Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458836591599769.html" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...769.html</a> >>'We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama," declared Andy Stern last month, and the president of the Service Employees International Union wasn't exaggerating. The SEIU and AFL-CIO have been spending so much on politics that they're going deeply into debt. That news comes courtesy of federal disclosure forms that unions file each year with the Department of Labor. The Bush Administration toughened the enforcement of those disclosure rules, but under pressure from unions the Obama Labor shop is slashing funding for such enforcement. Without such disclosure, workers wouldn't be able to see how their union chiefs are managing their mandatory dues money. Alarm is coming even from inside the AFL-CIO -- specifically, from Tom Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, who sits on the AFL-CIO's finance committee. Bloomberg News reports that he is circulating a report claiming the AFL-CIO engaged in "creative accounting" to conceal financial difficulties heading into last year's Presidential election. As recently as 2000, the union consortium of 8.5 million members had a $45 million surplus. By June of last year it had $90.6 million in liabilities, or $2.3 million more than its $88.3 million in assets. "If we are not careful, insolvency may be right around the corner," Mr. Buffenbarger warned. <<
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Interesting article.....there is certainly a deep division in our country when it comes to labor and economics. The labor movement talks about corporate greed and the free market movement talks about union corruption (such as this article). I fall in the free-market camp myself. There is no question in my mind the plight we find ourselves in in California for instance is due to the unions. Same with the auto companies. The unions turn labor, which should be a variable cost, into a fixed cost. So when sales (or tax revenues) are down, there is little flexibility to cut costs. Hence the huge deficits. The question is, who has the clout (or political will) to fight them?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> There is no question in my mind the plight we find ourselves in in California for instance is due to the unions. << Really! So - in your view - when "revenues are down", the simple solution is to cut the pay and benefits of the workers. I'll grant you that there have been some abuses - the prison guards come to mind. But the majority of unionized workers are teachers and health care. Neither of these groups are getting wealthy - many barely earn a livable wage. And the union has historically provided an workers an opportunity to negotiate the terms of their salaries and benefits. Several years ago, it was the teachers union that allowed schwarzenegger to reduce their compensation. Without the unions, the governor "could" have done it by executive fiat, but that would mean that labor was at the total mercy of the governor's office. I wouldn't trust the governor to set my salary, would you? With the UAW, they also negotiated reductions in their salaries and benefits during this recent crisis. But the important part is that they have a voice in the process. Otherwise it would have just been a "take it or leave it" from executive management. I know that republicans generally oppose unions out of kneejerk reaction. But they never stop to examine the reality of the situation. And to add to the irony, these union opposing conservatives are generally NOT part of the executive management class. They "work" for a living. We see it aaaaall the time - republicans voting against their own best interests. Sometimes they don't even realize it, but sometimes they do. Which brings up the eternal question - "what are they thinking"!
Originally Posted By DAR <<But the majority of unionized workers are teachers and health care. Neither of these groups are getting wealthy - many barely earn a livable wage. >> I realize that California is different but in Wisconsin the average salary for a teacher is around $49,000. Which is more than a livable wage. Well until our deficit continues to go up.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I realize that California is different but in Wisconsin the average salary for a teacher is around $49,000. Which is more than a livable wage. >> That is a paltry wage for someone trying to pay the bills associated with raising a family.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Yeah, I lived in Wisconsin most of last year. It's cheaper, but not by much.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Really! So - in your view - when "revenues are down", the simple solution is to cut the pay and benefits of the workers. I'll grant you that there have been some abuses - the prison guards come to mind. But the majority of unionized workers are teachers and health care. Neither of these groups are getting wealthy - many barely earn a livable wage. >> My wife is a teacher and part of the union. You don't have to tell me about them earning a living wage, believe me. We have a budget shortfall in our school district (like everyone else right now) and the teachers volunteered to take a paycut in order to save other teachers' jobs and preserve education standards in the district. However, the union blocked it (they didn't want to set a precedent of LOWERING pay) and now numerous teachers are losing their jobs. And yet they spend millions and millions on political campaigns, when that money would be better spent in the classroom. There are ways to cut costs when revenues are down but unions make it a lot harder (and cause the consequences to more dire in the long run). Corporations are able to cut costs when they have to. Why is it so unreasonable for governments to do the same? You want real budget reform in California? Let California go bankrupt and renogotiate (or eliminate) the union contracts.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<I know that republicans generally oppose unions out of kneejerk reaction. But they never stop to examine the reality of the situation. And to add to the irony, these union opposing conservatives are generally NOT part of the executive management class. They "work" for a living.>> So what? I am not part of a union and I guarantee I make more than most union workers. I don't need a union to protect my interests because I work hard, make sure my skills are in demand, and do a damn good job. My employer wants me to stay with the company and is willing to compensate me accordingly. I'm tired of paying for dead weight, which is what unions make us all do. If employees are truly valuable, they don't need to worry about their jobs.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You want real budget reform in California? Let California go bankrupt and renogotiate (or eliminate) the union contracts." One of the bigger misconceptions floating around right now. A BK filing by any city or this state does not guarantee the union contracts are torn up. All it gets them is an examination by the BK courts to see if they were arrived at fairly, put in a broad sense.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf ^You're right, of course. And I have little hope that any such ruling would ever go against the unions in California. It would take a modern-day Caesar crossing the Sacramento River to bring about any real change I'm afraid.
Originally Posted By gadzuux We have a modern-day action hero instead. And he rode into town on a wave of indignation over - of all things - vehicle registration fees. Now there's a sizzling issue for you. And yet, the GOP is now proposing closing all state parks, eviscerating home care for the sick and elderly, and releasing convicts. All through these draconian proposals, no one has suggested increasing the vehicle registration fee. God forbid.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Huh, what I have heard... State Parks will become revenue neutral, being that the parks are expected to get 100% of their budget from user fees. In Orange County, only 1 out of 19 State Parks is scheduled to close. And I have heard some politians talk about increasing the Vehicle License Fee, even the Governor.
Originally Posted By cmpaley States, which are sovereign entities, cannot declare bankruptcy. Cities and counties are chartered by the state in which they exist and have that ability (a la Orange County in the 90s). Oh, and I believe a big part of this mess has been the unsustainable reduction of the vehicle licensing fee from its historic level (2% to 0.66%) in an agreement by Gray Davis and the Republicans in the Legislature. The agreement had a trigger mechanism by which, under certain instances, the Governor can restore the fees through an executive order. The circumstances for the trigger to be pulled came and David did it. This angered right-wing radio talkers, who claim to be taxpayer advocates (what a laugh!), so much that they jumped on the recall bandwagon and Schwarzenegger swept into office with a bunch of nonsensical hype and a promise to repeal the restoration of the VLF to its historic level. Funny thing is...California's economy did just fine with the tax rates where they were in the 1990s...even with the VLF at 2%. Then again, the Republicans will lie and tell people that restoring historic tax rates would be "new taxes," when in reality, they're just "old taxes" at their historic levels. But the truth never stopped a Republican from lying.
