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

> 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.

Sure.  I've tried to not argue anything concerning the fairness of the
compensation package.  Just please don't claim that someone isn't
"contributing" anything to their own compensation package.  That's
just plain dishonest.  And the case for busting the unions and cutting
the compensation can be made without political spin.

> 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?

I don't think I've argued about this point either way.  All I'm really
trying to say is that the case for busting the unions and cutting the
compensation can be made without being dishonest about how much is
"contributed" to the pension by the employee.

> 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.

Which amounts to a pay cut.  Again, my main argument is just to keep
the spin down and say it like it is.  The case for busting the unions
and cutting the compensation can be made without hedging around the
fact that this is a reduction in previously agreed to compensation.

> 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)

Even in the case of insolvency, there is still pbgc.gov to partially rescue it.

> Union contracts have terms and when those terms are up a new one gets
> negotiated.

I completely agree.  And the case for cutting the compensation can be
made without hedging around the fact that this is a reduction in
previously agreed upon compensation.

> 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 think the unions have a lot of corruption in them.  They are only
partially serving their supposed purpose, and not all that well at
that.  I don't really care what happens to the unions or the union
bosses, etc.  Although I have no problem with "negotiations between
employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at
reaching agreements which regulate working conditions"* regardless of
public or private sector, I've never been a fan of unions getting
themselves enshrined into the legal system, and don't see union
busting as inherently wrong.  And go ahead and be mean to the
*unions*.  Whatever.

* definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining

However, if the employees have been doing their jobs well, but they
are about to take a pay cut, well that just plain sucks!  That sucks
no matter whether they are private or public sector.  It sucks whether
they are underpaid or overpaid.  I've survived many rounds of layoffs
at various companies.  And I've seen different HR completely botch
layoffs and pay cuts in ways that totally backfired with employee
morale.  On those occasions, within months, the best remaining
employees were so demoralized they simply up and got new jobs
elsewhere.  So, yes, if you are going to give employees a pay cut or
lay offs due to no performance failure of their own, then please be
nice about it!  Especially don't try and twist the rhetoric in ways
that lay a portion of the blame on them.  That's counterproductive,
and tends to generate things like protests and strikes and
uncooperative unions.

>>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?

I'll grant you that government bids have plenty of mechanisms for
being corrupted.  But removing any and all oversight has infinitely
more.  Just because corruption can happen doesn't mean it will.  But,
according to http://www.jsonline.com/business/116965798.html, "Walker
last year criticized then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, for his support
of a no-bid contract for the Spanish train car manufacturer Talgo."
So, at the very least, it's hypocritical.  And it's certainly
suspicious.

If these were assets held by a corporation, and said corporation tried
to sell them off without at least shopping them around and passing the
different proposals by the board of directors, that could be grounds
for a shareholder lawsuit.  Obviously government bids usually involve
even more uselessly bureaucratic red-tape.  And nothing is corruption
proof.

> 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.

No, I'm in MD.  I've no intention to send funds or contributions or
stoke any fires or endorse either side or in any way get between Johne
or any other WI citizen and their elected government.  I merely want
to discuss (debate/argue/etc) a slightly more nuanced position than
I've seen either side put forth, since I don't really agree with
either side.  I suppose I probably shouldn't care so much, since it
doesn't directly affect me.  But if we took that approach with every
issue, list traffic would be awfully slow.  ;-)

Anyway, I think I've said more than my fill on this issue.  I'm just
repeating myself, and my nitpicks probably haven't added any useful
clarity to the discussion.

I especially hope I haven't been disrespectful to Johne, who is one of
the most respectful forum participants I've ever had the pleasure of
reading in all my internet travels.  And I'm very sorry if I have.

-- 
Nick

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