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

>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'm not doing that and you saying I am doesn't make it so.  They don't 
contribute to their pensions plans, facts are stubborn things.  Now if you 
want to change the definition of contribute I suppose that is your 
prerogative but don't expect other to go along with it.    Were they 
negotiated, of course, no one is saying they weren't although I am saying 
that those negotiations weren't arms length and therefore aren't all that 
legitimate.

> 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.<

That's fine but I'm not aware of anyone being dishonest about how much WI 
public sector union employees contribute to their pension plans.  They don't 
contribute.


>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.<

Now you are being cute with words.  It isn't a pay cut, it may be a cut in 
total compensation but you know full well that compensation is routinely 
separated into wages/pay and benefit packages.  And when my wife had to pay 
more into her health benefits due to health care cost increases, (I may have 
to do the same thing - don't know yet), it would be dishonest for her to go 
and tell people her pay had been cut.


> 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.<

Partial being the key and very relative term.

> 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.<

No, not if they are negotiating a new contract.  Maybe Johne knows but do 
these changes take effect immediately or just with the next negotiating 
period?


>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.  ;-)<

I didn't mean to suggest you couldn't discuss it anymore than I can't 
discuss so I apologize that it came across that way.  It was more that the 
no bid thing is pretty tangential to the union issue and that a legislature 
deciding to go a no bid route for certain transactions is completely within 
their purview and not at all illegitimate on its face.  IOW that should be 
evaluated on a case by case basis.


>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.<

Again I apologize for giving that impression it wasn't my intention.  FWIW 
you haven't come across disrespectful to Johne at all imo, now to me is 
another story.  ; - )   Just kidding.

Mike F. 


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