Re: The one piece on what's happening in WI you must read

Mike accidentally sent this just to me (and confirmed it was a mistake
and should be forwarded to the list).


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The one piece on what's happening in WI you must read
To: "nicholas a. evans" <[email protected]>



>Again, I don't see anything inherently wrong with renegotiating the
contract, forcing a pay cut, and taking a little bit of power from the
unions.  But painting it as "they don't pay for their pensions" is
misleading.  They "pay" by working.  Perhaps the workers are overpaid.
But they are just as "entitled to their pensions" as I am to my base
salary.  Maybe I'm overpaid or underpaid, but that's what I negotiated
when I was hired.<

That isn't my point.  I didn't say anyone wasn't entitled to their
existing pensions.  My point is that defined benefit pension plans are
dinosaurs in terms of retirement packages and that every other
employer/employee realizes this economic reality except govt.  But
because govt., practically speaking, answers to no one those out of
date, ridiculously expensive and economically unsustainable plans have
been allowed to continue.  They should have been bargained out of
existence years ago.  And I completely understand the benefit of a
bargain, but when one side has all the chips it can't have ever been
said to be a fair bargain can it?  If the bargaining inequity were
reversed you wouldn't be saying that the employee should just put up
and shut up about it would you?

It reveals a serious flaw in allowing govt. employees to bargain
collectively - they are in essence bargaining with themselves and to
the extent there has been an adversarial bargaining relationship that
has been under cut by the fact that govt. as the employer isn't
bargaining with its own money, rather bargaining with the taxpayers
money, of which govt. the employee is a part.  You honestly don't see
the major conflict of interest?

And as far as I know, no one is talking about taking existing benefits
away, rather they are talking about converting existing plans to
defined contribution plans, (like every other employee in the country
that even has a retirement plan has), and not creating new defined
benefit accounts for new hires.  Even if I'm wrong, (I don't think I
am since barring bankruptcy/absolute insolvency I believe it is
illegal to reduce benefits under a defined benefit plan), about that
why should anyone be guaranteed a defined benefit upon retirement
and/or why shouldn't such benefit be subject to being bargained with?
Union contracts have terms and when those terms are up a new one gets
negotiated.


> The mismanagement of the pension funds is a separate
> issue.  And do we know who managed those pension funds?  WI has been,
> historically, a pretty progressive leaning state so whether it was state
> employed bureaucrats or union heads in charge of managing those funds it was
> those same progressives who screwed it up.  Why would we give them any
> credence now in terms of how these negotiations should be handled?

>If the pension fund hadn't been mismanaged during the boom, it
probably wouldn't be carrying a deficit and require catch-up funding
now.  I've no doubt it was some politician or bureaucrat or another
who screwed it up.  My point is simply one of rhetoric: the employees
are not accused of failing their end of the contract, but the pension
fund manager was negligent on its end of the contract, and now the
employees are being asked to pay for someone else's mistake. <

Au contraire, they are merely being asked to share the same risk that
every other employee lucky enough to have a retirement plan, (defined
contribution), has to share.  Do you think only public sector pensions
have taken a hit?


>If the contract is unfair, then go ahead and rip it up, deal with the
consequences, and make a new one.  You don't need to use misleading
rhetoric to demonize the employees in order to get political support
for breaking the (corrupt) unions and giving people pay cuts during a
recession.  And if you need to force people to take pay cuts in order
to reign in costs, there's no need to insult them for someone else's
blundering pension fund mismanagement.<

So you are ok with busting the union just don't be mean about it?  I'm
not granting your premise that the employees have been demonized,
based on the polls I'd say Walker has been demonized.  And in any
event telling the truth about how out of whack govt. union employees
wages/benefit packages are with similar private sector jobs hardly
qualifies as demonizing.


"Here's the full text of the bill:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1SB-11.pdf  The relevant
section is on page 24:

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state-owned heating, cooling,
and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the
department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may
contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant,
with or without
solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to
be in the best
interest of the state.  Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or
certification of the public service commission is necessary for a
public utility to
purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such
purchase is
considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the
criteria for certification
of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b)."

And where is the corruption part?  Dumping facilities you can no
longer afford to operate/maintain hardly seems like a corrupt
practice.  And excluding the public service commission, which for all
I know may be responsible for the state of those facilities, seems
like it might just be corruption avoidance.


>I *completely* agree that it's a reasonable thing for the state to
sell off its assets to get out of debt.  But it has a responsibility
to the public to do it in the most reputable way possible.  "without
solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to
be in the best interest of the state" (etc) is open invitation for
corruption.<

No more so than the bidding process - New York sanitation bids anyone?

> It reads to me like it was written by a lobbyist who
already has a buyer and price and maybe even kickbacks in mind.  If
that bit changes before the bill passes so that the taxpayers of
Wisconsin are guaranteed some oversight and fair market value for
selling their infrastructure, then I'll retract my criticism.  I
haven't looked up the "notwithstandings", so maybe they somehow negate
what to all appearances looks like some shameless and intentional lack
of oversight.<

Just curious if you live in WI?  Not trying to be a smartass but I was
wondering about your standing to complain about this.  Along those
lines I'd say two things - if you are a WI resident: elections have
consequences.  If you're not a WI resident isn't that something
between those citizens and their elected govt.

I've seen enough bidding situations for govt contracts that are effed
up enough that I don't see bidding as a panacea or no bid contracts as
ipso facto corrupt.  They are what they are and you shall know them by
their fruits.

Mike F.

--
Nick

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot