Now, Just Who's Trying to Wage a Class War Again?
February 12, 2011 11:20 AM Subscribe
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker calls in national guard on state workers. In the latest salvo in what many are describing as a coordinated, nationwide assault on organized labor, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is effectively rescinding all collective bargaining rights for most public employees in Wisconsin, and has called on the National Guard to be prepared to crack down on any state employees who protest.
Billionaire governor, Rick Scott, is proposing similar measures to curtail collective bargaining rights in the state Florida.
Billionaire governor, Rick Scott, is proposing similar measures to curtail collective bargaining rights in the state Florida.
This post was deleted for the following reason: maybe this should come back up when the sources are online? -- jessamyn
Where do you read "crack down on" in these news reports? You're making this sound like Grover Cleveland ordering federal troops to stop the Pullman strike. I only see that Scott wants the Guard to be prepared to staff prisons and the like in the event that the unions balk.
posted by found missing at 11:28 AM on February 12, 2011
posted by found missing at 11:28 AM on February 12, 2011
I don't agree in the least with what Scott is doing, but it would be less inflammatory to be precise about exactly what that is.
posted by found missing at 11:31 AM on February 12, 2011
posted by found missing at 11:31 AM on February 12, 2011
Wisconsin is broke, prison guards are having their contracts voided and their pay frozen - so the Governor readies the Wisconsin National Guard to ensure inmates are, you know... kept in. Nowhere does it say the National Guard is going to "crack down" on anyone; that's you editorializing.
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 11:32 AM on February 12, 2011
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 11:32 AM on February 12, 2011
> Yet snowjobs like those promoted by Murdoch, Gingrich and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie are painting a bull’s-eye on the back of public unions. “People I don’t even know are calling me horrible names,” Marie Corfield, a New Jersey art teacher who found herself on the other end of Christie’s antiunion rant, told the New York Times. “The mantra is that the problem is the unions, the unions, the unions.”
I say this in pretty much every thread about unions...the people calling Corfield names shouldn't be asking "Why her and not me?", they should be asking "Why not me, too?"
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:32 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
I say this in pretty much every thread about unions...the people calling Corfield names shouldn't be asking "Why her and not me?", they should be asking "Why not me, too?"
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:32 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sorry, didn't mean to call him Scott, as if we are on a first name basis. Got Walker confused with Scott in FL.
posted by found missing at 11:33 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 11:33 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
The amazing thing is that there are bound to be pluralities of Union members who voted Republican in the past few years who will blame all of this on Liberals. Look no further than my own Shop steward father who blames societal ills and weak unions on "Liberal Tories" Sigh.
posted by NiteMayr at 11:34 AM on February 12, 2011
posted by NiteMayr at 11:34 AM on February 12, 2011
It raises an interesting question, though. I guess maybe the National Guard could staff prisons, although I have some doubts about whether we want the military doing that job. But are they going to teach third-graders to read? There are plenty of public-sector union jobs that the National Guard isn't going to be able to do.
posted by craichead at 11:34 AM on February 12, 2011
posted by craichead at 11:34 AM on February 12, 2011
The war on the middle class continues.
America could learn a thing or two from the protests in Egypt.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 11:36 AM on February 12, 2011 [6 favorites]
America could learn a thing or two from the protests in Egypt.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 11:36 AM on February 12, 2011 [6 favorites]
Except that we elected our tyrants?
posted by found missing at 11:36 AM on February 12, 2011
posted by found missing at 11:36 AM on February 12, 2011
found missing: Sorry, didn't mean to call him Scott, as if we are on a first name basis
Don't worry. Here in Madison, we just call him "That Asshole."
posted by thanotopsis at 11:37 AM on February 12, 2011 [5 favorites]
Don't worry. Here in Madison, we just call him "That Asshole."
posted by thanotopsis at 11:37 AM on February 12, 2011 [5 favorites]
Got Walker confused with Scott in FL.
That's OK; I got him confused with the other Scott Walker
posted by FelliniBlank at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
That's OK; I got him confused with the other Scott Walker
posted by FelliniBlank at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos!
posted by Joe Beese at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2011 [6 favorites]
posted by Joe Beese at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2011 [6 favorites]
As ever, the effort to transfer resources and property from the public to the rich continues, and there are vermin who will support it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
He is my least favorite Scott Walker. A cute cute, in a stupid-ass way indeed!
posted by HotPants at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by HotPants at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
found missing: "Except that we elected our tyrants?"
Give me a break -- the fix is in, there is no way to vote for anyone worth a damn if no one worth a damn is put on the ballot.
posted by dancestoblue at 11:40 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Give me a break -- the fix is in, there is no way to vote for anyone worth a damn if no one worth a damn is put on the ballot.
posted by dancestoblue at 11:40 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
DU -
This thread is an already loaded topic and the framing of the discussion guarantees an even more loaded discussion. Within the first few lines we've got allusions of a "coordinated attack", "class war", led by "billionaire governor Rick Scott".
Regardless who is pushing for reform of the collective bargaining agreements, the reality is that most states are flat out bankrupt when it comes to their public employee pension plans and local municipalities are virtually incapable of paying.
Yes, you may argue that the solution is that we must raise taxes and the rich must pay more, but that's not really what the issue is here. The issue is that the public employee unions have done a marvelous job protecting and shielding themselves from the economic reality we are all in now. Good on them for getting such concessions over the years, but unfortunately, when everyone else is being forced to cut back, why cannot the PE unions?
In many states, Illinois, California, New York and Ohio, for instance, they have arrangements that make it impossible for school principals to move resources and talent where they need/want it. The PE unions have guaranteed raises on top of guaranteed "step increases" (different from a raise, mind you!), they retire with absurd percentages of their last 3 or 5 years salary (60 - 70%) and pay as little as $10 co-pays and $10 deductions for medical insurance per month, which includes vision and dental in many arrangements.
Again, I'm not saying that these groups don't deserve these benefits, that these people aren't worthy, nor that these people haven't worked hard for very good employment contracts. The issue at hand is that state and local governments simply cannot afford them any longer, and frankly, never should have granted them in the first place.
The city of Vallejo, California was the first salvo in this two years ago when they tried to declare bankruptcy under the weight of their police and fire contracts. I don't have the specifics on that case at hand, but recall that Vallejo owed some insane amount of money to their public employee trust fund and simply could not pay it without starving all other general fund activities.
The public unions in this country have really grown to the point where a lot of residents look at them with resentment and sure, in many cases jealousy. Taking more from the "wealthy" (and what constitutes "wealthy" is a whole other conversation) may be a short term fix for the budget holes, but based on past experience it would also open the door for an already unsustainable system to be elevated even further.
I won't go as far as some and say they should be abolished, but I will say that the rules governing deals with the unions need to swing back to the middle after years of very nice sweetheart deals.
posted by tgrundke at 11:40 AM on February 12, 2011 [3 favorites]
This thread is an already loaded topic and the framing of the discussion guarantees an even more loaded discussion. Within the first few lines we've got allusions of a "coordinated attack", "class war", led by "billionaire governor Rick Scott".
Regardless who is pushing for reform of the collective bargaining agreements, the reality is that most states are flat out bankrupt when it comes to their public employee pension plans and local municipalities are virtually incapable of paying.
Yes, you may argue that the solution is that we must raise taxes and the rich must pay more, but that's not really what the issue is here. The issue is that the public employee unions have done a marvelous job protecting and shielding themselves from the economic reality we are all in now. Good on them for getting such concessions over the years, but unfortunately, when everyone else is being forced to cut back, why cannot the PE unions?
In many states, Illinois, California, New York and Ohio, for instance, they have arrangements that make it impossible for school principals to move resources and talent where they need/want it. The PE unions have guaranteed raises on top of guaranteed "step increases" (different from a raise, mind you!), they retire with absurd percentages of their last 3 or 5 years salary (60 - 70%) and pay as little as $10 co-pays and $10 deductions for medical insurance per month, which includes vision and dental in many arrangements.
Again, I'm not saying that these groups don't deserve these benefits, that these people aren't worthy, nor that these people haven't worked hard for very good employment contracts. The issue at hand is that state and local governments simply cannot afford them any longer, and frankly, never should have granted them in the first place.
The city of Vallejo, California was the first salvo in this two years ago when they tried to declare bankruptcy under the weight of their police and fire contracts. I don't have the specifics on that case at hand, but recall that Vallejo owed some insane amount of money to their public employee trust fund and simply could not pay it without starving all other general fund activities.
The public unions in this country have really grown to the point where a lot of residents look at them with resentment and sure, in many cases jealousy. Taking more from the "wealthy" (and what constitutes "wealthy" is a whole other conversation) may be a short term fix for the budget holes, but based on past experience it would also open the door for an already unsustainable system to be elevated even further.
I won't go as far as some and say they should be abolished, but I will say that the rules governing deals with the unions need to swing back to the middle after years of very nice sweetheart deals.
posted by tgrundke at 11:40 AM on February 12, 2011 [3 favorites]
Recently in The Economist...
Public-sector unions have had a good few decades. Has their luck run out?
The struggle with public-sector unions should be about productivity and parity, not just spending cuts.
At last, America may change the way it trains, recruits and rewards teachers.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:42 AM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
Public-sector unions have had a good few decades. Has their luck run out?
The struggle with public-sector unions should be about productivity and parity, not just spending cuts.
At last, America may change the way it trains, recruits and rewards teachers.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:42 AM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
All the grad students in the University of Wisconsin are losing their healthcare and they are losing out on tuition--despite the guarantees of the university when these students signed up. This is major back-stabbing. Does the governor know that other universities in other states are going to step up to the plate and siphon off new university recruits?
People in Wisconsin love the University of Wisconsin. It's too bad that Scott Walker has decided to trash a great institution.
posted by kuatto at 11:43 AM on February 12, 2011 [6 favorites]
People in Wisconsin love the University of Wisconsin. It's too bad that Scott Walker has decided to trash a great institution.
posted by kuatto at 11:43 AM on February 12, 2011 [6 favorites]
A paraphrase of tgrundke's comment: It sucks for all the other working people in America, so why shouldn't it suck for these working people too?
Why are we Americans always like this?
Why aren't we saying: It sucks for all the other working people in America, so let's take a cue from the unions and learn how to bargain better for ourselves too. Let's stop giving money to the REAL fat cats (i.e. I don't know...the Wall Street bailout? Do you realize those firms threw HUGE holiday parties, still gave out end of year bonuses, and didn't cut back at all? How about the CEOs who are paying themselves MORE THAN EVER.).
I'm so tired of this "it's shit for me; it should be shit for you" mentality. We're just gonna compete our shitastic selves back to the Middle Ages. Serfdom for everyone! Woohoo! We're equals now.
Except for those kings up in the castle.
(feeling cynical today)
posted by whimsicalnymph at 11:46 AM on February 12, 2011 [59 favorites]
Why are we Americans always like this?
Why aren't we saying: It sucks for all the other working people in America, so let's take a cue from the unions and learn how to bargain better for ourselves too. Let's stop giving money to the REAL fat cats (i.e. I don't know...the Wall Street bailout? Do you realize those firms threw HUGE holiday parties, still gave out end of year bonuses, and didn't cut back at all? How about the CEOs who are paying themselves MORE THAN EVER.).
I'm so tired of this "it's shit for me; it should be shit for you" mentality. We're just gonna compete our shitastic selves back to the Middle Ages. Serfdom for everyone! Woohoo! We're equals now.
Except for those kings up in the castle.
(feeling cynical today)
posted by whimsicalnymph at 11:46 AM on February 12, 2011 [59 favorites]
In a lot of ways I would echo what whimsicalnymph said above. The state signs agreements with these unions and then because of a refusal to face economic reality and increasing revenue they propose rescinding agreements they no longer feel they should have to honor because of something that is not the workers' fault. Agreements that allow a segment of working class Americans to enjoy some modicum of comfort, that's about the gist of it huh?
What a crock. It's all the unions fault my ass. It's piss-poor politicians, piss-poorly managing a piss-poor state of affairs.
posted by IvoShandor at 11:50 AM on February 12, 2011 [8 favorites]
What a crock. It's all the unions fault my ass. It's piss-poor politicians, piss-poorly managing a piss-poor state of affairs.
posted by IvoShandor at 11:50 AM on February 12, 2011 [8 favorites]
It may be easy for to say that what people have worked their entire lives for -- retirement benefits, etc -- it's easy for some armchair citizen to say "Hey, whack those benefits; they don't deserve them!" but what if the people involved were your parents, or grandparents, or you. The people getting these things stolen from them are someones parents or grandparents or neighbors or whatever, these are real lives being impacted here.
Having worked for state govt, I know for a fact that many people work for state agencies for considerably less money than they would get in other organizations, and they are stable employees, good employees, they give of their lives to these jobs. Why do they do this, why do they work for less money up front? Because the money comes in the end, in decent retirements, with decent medical benefits, and decent pensions.
posted by dancestoblue at 11:52 AM on February 12, 2011 [7 favorites]
Having worked for state govt, I know for a fact that many people work for state agencies for considerably less money than they would get in other organizations, and they are stable employees, good employees, they give of their lives to these jobs. Why do they do this, why do they work for less money up front? Because the money comes in the end, in decent retirements, with decent medical benefits, and decent pensions.
posted by dancestoblue at 11:52 AM on February 12, 2011 [7 favorites]
As ever, the effort to transfer resources and property from the public to the rich continues, and there are vermin who will support it.
Pope Guilty: public sector employees are finally catching up to what has happened to the private sector employees two decades ago. When it comes to middle class workers - the public sector employees are the rich and those not privileged to work for the government are the poor.
That's the real "class" war and I know plenty of former union guys who are sick to death of seeing teachers and other state employees still having the sort of pay and benefits they lost long ago and have no hope of ever seeing again. I would not refer to them as "vermin," but that's just me maybe.
posted by three blind mice at 11:54 AM on February 12, 2011
Pope Guilty: public sector employees are finally catching up to what has happened to the private sector employees two decades ago. When it comes to middle class workers - the public sector employees are the rich and those not privileged to work for the government are the poor.
That's the real "class" war and I know plenty of former union guys who are sick to death of seeing teachers and other state employees still having the sort of pay and benefits they lost long ago and have no hope of ever seeing again. I would not refer to them as "vermin," but that's just me maybe.
posted by three blind mice at 11:54 AM on February 12, 2011
*no longer have to honor.
posted by IvoShandor at 11:54 AM on February 12, 2011
posted by IvoShandor at 11:54 AM on February 12, 2011
I always tell this to people who ask me (since I work for a local government, not a union employee (exempt) but still I work with a lot of people in the union)...
its not that public employee unions are getting more and more, its just the average worker is getting less and less, perhaps they need to organize and get a union together to get back what they've lost over the past 30 years.
The problem is that the right-wing tautology of union = bad, along with a few bad union apples (both bad unions entirely along with bad workers within the union), makes unions unpalatable to a lot of people. We've lost sight of the good things unions can do.
posted by SirOmega at 11:54 AM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
its not that public employee unions are getting more and more, its just the average worker is getting less and less, perhaps they need to organize and get a union together to get back what they've lost over the past 30 years.
The problem is that the right-wing tautology of union = bad, along with a few bad union apples (both bad unions entirely along with bad workers within the union), makes unions unpalatable to a lot of people. We've lost sight of the good things unions can do.
posted by SirOmega at 11:54 AM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
Whimsicalnymph, I'd go even a step farther, and say that the people who are screaming "it sucks for me so it has to suck for you" are mean spirited cowards and that we should be resolute in calling them out on it.
posted by wuwei at 11:55 AM on February 12, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by wuwei at 11:55 AM on February 12, 2011 [5 favorites]
Here in Indiana, the Republican legislature and the Governor (presidential hopeful Mitch Daniels) have introduced a bill that would strip-away not only collective bargaining from teachers, but also the ability to negotiate things like class sizes. It's guaranteed to pass and be signed into law, since the Republicans hold a lock on both chambers and the governor's office.
I started noticing a decided pile-on beginning against unions soon after Obama came into office. FOX News, especially, began a concerted "union contracts are adding to the deficit" drumbeat.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:55 AM on February 12, 2011
I started noticing a decided pile-on beginning against unions soon after Obama came into office. FOX News, especially, began a concerted "union contracts are adding to the deficit" drumbeat.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:55 AM on February 12, 2011
When it comes to middle class workers - the public sector employees are the rich and those not privileged to work for the government are the poor.
So the argument again comes down to it sucks for almost everyone else why shouldn't it suck for them too?
Not really a good argument. Not to mention the blatant falseness of the above quoted statement. In what world are government employees "rich"? The wealth in this country isn't owned by government employees, that's absurd. These people are rich because they got the state to agree to some decent benefits and a good pension? What?
posted by IvoShandor at 11:56 AM on February 12, 2011 [10 favorites]
So the argument again comes down to it sucks for almost everyone else why shouldn't it suck for them too?
Not really a good argument. Not to mention the blatant falseness of the above quoted statement. In what world are government employees "rich"? The wealth in this country isn't owned by government employees, that's absurd. These people are rich because they got the state to agree to some decent benefits and a good pension? What?
posted by IvoShandor at 11:56 AM on February 12, 2011 [10 favorites]
whimsicalnymph -
No, that's not it at all. It's more about fairness and actually has a lot to do with employment rules, not just income. Do you know how difficult it is to remove a poor teacher from the classroom in many states? Do you know how frustrated school administrators are that they have to bow before union bid rules to fill positions, regardless the ability or merit of the employee?
It's not just the wages and benefits that are being discussed, it's the whole package deal.
It has little to do with serfdom and making everyone equals and more to do with municipalities and states who cannot get their residents to pass increased taxes any longer and who cannot therefore afford these deals any longer.
The math doesn't work: a public employee working 30 years, retiring with 70% of their salary, plus excellent benefits and guaranteed cost of living adjustments can live an additional 40 years. Under the current arrangement that's a mathematically losing proposition.
Unless, of course, you are in a state where the law has been written that mandates the public employees union be funded to the detriment of all else. Then, sure, why wouldn't you offer these kinds of benefits when it's the law that they're promised to you, regardless how the money will be found?
The math just doesn't work - no matter how many "rich" you tax. It's not about getting even, it's not about tearing people down, it's not about serfdom. It's about basic mathematics and under the current rules, it doesn't work.
posted by tgrundke at 11:57 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
No, that's not it at all. It's more about fairness and actually has a lot to do with employment rules, not just income. Do you know how difficult it is to remove a poor teacher from the classroom in many states? Do you know how frustrated school administrators are that they have to bow before union bid rules to fill positions, regardless the ability or merit of the employee?
It's not just the wages and benefits that are being discussed, it's the whole package deal.
It has little to do with serfdom and making everyone equals and more to do with municipalities and states who cannot get their residents to pass increased taxes any longer and who cannot therefore afford these deals any longer.
The math doesn't work: a public employee working 30 years, retiring with 70% of their salary, plus excellent benefits and guaranteed cost of living adjustments can live an additional 40 years. Under the current arrangement that's a mathematically losing proposition.
Unless, of course, you are in a state where the law has been written that mandates the public employees union be funded to the detriment of all else. Then, sure, why wouldn't you offer these kinds of benefits when it's the law that they're promised to you, regardless how the money will be found?
The math just doesn't work - no matter how many "rich" you tax. It's not about getting even, it's not about tearing people down, it's not about serfdom. It's about basic mathematics and under the current rules, it doesn't work.
posted by tgrundke at 11:57 AM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
There was a time when most people preferred the private sector for jobs rather than the bloat and incompetency they associated with public jobs. And the the private sector sent jobs out of the country, automated, brought in green card workers, and has workers who for reasons best known to no one decided that unions were not needed. Then, jobs lost, they begrudged the public sector and minded not at all that contracts made in good faith, through collective bargaining could seemingly be abrogated by a governor.
\If agreements reached in good faith can be broken so easily, then what is the point of unions, negotiations, collective bargaining, tenure, seniority or any other "right" those employed in the public or private sector believe they have?
posted by Postroad at 12:00 PM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
\If agreements reached in good faith can be broken so easily, then what is the point of unions, negotiations, collective bargaining, tenure, seniority or any other "right" those employed in the public or private sector believe they have?
posted by Postroad at 12:00 PM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
As a Wisconsin state worker, I'd like to add a few clarifications.
The governor is attempting to enact his changes to state employee contracts through a suggested budget repair bill for the 2009-2010 biennium (this is technically possible because the 2010 fiscal year lasts until the end of June 2011). These changes will also presumably be incorporated into the 2011-2012 budget bill. By directly legislating the changes to employee contracts, Walker gets to circumvent collective bargaining.
However, Walker does not necessarily get everything that Walker wants. He's the governor, so his budget repair bill is merely a suggestion to the legislature. Someone in the legislature is going to have to introduce it, and it will go through the usual succession of committees before it gets voted on. The Republicans control both the Assembly and the Senate, but that doesn't mean that the specific provisions Walker wants in the budget repair bill are generally agreed on by everyone.
As an employee of a nonpartisan legislative service agency, I will not comment on the proposed budget repair bill itself. However, if you would like to make known your opinions on the budget repair bill (and specifically the provisions relating to state employee contracts), I suggest you visit WAML to determine who your state legislators are, and then contact them. From the WAML page, click on "Committees" on the right near the top. Your input is especially important if you note that your legislator serves on the Joint Finance Committee; while those people hold special influence over the bill, every legislator's vote will matter.
I have done extensive work on their constituent management software, so this is the information you want to be sure to include if you do contact them:
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:06 PM on February 12, 2011 [6 favorites]
The governor is attempting to enact his changes to state employee contracts through a suggested budget repair bill for the 2009-2010 biennium (this is technically possible because the 2010 fiscal year lasts until the end of June 2011). These changes will also presumably be incorporated into the 2011-2012 budget bill. By directly legislating the changes to employee contracts, Walker gets to circumvent collective bargaining.
However, Walker does not necessarily get everything that Walker wants. He's the governor, so his budget repair bill is merely a suggestion to the legislature. Someone in the legislature is going to have to introduce it, and it will go through the usual succession of committees before it gets voted on. The Republicans control both the Assembly and the Senate, but that doesn't mean that the specific provisions Walker wants in the budget repair bill are generally agreed on by everyone.
As an employee of a nonpartisan legislative service agency, I will not comment on the proposed budget repair bill itself. However, if you would like to make known your opinions on the budget repair bill (and specifically the provisions relating to state employee contracts), I suggest you visit WAML to determine who your state legislators are, and then contact them. From the WAML page, click on "Committees" on the right near the top. Your input is especially important if you note that your legislator serves on the Joint Finance Committee; while those people hold special influence over the bill, every legislator's vote will matter.
I have done extensive work on their constituent management software, so this is the information you want to be sure to include if you do contact them:
- Your name
- Your physical mailing address (even if you email them, tell them this; they need to verify that you live in their district)
- A summary of the issues you are concerned about and your positions on those issues. A simple list of issue-position pairs is okay. High rhetoric is fine but won't necessarily help. They will give more weight to your position if you have voted in many recent elections, but having voted in the last two is almost always enough to bump you into the "likely voter" category.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:06 PM on February 12, 2011 [6 favorites]
\If agreements reached in good faith can be broken so easily n what is the point of unions, negotiations, collective bargaining, tenure, seniority or any other "right" those employed in the public or private sector believe they have?
No doubt about it. It's kind of like telling the bank that the mortgage is void and you just get to keep the house simply because you ran out of money. Somehow, I don't think that would fly.
posted by IvoShandor at 12:06 PM on February 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
No doubt about it. It's kind of like telling the bank that the mortgage is void and you just get to keep the house simply because you ran out of money. Somehow, I don't think that would fly.
posted by IvoShandor at 12:06 PM on February 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
I would support this enitrely, if for every penny of contractually obligated benefits cut from workers, government must default on a bond of equal value. After all, they're both contracts. If you're saying it's moral to tear up one contract to balance the budget, then let's be prepared to tear up the others.
posted by Grimgrin at 12:06 PM on February 12, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Grimgrin at 12:06 PM on February 12, 2011 [3 favorites]
Please remember: contracts between the state and bondholders or suppliers have to be observed, contracts with workers are optional.
posted by shothotbot at 12:07 PM on February 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by shothotbot at 12:07 PM on February 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
For real, shothotbot? Are am I missing the implied tag?
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 12:08 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 12:08 PM on February 12, 2011
Grimgrin -
Actually, that's exactly what several states and municipalities are trying to do. Vallejo, CA for example has been through court for a good two years because the courts have said they cannot void the union contracts. So they went a different route and said "fine, we'll just declare bankruptcy for force them to renegotiate". Well, that's part of the hangup - according to certain state statutes they must fund the pensions and honor the agreements, even if they declare bankruptcy.
It's a messy case.
There's a similar one in Alabama (Jackson county, perhaps), where they want to default on their bonds for a sewer project that went wildly over budget, combined with declining revenues. I don't recall where that one ended up, but I do know it's been a messy case against JP Morgan, holder of those bonds.
posted by tgrundke at 12:10 PM on February 12, 2011
Actually, that's exactly what several states and municipalities are trying to do. Vallejo, CA for example has been through court for a good two years because the courts have said they cannot void the union contracts. So they went a different route and said "fine, we'll just declare bankruptcy for force them to renegotiate". Well, that's part of the hangup - according to certain state statutes they must fund the pensions and honor the agreements, even if they declare bankruptcy.
It's a messy case.
There's a similar one in Alabama (Jackson county, perhaps), where they want to default on their bonds for a sewer project that went wildly over budget, combined with declining revenues. I don't recall where that one ended up, but I do know it's been a messy case against JP Morgan, holder of those bonds.
posted by tgrundke at 12:10 PM on February 12, 2011
"The math just doesn't work - no matter how many "rich" you tax."
This is a bold statement, sir, and pardon me if I say I simply don't believe you. The math doesn't work based on the very, very current state of affairs that we find ourselves in. Yes, that is true. But I don't think I buy the idea that it won't work ever, ever, because there's simply not enough money to be raised through taxation.
Obliquely related: In my opinion it is time we stopped talking about taxation as a last case resort or terrible burden, when it is, in fact, an investment in our communities, states, and country. If we aren't willing to invest in our communities, states, and country, what does that say about our confidence in ourselves? Holy shit, the thing that scares me the most about anti-tax people is how much they hate everyone. "Me, mine, mine! None for you because I know better." Except, you know, you don't know better, because we end up (with what tgrunke so aptly pointed out) bankrupt states and schools and public services.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 12:11 PM on February 12, 2011 [10 favorites]
This is a bold statement, sir, and pardon me if I say I simply don't believe you. The math doesn't work based on the very, very current state of affairs that we find ourselves in. Yes, that is true. But I don't think I buy the idea that it won't work ever, ever, because there's simply not enough money to be raised through taxation.
Obliquely related: In my opinion it is time we stopped talking about taxation as a last case resort or terrible burden, when it is, in fact, an investment in our communities, states, and country. If we aren't willing to invest in our communities, states, and country, what does that say about our confidence in ourselves? Holy shit, the thing that scares me the most about anti-tax people is how much they hate everyone. "Me, mine, mine! None for you because I know better." Except, you know, you don't know better, because we end up (with what tgrunke so aptly pointed out) bankrupt states and schools and public services.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 12:11 PM on February 12, 2011 [10 favorites]
Also, the framing of this post is not good, I can't see any evidence the National Guard is being called in to crackdown on protesters. The word protest doesn't even appear in the article. What's up with that?
posted by IvoShandor at 12:11 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by IvoShandor at 12:11 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
tgrundke: No, that's not it at all. It's more about fairness and actually has a lot to do with employment rules, not just income. Do you know how difficult it is to remove a poor teacher from the classroom in many states? Do you know how frustrated school administrators are that they have to bow before union bid rules to fill positions, regardless the ability or merit of the employee?
Well, those rules serve useful purposes as well. First of all, they offer some protection from poor administrators, which are at least as common as poor teachers. Secondly, they offer a lot of protection against political retaliation, angry helicopter parents, and other such threats. Teachers are going to piss off a few people no matter how well they do their jobs, and having protection against being casually fired at the behast of a connected parent is a good thing.
In a lot of ways this reminds me of tenure; you hear about the one useless idiot that it prevented the university from firing, but you don't hear about the time that it protected a bunch of faculty in the biology department who pissed off the cattlegrower's association by publishing a study about how cows destroy small streams.
The math doesn't work: a public employee working 30 years, retiring with 70% of their salary, plus excellent benefits and guaranteed cost of living adjustments can live an additional 40 years. Under the current arrangement that's a mathematically losing proposition.
A teacher starts work at what, 22 or 23 at the earliest? I doubt the mathematical outliers who live to 93 (30 years working + 40 years retired) are going to break the system.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:11 PM on February 12, 2011 [8 favorites]
Well, those rules serve useful purposes as well. First of all, they offer some protection from poor administrators, which are at least as common as poor teachers. Secondly, they offer a lot of protection against political retaliation, angry helicopter parents, and other such threats. Teachers are going to piss off a few people no matter how well they do their jobs, and having protection against being casually fired at the behast of a connected parent is a good thing.
In a lot of ways this reminds me of tenure; you hear about the one useless idiot that it prevented the university from firing, but you don't hear about the time that it protected a bunch of faculty in the biology department who pissed off the cattlegrower's association by publishing a study about how cows destroy small streams.
The math doesn't work: a public employee working 30 years, retiring with 70% of their salary, plus excellent benefits and guaranteed cost of living adjustments can live an additional 40 years. Under the current arrangement that's a mathematically losing proposition.
A teacher starts work at what, 22 or 23 at the earliest? I doubt the mathematical outliers who live to 93 (30 years working + 40 years retired) are going to break the system.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:11 PM on February 12, 2011 [8 favorites]
tgrundke- I don't know how other states are, but in Wisconsin, cost of living increases are not guaranteed for state workers.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:13 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:13 PM on February 12, 2011
Postroad: " has workers who for reasons best known to no one decided that unions were not needed."
The reason that people decided that unions were not needed is that the tide that the unions had raised for union workers raised all other workers pay and benefits also, all these other citizens rode on the back of the gains made by the unions. You need only look at cities that have strong union presence in the construction trades v cities that do not; those cities that have strong union presence pays non-union workers real well also, but cities without union presence pay the tradesmen dirt.
Unions gave all workers this idea that it's civil to work five days a week, eight hours a day, an idea which is now commonplace, totally accepted by all. Safety standards, too -- unions gave us that. The idea that the worker has dignity, is to be treated with respect -- thank the unions.
Everyone knows that there are excesses, that some unions have way overstepped their bounds, and have protected workers such as the teachers referenced upthread etc and etc, but these are outliers, like welfare Cadillac queens that get paraded in headlines; nice outrage-filter but not really what's going on.
posted by dancestoblue at 12:14 PM on February 12, 2011 [9 favorites]
The reason that people decided that unions were not needed is that the tide that the unions had raised for union workers raised all other workers pay and benefits also, all these other citizens rode on the back of the gains made by the unions. You need only look at cities that have strong union presence in the construction trades v cities that do not; those cities that have strong union presence pays non-union workers real well also, but cities without union presence pay the tradesmen dirt.
Unions gave all workers this idea that it's civil to work five days a week, eight hours a day, an idea which is now commonplace, totally accepted by all. Safety standards, too -- unions gave us that. The idea that the worker has dignity, is to be treated with respect -- thank the unions.
Everyone knows that there are excesses, that some unions have way overstepped their bounds, and have protected workers such as the teachers referenced upthread etc and etc, but these are outliers, like welfare Cadillac queens that get paraded in headlines; nice outrage-filter but not really what's going on.
posted by dancestoblue at 12:14 PM on February 12, 2011 [9 favorites]
Mitrovarr -
Yes, you are correct, those rules do serve a useful purpose but they've been bent in favor of the unions so far that they have begun to hamstring many districts.
As far as the actuarials are concerned, the problem here is the amount that the members are required to pay into the system over their career versus how much they get out of it at the end. If you pay in the average $250,000 over your career but take out $1.5 million or more over the course of your retirement - there's a problem.
posted by tgrundke at 12:15 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, you are correct, those rules do serve a useful purpose but they've been bent in favor of the unions so far that they have begun to hamstring many districts.
As far as the actuarials are concerned, the problem here is the amount that the members are required to pay into the system over their career versus how much they get out of it at the end. If you pay in the average $250,000 over your career but take out $1.5 million or more over the course of your retirement - there's a problem.
posted by tgrundke at 12:15 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
(as an aside, because in reading these comments i realize how little i know about the topic - what books would some of you suggest as the best primers on the history & impact of unions in america?)
posted by Hesychia at 12:16 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by Hesychia at 12:16 PM on February 12, 2011
IvoShandor : In what world are government employees "rich"? The wealth in this country isn't owned by government employees, that's absurd.
Not "rich" in the caviar & Dom Perigon sense, but rich in terms of having what many other people lack. Most Americans work in "at-will" employment of one kind of another where they can be fired at any time, get "benefits" that are usually laughable(if they get any at all), and get paltry raises (if they get any at all) that pale with inflation.
When they look at the municipal water guy or the sanitation guy who gets great benefits for a song, a union job thats secure no matter what, overtime that brings him nearly six figures, and a retirement package that will allow him to live comfortably, most people aren't going to say "all jobs should provide this way". Instead, they want to drag him down to their world of the cutrate fuck-and-chuck job market.
All the while, the real rich chuckle and count their money.
posted by dr_dank at 12:17 PM on February 12, 2011 [8 favorites]
Not "rich" in the caviar & Dom Perigon sense, but rich in terms of having what many other people lack. Most Americans work in "at-will" employment of one kind of another where they can be fired at any time, get "benefits" that are usually laughable(if they get any at all), and get paltry raises (if they get any at all) that pale with inflation.
When they look at the municipal water guy or the sanitation guy who gets great benefits for a song, a union job thats secure no matter what, overtime that brings him nearly six figures, and a retirement package that will allow him to live comfortably, most people aren't going to say "all jobs should provide this way". Instead, they want to drag him down to their world of the cutrate fuck-and-chuck job market.
All the while, the real rich chuckle and count their money.
posted by dr_dank at 12:17 PM on February 12, 2011 [8 favorites]
I have a question about these pension funds that many state governments seem to be complaining about. Here in Ontario, the teacher's pension fund is one of the largest financial actors in North America. What happened to these other funds? Presumably the employees as well as the state governments have been paying into them. Where has this money gone? Who is managing these things?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:20 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:20 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
tgrundke: As far as the actuarials are concerned, the problem here is the amount that the members are required to pay into the system over their career versus how much they get out of it at the end. If you pay in the average $250,000 over your career but take out $1.5 million or more over the course of your retirement - there's a problem.
Well, such things have to be carefully considered. Of course, you have to consider that people value benefits when shopping for jobs, and if you offer less benefits, you probably will have to pay them a lot more to make up for it.
Also, you just cannot take away retirement/pension benefits you have previously promised to people. It doesn't matter if it was a bad idea or you have to cut other things to do it, or what - the people who have these pensions can't go back in time and pick another career that set up a retirement fund instead. You are totally obligated to pay them out regardless of the costs involved.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:23 PM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
Well, such things have to be carefully considered. Of course, you have to consider that people value benefits when shopping for jobs, and if you offer less benefits, you probably will have to pay them a lot more to make up for it.
Also, you just cannot take away retirement/pension benefits you have previously promised to people. It doesn't matter if it was a bad idea or you have to cut other things to do it, or what - the people who have these pensions can't go back in time and pick another career that set up a retirement fund instead. You are totally obligated to pay them out regardless of the costs involved.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:23 PM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
My brother in law lives in Wisconsin- knows a lot of government employees, utility workers mostly. He was baffled as to why 90% of them where strong backers of Walker.
"They're voting themselves right out a job." He said, although I imagine he wasn't even thinking of something this overt.
Keep in mind Walker already turned down the High Speed Rail funds, chasing one business out of Wisconsin. Sometimes people get what they deserve.
The W loaded Supreme Court had a hand in this too.
posted by Max Power at 12:24 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
"They're voting themselves right out a job." He said, although I imagine he wasn't even thinking of something this overt.
Keep in mind Walker already turned down the High Speed Rail funds, chasing one business out of Wisconsin. Sometimes people get what they deserve.
The W loaded Supreme Court had a hand in this too.
posted by Max Power at 12:24 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Organized labor represents a drain on profits and/or ownership authority. As such, they are targeted by wealth whenever the opportunity presents itself. Public employee unions are normally tough to get at which it why they now represent the majority of unionized workers in the nation. The recession and the strong anti-government sentiments it has engendered offers a rare opportunity to attack the public unions and weaken unionization in general. Nothing surprising here...
posted by jim in austin at 12:25 PM on February 12, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by jim in austin at 12:25 PM on February 12, 2011 [3 favorites]
In answer to TheWhiteSkull (from the Pew Center on the States):
$1 trillion. That’s the gap at the end of fiscal year 2008 between the $2.35 trillion states had set aside to pay for employees’ retirement benefits and the $3.35 trillion price tag of those promises.
Why does it matter? Because every dollar spent to reduce the unfunded retirement liability cannot be used for education, public safety and other needs. Ultimately, taxpayers could face higher taxes or cuts in essential public services.
A new pensions and retiree health care report from the Pew Center on the States, The Trillion Dollar Gap: Underfunded State Retirement Systems and the Road to Reform, shows why states must take strong action now—or taxpayers will suffer later.
To a significant degree, the $1 trillion reflects states’ own policy choices and lack of discipline:
• failing to make annual payments for pension systems at the levels recommended by their own actuaries;
• expanding benefits and offering cost-of-living increases without fully considering their long-term price tag or determining how to pay for them; and
• providing retiree health care without adequately funding it.
posted by found missing at 12:26 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
$1 trillion. That’s the gap at the end of fiscal year 2008 between the $2.35 trillion states had set aside to pay for employees’ retirement benefits and the $3.35 trillion price tag of those promises.
Why does it matter? Because every dollar spent to reduce the unfunded retirement liability cannot be used for education, public safety and other needs. Ultimately, taxpayers could face higher taxes or cuts in essential public services.
A new pensions and retiree health care report from the Pew Center on the States, The Trillion Dollar Gap: Underfunded State Retirement Systems and the Road to Reform, shows why states must take strong action now—or taxpayers will suffer later.
To a significant degree, the $1 trillion reflects states’ own policy choices and lack of discipline:
• failing to make annual payments for pension systems at the levels recommended by their own actuaries;
• expanding benefits and offering cost-of-living increases without fully considering their long-term price tag or determining how to pay for them; and
• providing retiree health care without adequately funding it.
posted by found missing at 12:26 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
The bargain used to be, in exchange for dreary work and low pay, government workers got good benefits and the near impossibility of being fired. In some areas of the country the bargain got changed to include high pay and even better perks, often without much in the way of public debate or consent. Some modest correction and push back against localized excesses is expected and necessary. Unnecessary and even outrageous proposals by some anti-union Republicans are also expected.
posted by aerotive at 12:26 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by aerotive at 12:26 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
America could learn a thing or two from the protests in Egypt.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 11:36 AM on February 12 [3 favorites +] [!]
Except that we elected our tyrants?
posted by found missing at 11:36 AM on February 12 [+] [!]
So have they in Egypt.
posted by semmi at 12:27 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 11:36 AM on February 12 [3 favorites +] [!]
Except that we elected our tyrants?
posted by found missing at 11:36 AM on February 12 [+] [!]
So have they in Egypt.
posted by semmi at 12:27 PM on February 12, 2011
No freely and fairly, of course.
posted by found missing at 12:28 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by found missing at 12:28 PM on February 12, 2011
Please remember: contracts between the state and bondholders or suppliers have to be observed, contracts with workers are optional.
For real, shothotbot? Are am I missing the implied tag?
What would you call it when pension or health care benefits negotiated in good faith are on the chopping block?
posted by shothotbot at 12:28 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
For real, shothotbot? Are am I missing the implied tag?
What would you call it when pension or health care benefits negotiated in good faith are on the chopping block?
posted by shothotbot at 12:28 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
whimsicalnymph -
The math doesn't work. The result is that states and municipalities have over-promised on what they can deliver. That's the fault of politicians writing checks their asses can't cash:
California owes $500 billion to its pension plan
Chicago Public Schools $900 million pension deficit
New Jersey Pension Fund Employee Contributions - 5.5%
Prichard, Alabama defaults due to pension funds running dry
Pensions are 70% of Decatur, Illinois budget
New York State $120 billion pension shortfall
The Two Trillion Pension Hold
posted by tgrundke at 12:30 PM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
The math doesn't work. The result is that states and municipalities have over-promised on what they can deliver. That's the fault of politicians writing checks their asses can't cash:
California owes $500 billion to its pension plan
Chicago Public Schools $900 million pension deficit
New Jersey Pension Fund Employee Contributions - 5.5%
Prichard, Alabama defaults due to pension funds running dry
Pensions are 70% of Decatur, Illinois budget
New York State $120 billion pension shortfall
The Two Trillion Pension Hold
posted by tgrundke at 12:30 PM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
aerotive- in Wisconsin (the subject of the original post), working for the state entails a roughly 20% pay cut relative to the private sector. The benefits were a significant reason why I chose to work for the state; I could easily make more money elsewhere.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:32 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:32 PM on February 12, 2011
So if people don't want to pay taxes to cover the benefits that their governments have negotiated, how do they expect to staff public services? Indentured servants? You still have to feed and clothe them.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:32 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:32 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
TheWhiteSkull- it is possible to staff or replace public services with outside contractors and consultants.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:34 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 12:34 PM on February 12, 2011
I'll add one more thing: While discussing this, keep in mind that the influence and spoils granted to the public employees union is not all that dissimilar to Wall Street. Both groups have done a phenomenal job lobbying and getting federal, state and local legislatures to bend their way.
They are two sides of a very similar coin: Wall Street put rules in place to protect itself and to leech off of the public purse and in many ways (though do not take my saying this as equating school teachers, janitors and other state employees to Wall Street tycoons) the PEUs have done the same.
They're both unsupportable and unsustainable and need to be reigned in, regardless which side they're on. We should not be footing the bill to bailout billionaires and we should not be footing the bill for some of the sweetheart deals granted the PEUs.
posted by tgrundke at 12:35 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
They are two sides of a very similar coin: Wall Street put rules in place to protect itself and to leech off of the public purse and in many ways (though do not take my saying this as equating school teachers, janitors and other state employees to Wall Street tycoons) the PEUs have done the same.
They're both unsupportable and unsustainable and need to be reigned in, regardless which side they're on. We should not be footing the bill to bailout billionaires and we should not be footing the bill for some of the sweetheart deals granted the PEUs.
posted by tgrundke at 12:35 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Recently in The Economist...
Anybody who thinks this is a coincidence is so naive that it rises to the point of mental illness.
Pope Guilty: public sector employees are finally catching up to what has happened to the private sector employees two decades ago. When it comes to middle class workers - the public sector employees are the rich and those not privileged to work for the government are the poor.
This is facile bullshit and betrays a child's understanding of what constitutes wealth.
That's the real "class" war and I know plenty of former union guys who are sick to death of seeing teachers and other state employees still having the sort of pay and benefits they lost long ago and have no hope of ever seeing again. I would not refer to them as "vermin," but that's just me maybe.
Yeah, no. If your perspective is not "I should be lifted to that level" but "others should be dragged down to my level", you're shit and your opinions are despicable, and you should no more be listened to or consulted on anything than a child kicking and screaming because that other child got a candy bar.
So if people don't want to pay taxes to cover the benefits that their governments have negotiated, how do they expect to staff public services? Indentured servants? You still have to feed and clothe them.
Look at the disgusting rhetoric around teachers, about how teachers should work for nothing and be glad to "get three months off a year". The norm in this country is a loathing and hatred of workers and of productive work, and we are seeing the predictable outcomes.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:37 PM on February 12, 2011 [11 favorites]
Anybody who thinks this is a coincidence is so naive that it rises to the point of mental illness.
Pope Guilty: public sector employees are finally catching up to what has happened to the private sector employees two decades ago. When it comes to middle class workers - the public sector employees are the rich and those not privileged to work for the government are the poor.
This is facile bullshit and betrays a child's understanding of what constitutes wealth.
That's the real "class" war and I know plenty of former union guys who are sick to death of seeing teachers and other state employees still having the sort of pay and benefits they lost long ago and have no hope of ever seeing again. I would not refer to them as "vermin," but that's just me maybe.
Yeah, no. If your perspective is not "I should be lifted to that level" but "others should be dragged down to my level", you're shit and your opinions are despicable, and you should no more be listened to or consulted on anything than a child kicking and screaming because that other child got a candy bar.
So if people don't want to pay taxes to cover the benefits that their governments have negotiated, how do they expect to staff public services? Indentured servants? You still have to feed and clothe them.
Look at the disgusting rhetoric around teachers, about how teachers should work for nothing and be glad to "get three months off a year". The norm in this country is a loathing and hatred of workers and of productive work, and we are seeing the predictable outcomes.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:37 PM on February 12, 2011 [11 favorites]
I think it's a more subtle series of questions.
High-level public servants, and those who truly risk their lives in the course of their duties, are typically fairly paid, at best, relative to the private sector. Often they are underpaid -- sometimes to an extent that actually messes with public policy. (We might have better regulations if regulators weren't in a position to see their wage discount as dues needed to join the richly-paid corps of private sector lobbyists, lawyers and compliance executives.)
These employees need to be clearly distinguished from less-skilled government employees, who are often grossly overpaid relative to the private sector when all benefits are taken into account, and I certainly include in that category occupants of jobs who have written themselves bogus, nobody-ever-flunks bachelors and masters requirements and point to them to claim equivalence to serious private sector jobs.
I also take issue with the notion that most government employee union contracts were negotiated in anything approaching good faith. Government employee unions and associations are aggressive participants in politics and many municipal and state government are outright captured by them. Taxpayers have an absolute right to question contracts negotiated at a bargaining table where the union sat on side and politicians elected with ardent union support sat on the other side. (In much the same manner that people have a right to seek to have regulations revisited when written by regulators captured by their regulated enterprises, to be fair.)
posted by MattD at 12:40 PM on February 12, 2011
High-level public servants, and those who truly risk their lives in the course of their duties, are typically fairly paid, at best, relative to the private sector. Often they are underpaid -- sometimes to an extent that actually messes with public policy. (We might have better regulations if regulators weren't in a position to see their wage discount as dues needed to join the richly-paid corps of private sector lobbyists, lawyers and compliance executives.)
These employees need to be clearly distinguished from less-skilled government employees, who are often grossly overpaid relative to the private sector when all benefits are taken into account, and I certainly include in that category occupants of jobs who have written themselves bogus, nobody-ever-flunks bachelors and masters requirements and point to them to claim equivalence to serious private sector jobs.
I also take issue with the notion that most government employee union contracts were negotiated in anything approaching good faith. Government employee unions and associations are aggressive participants in politics and many municipal and state government are outright captured by them. Taxpayers have an absolute right to question contracts negotiated at a bargaining table where the union sat on side and politicians elected with ardent union support sat on the other side. (In much the same manner that people have a right to seek to have regulations revisited when written by regulators captured by their regulated enterprises, to be fair.)
posted by MattD at 12:40 PM on February 12, 2011
A pension is a sweetheart deal now? One that employees also contribute to? Where has that money gone?
If governments have been negotiating in bad faith with unions, why should the employees foot the bill? As some have pointed out in this thread, many state employees could make more in the private sector. If the outside contractors that are brought in to replace unionized workers plan to find all of their efficiencies on the backs of labor, what happens when voters decide they don't want to pay for that either?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:40 PM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
If governments have been negotiating in bad faith with unions, why should the employees foot the bill? As some have pointed out in this thread, many state employees could make more in the private sector. If the outside contractors that are brought in to replace unionized workers plan to find all of their efficiencies on the backs of labor, what happens when voters decide they don't want to pay for that either?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:40 PM on February 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
Keep in mind that part of the problem is that to fund these pensions you must chase "Alpha" - meaning return. Many pension plans are based on a minimum 8% annual return on the plan's investment. That's better than most investors' average, and rarely achievable. The hole gets even bigger when you figure that legislatures constantly muck with the promises being made.
posted by tgrundke at 12:43 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by tgrundke at 12:43 PM on February 12, 2011
As found missing suggests, "the math doesn't work" is a far too passive a way of putting it. "The math doesn't work" because states have for decades refused to fund their pensions in a responsible way, building up the fund in times of plenty in order to see them through recessions, such as now. What they did was offer in lieu of wage increases hefty pensions, and when the unions accepted that trade, the states systematically underfunded those pensions, such that now, decades later, they can say "it's not our fault -- it's the math!" This isn't to say I know what the solution is -- but I know that it's not just due to math plus bad times: blame lies with those who essentially tricked the unions into accepting pensions over wages and then deliberately underfunded those pensions to ensure that they could never be fully paid.
posted by chortly at 12:43 PM on February 12, 2011 [9 favorites]
posted by chortly at 12:43 PM on February 12, 2011 [9 favorites]
tgrundke:There's a similar one in Alabama (Jackson county, perhaps), where they want to default on their bonds for a sewer project that went wildly over budget, combined with declining revenues. I don't recall where that one ended up, but I do know it's been a messy case against JP Morgan, holder of those bonds.
Not only has this been a messy case, it actually has forced government agencies around the US to have to raise taxes. Why? Because what happened in this case was that government approved spending but refused to approve the tax increase to pay for it. Now just about every local government utility around the US has to raise taxes first before they can issue bonds to demonstrate that the elected officials are responsible people, and still those bonds are more expensive.
Mitrovarr: A teacher starts work at what, 22 or 23 at the earliest? I doubt the mathematical outliers who live to 93 (30 years working + 40 years retired) are going to break the system.
I'm about as far of an outlier as you can be (started working for govt at age 18, retire in 30 yrs at age 48). If I live to be 78, then I'll have worked 30 yrs an have been retired 30 yrs. Assuming the magic of compound interest invested in the free market (right??), it shouldn't have taken much for money for my employer to put away every year for my retirement.
To me, all this rhetoric is about destroying the public sector at whatever cost. People bitch and moan about the local water company head who makes $350,000. Meanwhile, the CEO of the local electric company made $4.5M in 2009. My monthly water bill is $15, my monthly power bill is around $200. Go figure that out.
posted by SirOmega at 12:44 PM on February 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
Not only has this been a messy case, it actually has forced government agencies around the US to have to raise taxes. Why? Because what happened in this case was that government approved spending but refused to approve the tax increase to pay for it. Now just about every local government utility around the US has to raise taxes first before they can issue bonds to demonstrate that the elected officials are responsible people, and still those bonds are more expensive.
Mitrovarr: A teacher starts work at what, 22 or 23 at the earliest? I doubt the mathematical outliers who live to 93 (30 years working + 40 years retired) are going to break the system.
I'm about as far of an outlier as you can be (started working for govt at age 18, retire in 30 yrs at age 48). If I live to be 78, then I'll have worked 30 yrs an have been retired 30 yrs. Assuming the magic of compound interest invested in the free market (right??), it shouldn't have taken much for money for my employer to put away every year for my retirement.
To me, all this rhetoric is about destroying the public sector at whatever cost. People bitch and moan about the local water company head who makes $350,000. Meanwhile, the CEO of the local electric company made $4.5M in 2009. My monthly water bill is $15, my monthly power bill is around $200. Go figure that out.
posted by SirOmega at 12:44 PM on February 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
Yeah, mods kill this if you like. The original sources I had for this post are unavailable for the moment, and these articles don't support the angle those others did very well. The other sources indicated the guard was being called in to respond to any potential backlash among state workers, but these don't back that angle up very well on second review. I'll see if I can find better corroboration of the guard being on standby to respond to a backlash if I can find them and will try a more evenhanded look at this later. It's more than Fox would do, but then our standards are rightly a bit higher around here. Apologies for the itchy trigger finger. My understanding from the other sources though is that the guard is being called to be on standby to address a potential public backlash as well, and that's not without precedent in the US, so I'll see if there's anything more concrete on the topic.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:45 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by saulgoodman at 12:45 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Good point, chortly, and goes to my point that states have over-promised and under-delivered.
posted by tgrundke at 12:45 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by tgrundke at 12:45 PM on February 12, 2011
So the argument again comes down to it sucks for almost everyone else why shouldn't it suck for them too?
I was involved in the TA union at UW Madison in the early 2000s, and this attitude was just as prevalent then. We went on strike for 2 days in 2004, as the state had sat on 2 of our contracts, '01-'03 and '03-'05, not even voting on the '01-'03 contract until 2003. Despite the fact that grad students' low wages would qualify them for food stamps and housing assistance (students are not eligible for public aid benefits in WI), legislators and the opinion pages of the State Journal (the more conservative paper) called for us to pay premiums for our health care. We were against paying premiums because the state refused to tie those in any way to our income or to raises, so we could have ended up paying a substantial portion of our income every month.
There was absolutely a prevalent attitude of "Well, I've got it bad, I'm getting screwed over, so you should be too" and a lot of hostility. The State Journal assigned an openly anti-union reporter to cover the issue.
Before tuition remission was enacted in the nineties, a TA would take home perhaps $200/ month in income (in the humanities, at least, my area of study). In order to get tuition remission and zero-premium health care (we still had drug copays), the union accepted lower wages: at least during my time as a steward, UW Madison TA salaries were some of the lowest in the Big Ten. Grad students were making sacrifices, giving up that income to have excellent, stable health care - it was the first time in my life I had ever had insurance.
Also, since I'm thinking about this situation, John Gard was and likely still is a miserable excuse for a human being. He was one of the legislators who held up our contracts to make political hay, all while living in a Madison suburb but claiming to live in his district outside of Green Bay so he could take a higher travel expense. (The cost for which would have paid for the proposed premiums for all the foreign language TA's for a year.)
posted by queseyo at 12:47 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
The math doesn't work: a public employee working 30 years, retiring with 70% of their salary, plus excellent benefits and guaranteed cost of living adjustments can live an additional 40 years. Under the current arrangement that's a mathematically losing proposition.
So how do we make it work? The answer isn't to drag everyone into the shit. It's to figure out how to create a more equitable and functional society.
posted by Lord_Pall at 12:47 PM on February 12, 2011 [3 favorites]
If governments have been negotiating in bad faith with unions, why should the employees foot the bill?
Sounds like this is what the problem is. Back in the day during negotiations, various governments were like, "Look, we can't pay you a ton now, but how about a sweet, sweet pension later on?" Then like everyone else they had to put that money somewhere, and we all know how that turned out. Probably also would have helped if they had an amount of money close to the amount they were going to need.
I'd be very interested in a chart that ignores things like economic growth and focuses only on the growth of wealth, and particularly concentrated wealth. It's established beyond a doubt that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. I'd love to know if in fact there is plenty of money to go around, but that in fact it's just all staying in one place so to speak.
posted by Deathalicious at 12:50 PM on February 12, 2011
Sounds like this is what the problem is. Back in the day during negotiations, various governments were like, "Look, we can't pay you a ton now, but how about a sweet, sweet pension later on?" Then like everyone else they had to put that money somewhere, and we all know how that turned out. Probably also would have helped if they had an amount of money close to the amount they were going to need.
I'd be very interested in a chart that ignores things like economic growth and focuses only on the growth of wealth, and particularly concentrated wealth. It's established beyond a doubt that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. I'd love to know if in fact there is plenty of money to go around, but that in fact it's just all staying in one place so to speak.
posted by Deathalicious at 12:50 PM on February 12, 2011
Headline in today's NY Times:
Wisconsin May Take an Ax to State Workers’ Benefits and Their Unions
My other sources, missing at the moment, suggest that Wisconsin is literally taking axes to state union workers. I'll get back to you on that.
posted by found missing at 12:52 PM on February 12, 2011
Wisconsin May Take an Ax to State Workers’ Benefits and Their Unions
My other sources, missing at the moment, suggest that Wisconsin is literally taking axes to state union workers. I'll get back to you on that.
posted by found missing at 12:52 PM on February 12, 2011
"Not "rich" in the caviar & Dom Perigon sense, but rich in terms of having what many other people lack. Most Americans work in "at-will" employment of one kind of another where they can be fired at any time, get "benefits" that are usually laughable(if they get any at all), and get paltry raises (if they get any at all) that pale with inflation."
Funny how $400,000 a year (and enough breathing room to funnel $60,000 a year into a retirement fund) is "poor" when we're talking about a minor tax increase, but a pension plan and cost-of-living increases mean "rich" when we're talking about violating peoples' previously-negotiated contracts.
posted by verb at 12:54 PM on February 12, 2011 [7 favorites]
Funny how $400,000 a year (and enough breathing room to funnel $60,000 a year into a retirement fund) is "poor" when we're talking about a minor tax increase, but a pension plan and cost-of-living increases mean "rich" when we're talking about violating peoples' previously-negotiated contracts.
posted by verb at 12:54 PM on February 12, 2011 [7 favorites]
Lord_Pall,
In many states the solution has been to require union members to contribute a higher percentage of their income to their retirement fund, to raise the retirement age, to limit the ability to do things like convert unused sick/vacation days into cash, to increase co-pays and medical deductions, to change the retirement rules such that the final retirement calculation is lower.
I know that in the State of Ohio the concessions being asked would only be for new employees and would be phased in for others based upon tenure in the system. All in all, what's being bantered about is very reasonable - it's far from "gutting the system" or dragging everyone into the shit.
posted by tgrundke at 12:54 PM on February 12, 2011
In many states the solution has been to require union members to contribute a higher percentage of their income to their retirement fund, to raise the retirement age, to limit the ability to do things like convert unused sick/vacation days into cash, to increase co-pays and medical deductions, to change the retirement rules such that the final retirement calculation is lower.
I know that in the State of Ohio the concessions being asked would only be for new employees and would be phased in for others based upon tenure in the system. All in all, what's being bantered about is very reasonable - it's far from "gutting the system" or dragging everyone into the shit.
posted by tgrundke at 12:54 PM on February 12, 2011
Those links that tgrunke have put up do paint a very dismal picture.
But in no place did I see evidence that more taxation wouldn't fix the problem. The math doesn't add up if we keep doing business as usual. I think I'm trying to say, business as usual obviously doesn't work, and the solution to that is to change business as usual.
I think where we diverge is on that solution. I'm not a big fan of "oops we over promised and underfunded so...sorry guys. good luck buying food when you're old." I kinda think we need a solution more along the lines of "oops we over promised and underfunded so...sorry everyone, you're gonna have to help keep your neighbors afloat, and the good news is they'll be doing the same for you."
Collectivism. It's not a bad word.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 12:55 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
But in no place did I see evidence that more taxation wouldn't fix the problem. The math doesn't add up if we keep doing business as usual. I think I'm trying to say, business as usual obviously doesn't work, and the solution to that is to change business as usual.
I think where we diverge is on that solution. I'm not a big fan of "oops we over promised and underfunded so...sorry guys. good luck buying food when you're old." I kinda think we need a solution more along the lines of "oops we over promised and underfunded so...sorry everyone, you're gonna have to help keep your neighbors afloat, and the good news is they'll be doing the same for you."
Collectivism. It's not a bad word.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 12:55 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
tgrundke: I'm not sure you can repeatedly trot Vallejo out as an example because I don't think it's entirely clear what happened in Vallejo. Okay, their property tax revenue took a major hit and pensions were their biggest obligation, but I don't think it has ever been made clear that that was the entire story (an argument was advanced that they were spending so much on firefighters and police because they were paying too few employees a lot of overtime, rather than hiring enough firefighters and cops, for instance) , nor that they had no option but bankruptcy and the decision to declare bankruptcy was incredibly contentious. The unions claimed they offered enough in salary cuts to eliminate the city's deficit and had a consulting firm come up with a plan to avoid bankruptcy. But, of course, if you go ahead and declare bankruptcy, you can try to void the union contracts instead of negotiating.
posted by hoyland at 12:56 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by hoyland at 12:56 PM on February 12, 2011
Hey, I said delete it. There was a Kos post with the other articles, but Kos is down today. Seriously, if it doesn't check out, get rid of it.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:57 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by saulgoodman at 12:57 PM on February 12, 2011
For what it's worth, the AP wire story wasn't that different from saulgoodman's alleged editorializing; this ran in my local paper:
Walker: National Guard ready for labor unrest
MADISON — Gov. Scott Walker says the Wisconsin National Guard is prepared to respond if there is unrest among state employees in the wake of his announcement that he wants to take away nearly all collective bargaining rights.
According to the Madison alternative The Isthmus, Walker stated at his presser that "some union leaders will try to incite their members." The Isthmus also has more details than I've seen elsewhere of what the specific effects of his proposal would be.
posted by dhartung at 12:59 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Walker: National Guard ready for labor unrest
MADISON — Gov. Scott Walker says the Wisconsin National Guard is prepared to respond if there is unrest among state employees in the wake of his announcement that he wants to take away nearly all collective bargaining rights.
According to the Madison alternative The Isthmus, Walker stated at his presser that "some union leaders will try to incite their members." The Isthmus also has more details than I've seen elsewhere of what the specific effects of his proposal would be.
posted by dhartung at 12:59 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
The math just doesn't work - no matter how many "rich" you tax. It's not about getting even, it's not about tearing people down, it's not about serfdom. It's about basic mathematics and under the current rules, it doesn't work.
Well, here's some math. On the high estimate the state budget deficit is over 3 billion for the next two years. There are a little of 2 million people working in the state. So that's $750 per person, per year. That is reasonable if everyone pitches, those who have gobs of money making up for those who are barely getting by. I know I could manage even double that if I watched my budget real closely, and I'm not making all that much.
Now, I am a graduate student in the hard sciences. TAs make 20k a year, currently. Out of state tuition is 25k. So you're talking about turning graduate school in the hard sciences at the UW a proposition you have to pay for.
Every single person in the engineering, biology, chemistry, and physics departments has a perfectly good, employable undergraduate degree. And since the University of Wisconsin is no slouch of a school, all of them are easily in the top 30% of people with said degree. And getting a PhD doesn't really earn you that much more money.
So the number of competent people you have who want to attend your program is now limited the the rich and the people who already have research funding. The number of qualified people who want to TA is going to be around 0. Mind you, half the face time that entry level undergraduate students have is with a TA, and pretty much all of the time where they can get help and ask questions. So you've pretty much gutted undergraduate education in the state in many employable fields.
And given the massive difference in employment and wages between people who have gotten a college education and those who haven't, that pretty much means the state's economy is crippled for the foreseeable future.
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:01 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, here's some math. On the high estimate the state budget deficit is over 3 billion for the next two years. There are a little of 2 million people working in the state. So that's $750 per person, per year. That is reasonable if everyone pitches, those who have gobs of money making up for those who are barely getting by. I know I could manage even double that if I watched my budget real closely, and I'm not making all that much.
Now, I am a graduate student in the hard sciences. TAs make 20k a year, currently. Out of state tuition is 25k. So you're talking about turning graduate school in the hard sciences at the UW a proposition you have to pay for.
Every single person in the engineering, biology, chemistry, and physics departments has a perfectly good, employable undergraduate degree. And since the University of Wisconsin is no slouch of a school, all of them are easily in the top 30% of people with said degree. And getting a PhD doesn't really earn you that much more money.
So the number of competent people you have who want to attend your program is now limited the the rich and the people who already have research funding. The number of qualified people who want to TA is going to be around 0. Mind you, half the face time that entry level undergraduate students have is with a TA, and pretty much all of the time where they can get help and ask questions. So you've pretty much gutted undergraduate education in the state in many employable fields.
And given the massive difference in employment and wages between people who have gotten a college education and those who haven't, that pretty much means the state's economy is crippled for the foreseeable future.
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:01 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
tgrundke: Good point, chortly, and goes to my point that states have over-promised and under-delivered.
I guess there are two problems that need solving now. First, what to do about this sort of thing going forward. For the unions, at least, one thing is clear: don't trust pension promises. If your pay is deferred, make sure it isn't deferred very far in the future.
The second is what to do about the existing screwup. In my ethical world, and in the world of private contracts, if someone promises to pay me later instead of now, they can't get out of that promise by saying "oops, sorry, I spent it all instead of saving up to pay you when I promised to." They still owe it -- and indeed, this is how it works for the bond promises states make.
Pensions should work the same way, it seems to me -- if millions of Americans are in hock for debts incurred that they can't get out of by saying "oops, sorry, I spent it already," then states should face the same. This is particularly the case when the person or state actually has plenty of assets that can be dug up to pay. In a person's case, it may be the house or whatever; in the state's case, the state essentially has infinite assets: it can always raise taxes. If legislators are instead saying, we won't raise taxes and therefore we don't have money to pay the pensions, then that's actually even worse than the "oops we spent it" excuse. Instead, it's the "sorry, I just don't want to pay you" excuse. So as with bonds, the state should just be forced to raise taxes to pay for its obligations. And yes, that's hard on the tax payers -- but that's what they get for electing and supporting legislators who for decades paid for services with debt (pension promises): the obligation lies not just with the legislators, but with all the citizens of the state who funded their stuff with debt. The ethical thing to do is to buck up, increase taxes, and pay that obligation -- and don't screw up that way in the future.
posted by chortly at 1:02 PM on February 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
I guess there are two problems that need solving now. First, what to do about this sort of thing going forward. For the unions, at least, one thing is clear: don't trust pension promises. If your pay is deferred, make sure it isn't deferred very far in the future.
The second is what to do about the existing screwup. In my ethical world, and in the world of private contracts, if someone promises to pay me later instead of now, they can't get out of that promise by saying "oops, sorry, I spent it all instead of saving up to pay you when I promised to." They still owe it -- and indeed, this is how it works for the bond promises states make.
Pensions should work the same way, it seems to me -- if millions of Americans are in hock for debts incurred that they can't get out of by saying "oops, sorry, I spent it already," then states should face the same. This is particularly the case when the person or state actually has plenty of assets that can be dug up to pay. In a person's case, it may be the house or whatever; in the state's case, the state essentially has infinite assets: it can always raise taxes. If legislators are instead saying, we won't raise taxes and therefore we don't have money to pay the pensions, then that's actually even worse than the "oops we spent it" excuse. Instead, it's the "sorry, I just don't want to pay you" excuse. So as with bonds, the state should just be forced to raise taxes to pay for its obligations. And yes, that's hard on the tax payers -- but that's what they get for electing and supporting legislators who for decades paid for services with debt (pension promises): the obligation lies not just with the legislators, but with all the citizens of the state who funded their stuff with debt. The ethical thing to do is to buck up, increase taxes, and pay that obligation -- and don't screw up that way in the future.
posted by chortly at 1:02 PM on February 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
This is what it looks like when a country is broke. You're going to see a hell of a lot more of it.
posted by unSane at 1:02 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by unSane at 1:02 PM on February 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Broke or broken?
posted by saulgoodman at 1:04 PM on February 12, 2011
posted by saulgoodman at 1:04 PM on February 12, 2011
Good point, whimsicalnymph.
The problem, however, is that put to the ballot, most people will not support a tax increase for any multitude of reasons. Part of the issue is that the PEUs in many states have been absolutely dead-set against concessions of almost any type. It's been that way in Ohio for many years, and I suspect NY/NJ/IL are very similar in that regard.
As a result, taxpayers do look at what the benefits for union members are and say "screw that". Regardless of whether that's the right response, that's the response right now. I think that with some good faith negotiations you could see enough people agree that selective tax increases are to the benefit of all. It's going to be a hard sell, but given proper, open discussion and negotiation I bet it could be done.
As I said earlier in regard to the Ohio negotiations: many of the recommendations being discussed would only effect incoming members and the changes would be applied to existing members based on tenure so as not to strip those near-retirement. The suggestions in Ohio would not completely fill the gap, but they would allow the governor to go back and say to everyone "okay, we've wrestled with the PEUs, gained some concessions, but there's still a hole to fill - what do we need to do, other than pressure the PEUs with more concessions?"
On the issue of taxation it isn't just "me, mine, mine, mine" and not wanting to give anything away, it's more a question of how the money is being spent. If 70% of my municipal fund goes to paying the pension obligations of my employees - there's a big problem that needs to be fixed, and frankly, it's a hard sell to tell people that they need to pay more in taxes so the sanitation worker is guaranteed 70% of his salary at retirement, plus benefits.
posted by tgrundke at 1:05 PM on February 12, 2011
The problem, however, is that put to the ballot, most people will not support a tax increase for any multitude of reasons. Part of the issue is that the PEUs in many states have been absolutely dead-set against concessions of almost any type. It's been that way in Ohio for many years, and I suspect NY/NJ/IL are very similar in that regard.
As a result, taxpayers do look at what the benefits for union members are and say "screw that". Regardless of whether that's the right response, that's the response right now. I think that with some good faith negotiations you could see enough people agree that selective tax increases are to the benefit of all. It's going to be a hard sell, but given proper, open discussion and negotiation I bet it could be done.
As I said earlier in regard to the Ohio negotiations: many of the recommendations being discussed would only effect incoming members and the changes would be applied to existing members based on tenure so as not to strip those near-retirement. The suggestions in Ohio would not completely fill the gap, but they would allow the governor to go back and say to everyone "okay, we've wrestled with the PEUs, gained some concessions, but there's still a hole to fill - what do we need to do, other than pressure the PEUs with more concessions?"
On the issue of taxation it isn't just "me, mine, mine, mine" and not wanting to give anything away, it's more a question of how the money is being spent. If 70% of my municipal fund goes to paying the pension obligations of my employees - there's a big problem that needs to be fixed, and frankly, it's a hard sell to tell people that they need to pay more in taxes so the sanitation worker is guaranteed 70% of his salary at retirement, plus benefits.
posted by tgrundke at 1:05 PM on February 12, 2011
Seriously, if it doesn't check out, get rid of it.
Could just change the wording in that last sentence that links to HuffPo. Decent discussion here and all.
posted by IvoShandor at 1:06 PM on February 12, 2011
Could just change the wording in that last sentence that links to HuffPo. Decent discussion here and all.
posted by IvoShandor at 1:06 PM on February 12, 2011
chortly -
I agree with you, in principle, but it just ain't gonna happen. Our legislators will do one of three things:
1. Kick the can down the road for the next guy to deal with, or;
2. Ignore the issue as long as they can, or;
3. See point #1.
We've gotten ourselves into quite a fix here, regardless where you stand on the issue. I can tell you that in my community, a fairly liberal one at that, there were near pitchforks and torches brought out at several city council meetings last May when there was a proposed tax increase. The vitriol was very intense, I had never seen so many people attend before. The argument seemed to center around poor decision making, communication and spending by city hall.
My guess is that our community is not unique in this. Our politicians have sold us all out.
posted by tgrundke at 1:10 PM on February 12, 2011
I agree with you, in principle, but it just ain't gonna happen. Our legislators will do one of three things:
1. Kick the can down the road for the next guy to deal with, or;
2. Ignore the issue as long as they can, or;
3. See point #1.
We've gotten ourselves into quite a fix here, regardless where you stand on the issue. I can tell you that in my community, a fairly liberal one at that, there were near pitchforks and torches brought out at several city council meetings last May when there was a proposed tax increase. The vitriol was very intense, I had never seen so many people attend before. The argument seemed to center around poor decision making, communication and spending by city hall.
My guess is that our community is not unique in this. Our politicians have sold us all out.
posted by tgrundke at 1:10 PM on February 12, 2011
Do you know how difficult it is to remove a poor teacher from the classroom in many states?
Do you know how many times this idiotic lie has been bandied about? Do you know what it's like to to worry about money as a kid because your decades-of-experience parent has been fired from a public school teaching job, despite glowing reviews from students, colleagues, and parents...all because one principal just wanted them out? Do you know that union protections are virtually nil during the first three years of employment, after which many teachers are canned to avoid having to give tenure in the first place? Do you realize that the bigger problem is not how to get a bad teacher out, but who the heck you're going to replace them with that's any better?
Heck, I have my current position thanks to the canning of a tenured teacher. But that's nearly impossible, right?
How about health insurance, that us public employees are supposedly raking in? My private-sector wife pays less to insure our whole family on a good plan than I would just myself on the crappy plan I could choose. In fact, if I got health insurance through the district, I literally could not afford to pay my rent. And those pensions? The ones that we pay into, and that prevent us from collecting social security in most states, even if we paid in to it while working other jobs? Whoooo-eee. Let's just say that all the colleagues I know who've retired earlier had other income sources.
I actually have the financial breakdowns for my district and for my town in my email, and do you know where the money goes? It mostly goes to
1. Health insurance costs (doubled in 10 years, even as a much greater portion are passed on to employees). This has sweet f-all to do with unions, and everything to do with the fact that our entire system is totally screwed here.
2. Special education. This is mandated by law, but not funded. Because the law says "you must provide every accommodation to these students, no matter what", most districts average $35k+ per student per year. The solution clearly isn't "don't educate special ed kids", but the current system isn't working.
3. Transportation. Gas ain't cheap, and we're required by law to provide it to everybody.
These three together make up literally half of the total expenditures for the district. Most of the rest is paying teachers, and despite what you've heard, the top end for somebody with a PhD and 20 years of experience in my district is still only $75k or so. Retiree benefits are literally rounding error in the budget. The single biggest thing that can be done to save money is to fix the health care system.
posted by Dr.Enormous at 1:12 PM on February 12, 2011 [10 favorites]
Do you know how many times this idiotic lie has been bandied about? Do you know what it's like to to worry about money as a kid because your decades-of-experience parent has been fired from a public school teaching job, despite glowing reviews from students, colleagues, and parents...all because one principal just wanted them out? Do you know that union protections are virtually nil during the first three years of employment, after which many teachers are canned to avoid having to give tenure in the first place? Do you realize that the bigger problem is not how to get a bad teacher out, but who the heck you're going to replace them with that's any better?
Heck, I have my current position thanks to the canning of a tenured teacher. But that's nearly impossible, right?
How about health insurance, that us public employees are supposedly raking in? My private-sector wife pays less to insure our whole family on a good plan than I would just myself on the crappy plan I could choose. In fact, if I got health insurance through the district, I literally could not afford to pay my rent. And those pensions? The ones that we pay into, and that prevent us from collecting social security in most states, even if we paid in to it while working other jobs? Whoooo-eee. Let's just say that all the colleagues I know who've retired earlier had other income sources.
I actually have the financial breakdowns for my district and for my town in my email, and do you know where the money goes? It mostly goes to
1. Health insurance costs (doubled in 10 years, even as a much greater portion are passed on to employees). This has sweet f-all to do with unions, and everything to do with the fact that our entire system is totally screwed here.
2. Special education. This is mandated by law, but not funded. Because the law says "you must provide every accommodation to these students, no matter what", most districts average $35k+ per student per year. The solution clearly isn't "don't educate special ed kids", but the current system isn't working.
3. Transportation. Gas ain't cheap, and we're required by law to provide it to everybody.
These three together make up literally half of the total expenditures for the district. Most of the rest is paying teachers, and despite what you've heard, the top end for somebody with a PhD and 20 years of experience in my district is still only $75k or so. Retiree benefits are literally rounding error in the budget. The single biggest thing that can be done to save money is to fix the health care system.
posted by Dr.Enormous at 1:12 PM on February 12, 2011 [10 favorites]
Just marching to the drummer!
"Led by Newt Gingrich, conservatives are floating the notion that states should be allowed to declare bankruptcy to escape their pension obligations to firefighters, cops, teachers and, yes, sanitation workers. Gingrich called on House Republicans 'to move a bill in the first month or so of their tenure to create a venue for state bankruptcy.'"posted by ericb at 1:12 PM on February 12, 2011
« Older still picking my jaw off the floor | Either help me defend headquarters or GTFO. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by DU at 11:22 AM on February 12, 2011 [10 favorites]