these corerceive conditions. Surely you can accept intellectually that for the govener to negotiate under these circumstances weakens his bargining position down the road.
Point two: What you say is true, but once again irrelevant to the discussion. It is within the power of the legeslators to cut and choose as they see fit. Also, consider that ‘value’ may be in consideration; or, just politics as you suggest. Still, nothing to see here. Your objection is a discussion for the next Wisconsin election cycle.
Point three: The discussion isn’t if the teachers are over/under paid relative to whichever scale you choose. As I said above, the negotiating is complete.
All of that said, it seems you’ve taken a more respectful and logical approach to your comments on this thread. Kudos. IMO you are simply hanging-on to an already lost argument; but, time will tell and the Dems might be able to pull a few GOP senators away. My point in total is this: the Democrats are grandstanding and the teachers in Wisconsin are the pawns. The Democrats have drawn the line in the sand, and are betting on labour. Becuase of this, it will be imparative that the Left’s message is controled and consistant, hence the top-down nature of the Wisconsin protests.
The battle for control of the naritive is on, and the 2012 election cycle is upon us. Barak Obama has made a very astute calculation, and is going to force the GOP to play to the Democrats homefield advantage.
The one question I have that isn’t being asked by Democrats is: while so focused on 2012, how well will Barak Obama do on the numerous other fronts including forign policy? It’s concievable to me that the likely mismanagment of events may have unpredictably adverse consequences for his domestic campaign at home. This is uniquly relevant to Barak Obam’s situation because his actual policy differs quite substancially from his rhetoric.
One of the things that the Harris Tories did in Ontario is nearly eliminate the DHO (Department of Highways Ontario).
They contracted out road maintainence on the 400 series and downloaded the other provincial highways to the Counties…with the exception of Northern Ontario #11 and #17…TransCanada highway.
The contractors were obligated to hire the DHO employees first. But saving were immense and maintainence was good. The former DHO employees mostly drifted away to private construction or to the Counties.
The counties were compensated for the extra miles of new responsibilities but it appears that there is considerable oversight/direction coming from the province which is not always very enlightened….or thrifty.
The net result is savings by eliminating CUPE from the maintainence of the roads and signifigant savings. Employment in County Roads has become a plum …”cash for life”…high paying job better than the private sector.
OT
Bernie Goldberg was on O’Reilly yesterday and he made a very interesting point. Bernie has noticed that the protests are “extremely white” and also noticed that the MSM has missed this small point. Now, usually I wouldn’t consider the racial make-up of a political protest to be relevant; but, TEA Party coverage from the MSM begs to differ.
The Phantom: “The problem is not what public employees take home. Its the tail that follows them after they leave for retirement…Therefore Davenport, it is not about rights at all. Its about an economic force as predictable and powerful as gravity. You are arguing -against- it, as are the union types in Wisconsin.”
I agree that pension reform is needed, but some historical context is also useful here. In the 1970s, the WI teachers union and their state employers agreed that the employers would pay for pension contributions in exchange for a teachers’ wage freeze. That wage freeze led to significant budget savings. So, it’s not as though their current pension plan is a huge coup for teachers; they earned them through suppressed wage increases over time.
Nevertheless, I still agree that pension reforms are needed.
On that point, I trust you are aware that the Wisconsin teachers’ unions have actually agreed to Gov Walker’s pension and healthcare concessions. The reason they are protesting is because the Governor is looking to severely curtail or outright end the right to collective bargaining for public sector employees, a right enjoyed by all US private sector employees under the National Labor Relations Act.
So, your concerns about the unions’ cushy “tail end after retirement” are already addressed. The question is: do you support the right of all workers to engage in collective bargaining if they so desire, or just private sector ones?
Indiana Homez: “Point one: the negotiating is finished. The GOP has the necessary votes. The “issue” is nothing but grandstanding. The Govener has no reason to negotiate; especially under these corerceive conditions. Surely you can accept intellectually that for the govener to negotiate under these circumstances weakens his bargining position down the road.”
There hasn’t been a real negotiation. Gov Walker’s proposed pension reforms and collective bargaining revocations were introduced into the State Senate as part of his Budget Repair Bill (legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf). This whole “issue” is such an “issue” in large part because it never went through the usual contract negotiation process, but rather a legislative one (which is within the Governor’s right, but it is a unilateral approach, not a negotiated one). Also, the unions have agreed to the pension reform concessions outlined in the Bill; the main issue of contention is the right to collective bargaining.
“IMO you are simply hanging-on to an already lost argument…”
A question for you: the US NLRA stipulates that all private sector employees have a right, should they wish, to form a labour union and engage in collective bargaining. Do you think public sectors employees (like those in Wisconsin) should also have that legal right?
“The question is: do you support the right of all workers to engage in collective bargaining if they so desire, or just private sector ones?”
My answer? Just the private sector ones.
Fairly asked, Davenport.
My answer is private sector only.
The reason is that a private company can be driven bankrupt by its union employees at no cost -to me-. If a company makes a bad contract or if the management colludes with the union to fleece the investors I have recourse. I can either dump my stock and escape, or form a shareholder’s group and fire the CEO and the Board. Worse comes to worst, there is bankruptcy protection and reorganization.
With the current public sector unions, the unions HAVE colluded with “management” to fleece the investors, namely me, but I have no recourse. My only defense is to vote in new management, if I can. New management’s only recourse is to do what Gov. Walker is doing. He’s voiding the corrupt contracts and eliminating the mechanism that created them.
Always remembering, in a free country nobody -makes- you work for the government. You want a union? No problem, private sector is large.
If I understand Governor Walker’s position, it is largely that Wisconsin public unions are no longer going to have the government collecting their union dues for them anymore and that the pub unions aren’t going to have a “closed shop” anymore.
So the Walker government won’t negotiate with the union?
Too bad for the union.
The government isn’t removing the union’s right to organize, it’s saying “Organize as much as you want to, this government isn’t going to negotiate with public sector unions.” and there aren’t any laws saying any company or government has to negotiate with unions or sign collective bargaining agreements.
That is what the argument is all about, it isn’t about taking away the right to organize or collectivize and pretending it is amounts to sophistry/lies.
Davenport, one other issue is the mobility of capital vs. personal mobility.
Investing is first and foremost “caveat emptor”. If I don’t want to invest in a company which has a union, I don’t have to. If I own a company and a union organizes the workers, I can either negotiate with the union or I can take my money and invest elsewhere.
If the city, province and country I’m living in jacks my taxes to meet the demands of unions, I can’t move just my money, I have to move myself. I have to emigrate.
Moving one’s investments can be done by email. Emigration is a whole different deal.
“The reason is that a private company can be driven bankrupt by its union employees at no cost -to me-. ”
Actually, not true in the slightest. Bankruptcies of private and publically traded companies cost you big time. They cost you in tax increases, cost of money, services and a whole range of things. In fact, its likely they cost you more personally than you’ll recover, personally, in tax savings beating down civil servants.
“He’s voiding the corrupt contracts and eliminating the mechanism that created them.”
Who says they’re corrupt[contracts]? Just because the current governor doesn’t like them, doesn’t make them corrupt. How else do you plan on administering a complex employment situation? Even Walker isn’t trying to eliminate contracts, only the “collective bargaining” component. Which will mean the state will spend as much, if not more in litigation over umbalanced employemnt deals. I’m not saying contracts can’t be cleaned up and re-visited, but gutting collective bargaining won’t necessarily do it. The Canadian govt has moved to consolidation of work descriptions in many areas to eliminate a forest of same/equal pay different-title jobs so that collective bargaining is applied more efficiently. The Wisconsin story has FAR more to do with politics then fiscal management, and the governor knows it.
“Always remembering, in a free country nobody -makes- you work for the government.”
Does that mean that public employees must, of necessity, become second class citizens to the rest of the work force. Besides being illegal, that’s a great way to ensure you get the very worst employees possible to manage your tax dollars. Public employees already have significant restrictions on their civil liberties just for being public employees.
“If the city, province and country I’m living in jacks my taxes to meet the demands of unions, I can’t move just my money, I have to move myself.”
I will repeat, the cost of the employment demands represent a very small part of the government budget. Again, the fight is more about posturing and politics then significant savings. When you diminish government activity on the backs of employees, you lose bucketloads of revenue in inadequately managed programs, and you spend more money in outsourcing than you would have had in domiciled staffing. And, an important note to Cdns – the American local government model is an entirely different animal than the Canadian one, so comparison in most cases is not directly applicable.
Davenport
To answer your question: no, for the reasons outlined above by Phantom & Oz.
As far as the ‘negotiations’ I see your point; but, the unions in question are in no position to ‘negotiate’, and such is the reason for the illegal (or legal) job action. Will you grant my first assertion that to ‘negotiate’ at this time would hurt the Governor’s bargaining position moving forward? I still think you’re beating a dead horse locally speaking, but I do see the big picture, politically speaking from the Left POV.
The ‘negotiating’ I’m speaking of is between the elected officials to which I believe the count is 19-14 in the Wisconsin Senate. That’s ‘settled’ unless popular opinion can be swayed, as the Left is trying to do with the grandstanding. Do you concur Davenport?
Since we’re being honest today, I’ll cut to the chase. This is a political issue and the teachers are the pawns. This travesty will be solved at the ballot box IF this is an actual “travesty” as you and others are making it out to be. Let me clarify though, this very well could be a “travesty” for the political Left, the Unions and the Democrats; but will not be a “travesty” for the general public.
In the short term, I do see what and why the Democrat Senators are doing what they’re doing, and I also admit that it MIGHT work. This is a fight for public opinion, and the Democrats are hoping to run the clock out; but, I’d suggest that it’s a risky strategy because I believe they are out of touch with the majority of voters. I guess “That’s why they play the game”.
If you think about it, this is very similar to the reaction of the Left and the Unions in Saskatchewan since the last provincial election. The NDP/Union game plan has been to “run the clock out” and get to the next election with minimal legislative losses. This is proving to be a failed strategy as the Sask.Party appears to be gaining popularity. This is an interesting juxtapose I think.
Davenport – since public employees cannot be fired for unionizing, and cannot be fired for striking, are no limits of any kind to be placed on the amount of $$$ and benefits they can recieve?
And by “receive” I mean “demand”.
They don’t have a “right” to band together for the purposes of having more leverage over my wallet. What’s the “collective bargaining entity” on the other side of the negotiating table? Where’s the taxpayer’s union? It’s for sure not the government officials who receive massive campaign donations from the very unions they “bargain” with. You could almost describe the whole arrangement as an elaborate money laundering scheme, funneling public funds into political campaign war chests via public employee unions (who take a generous cut for their members).
Meanwhile, I and people like me work in jobs that have no pensions, just individual retirement plans we have to contribute to on our own. Ditto health insurance plans. Well we can no longer afford to provide public employees benefits unknown to us working in the private economy.
And this notion that the Wisconsin teachers are actually fine with contributing to their pension and health plans, and that it’s just the loss of this dubious “right” to strong arm the taxpayer that has them up in arms? Yeah right. These are the same people who raised holy hell when they tried to de-list Viagra from the health plan’s covered drugs. There’s nothing “good faith” about anything they’re doing.
Skip said: “Does that mean that public employees must, of necessity, become second class citizens to the rest of the work force.”
Yes. The idea is to have less government programs, not better ones. Fewer public employees, not happier ones.
Smaller government doing less things with less employees and less of my money. That’s the goal.
There is no baby Skip, its all bathwater.
Sorry, Phantom, none of that washes.
-phantom: “By the way, you ignore the fact that wealth concentration is not a feature of Capitalism per se, but rather of fascism where companies defeat their competition by government fiat.”
-me: ? really. kinda like what’s happening and has been increasingly and for some time in the great U.S. of A.?
p.s., Beagle own a black lab mix. diet consists of a host of foodstuffs since curiosity is a corollary of intelligence. we have a lot in common including an appetite for good food and that curiosity thing. thus the handle.
p.p.s. the lab is named after a famous strip of beach at Normandy assigned in 1945 with a 4 letter name of a roman godess, starts with J.
oh, and phantom, feel free to consume the substance that comes out of her backside.
Yeah beagle, Barry’s bailout of GM and Chrysler spring rather forcibly to mind in that regard.
Whatsamatta, something I said irked you? Poor baby.
Skip said: “Sorry, Phantom, none of that washes.”
What did you have in mind then? More, better and different regulation? They’ve been singing that tune in Ottawa since WWI man, look where we are.
Time to cut back. Prune, even. Which means guys presently working for government should sharpen up the ol’ resume.
I figure cutting employment in government at all levels in Canada by half would be a good start on a solution. Half the government teachers, cops, firemen, nurses, bean counters, factotums, gophers, secretaries, mandarins, mandarin’s helpers, lawyers, and half the officers in the armed forces. Federal, provincial, city, county, township. Fire half of them. Now. Today.
Pointy end soldiers is the one place we should be hiring, we need more shooters.
And fire ALL of the CBC. That we don’t need at all.
For starters.