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.

**I think you are really being twisty here.  The complaint is that they
don't pay any contributions to their retirement plan like most of us have
to, not to mention the medical.  That is not spin, that is one of the
issues.  Should employees have to pay into their retirement plan?


> 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.

**so how much do they contribute?

> 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.  

**well boohoo, so did my getting hammered by the increased medical plan
costs not to mention the actual 10% pay cut I had to take.  I didn’t get a
vote on it or anything.

**Sorry to be bitter, but it really irks me that most of America is taking
hits and the government unions (really thinking of my own state here) refuse
to.  Oh no, they have a contract and they demand to not only avoid a cut,
they want their scheduled raises in the face of the recession  and budget
shortfalls, not to mention the hardship most of American is suffering.  The
arrogance was appalling.

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.

**I don’t think we are disagreeing here.  Deals have to be renegotiated
sometimes.

> 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.

**which is irrelevant when the term is up, isn’t it?  One of the missing
points in WI is that some of the union are under expired contracts.  So now
IS the time to renegotiate.

> So you are ok with busting the union just don't be mean about it?

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! 

**well, you could argue that some public unions do have performance issues
that have led to some bad situations.  Certainly the workers share some
blame in government waste?  (yes this is a tangent.)

 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.

**come on.  Most unions are notoriously hostile and uncooperative.  The
blame thing here is just sophistry.

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.

**Seattle is having a problem with that now.  They sold off an unused school
recently, using bids.  They inexplicably sold it to the lowest bidder, not
the highest, and now there is an investigation as to why.

> 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.  ;-)

**heh

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.

**I think the overall tone of this thread has been very respectful.
 


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