Unions under Attack...

[Judge Jude]

"I still have a problem with changing the system for those in it. This is where the elected officials need to negotiate for the future. New people coming into the system may well have a different structure in terms of pension pay."

In many states, that would be like putting a band-aid on a cannonball wound.

It's the old line about how when you owe the bank $5,000, it's your problem.
But when you owe the bank $50,000, it's the bank's problem - because you don't have $50,000.

That's the situation the unions are in these days - the money's just not there for free health care for life for a worker and his entire family, to give one example.

My company stopped putting in pension money 8 or 9 years ago. I still get what they used to put in, but that figure is final. Newer hires will get nothing.

Do I have a problem with it? I guess so. But it is what it is.

[Grinch]

I am a union worker, in an essential service. I have a good pension plan and good medical and other benefits. I understand the stress that puts on the government and corrective measures are needed. However, these are benefits which were fairly negotiated. I gave up the higher-pay private sector for the lower pay, better benefits public sector by choice. You cannot tell a mid-career employee that the rules have changed so drastically. My union has given back benefits and money to help with this crisis. I don't like the politicians and media pinning the blame on those of us who chose this path.

[frae]

I am a union worker, in an essential service. I have a good pension plan and good medical and other benefits. I understand the stress that puts on the government and corrective measures are needed. However, these are benefits which were fairly negotiated. I gave up the higher-pay private sector for the lower pay, better benefits public sector by choice. You cannot tell a mid-career employee that the rules have changed so drastically. My union has given back benefits and money to help with this crisis. I don't like the politicians and media pinning the blame on those of us who chose this path.

Exactly!

[Judge Jude]

My father was a fireman and my brother-in-law and nephews are construction workers, and there are plenty of other union people in my family. I'm not a union basher, obviously.

But "You cannot tell a mid-career employee that the rules have changed so drastically" is exactly what happened to the private sector already. They took the "lesser public benefits" in exchange for other perks that have disappeared - hence mass layoffs, major pay cuts foreign to most of the public sector, furloughs, salary freezes that started years ago, much longer working hours with no union to file a grievance, etc.

As for "fairly negotiated," that's part of the problem. In too many cases, they weren't negotiated with a rational economic plan in mind. They were negotiated with a short-term goal of getting enough union support for that November's re-election. The politicians and the union leaders struck bargains that benefited each other but not the general public, which was saddled with a bill it cannot afford to pay.

It bothers me to have to point this all out, but this is not going to be pretty and I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence by sugarcoating it. The public sector is lagging behind the disasters of what has happened to the private sector work force, but that won't continue to be the case, however unfair that may be.

[frae]

Well if that is to be the case I can say that I would imagine you will see a drop in qualified people getting into the public sector. The private sector may have taken a hit, but everyone I have kept in touch with from HS or college that is in the private sector makes significantly more than I do and I have been at the same job for 8 years. My wife only went back to work 4 years ago and she is already making more than me and she has no post grad credits.

Edit: I am not saying there won't be people willing to teach because I do believe there will always be people, but I think you will start to lose a lot of talented people who will no longer see the trade off in salary worth it.

[Judge Jude]

Well, I think the public sector will continue to be a much safer place in terms of layoffs, with still-better benefits, so that will alleviate some of that issue. But what in some cases is a massive gap in pension/benefits will narrow greatly, as well.

Some states are stalling more than others - but to me, for better and for worse, the handwriting is already on the wall, and I take no joy in that.

"everyone I have kept in touch with from HS or college that is in the private sector makes significantly more than I do"

The complication is that few of us would be telling even pretty close friends, "So they ended our pension 5 years ago, I had to take a 10 pct pay cut, and I have to take five more unpaid furlough days this year." My hunch is that you might be surprised to see some of those W-2s.

The worst part of this is that the idiots who put us in this mess - from Wall Street manipulators to sleazy politicians - come out smelling like a rose while the rest of us...

[Kevin Seitzer]

The complication is that few of us would be telling even pretty close friends, "So they ended our pension 5 years ago, I had to take a 10 pct pay cut, and I have to take five more unpaid furlough days this year." My hunch is that you might be surprised to see some of those W-2s.

Yeah, I don't talk to family or personal friends about it, but I'm making less than I did seven years ago, I'm working longer hours, and I've greatly increased my skill set during that time. Seven years ago, I was very confident I would be about the last person to get laid off. Now I don't know. I'm glad I have some savings from the good years that are still there in case things get bad, but I don't know how long they'd last if I was unemployed for a long period. I'm sure that my pay is much higher than a teacher's so it's not like I have anything to complain about on that front, but in my experience the private sector has gotten a lot tighter over the last several years, in wages, benefits, hours, etc.

Edit to add: The recession made it much worse, obviously, but this was happening before then, driven by health care costs and global competition.

[Lucky]

What many are unwilling to recognize is that this is not a financial crisis created by public unions and/or their pensions. Wisconsin had a budget surplus until this Governor recently pushed through $150 million in business tax cuts, which is what created the current shortfall. But, the Governor is not content merely to change the benefit system just to make up the shortfall he created...he wants to bust up the public unions as well, except for those public employee unions which supported him in the last election.

There is no indication that the union-busting provisions being proposed by the Governor will impact the state's budget deficit. This is more evidence that this legislation is political, not economic in design.

I don't belong to a union...there are no unions for Judges, so far as I know...but as a citizen I know that unions are the only means by which the Democratic Party can compete with the Chamber of Commerce, big oil, and other huge right-wing campaign contributors.

There is really nothing new about this entire issue. Republicans have been using union-busting tactics for decades. Only now, however, in the Age of the Tea Party are politicians like Governor Walker emboldened enough to do it so openly. It appears he didn't believe there was a down side to this. There may prove to be a huge one.

[Judge Jude]

Much of my observations are about where I think things are headed, and how government cannot handle the future pension costs under the current system. Now, can taxes be raised on the highest earners enough to change that? That's a debate.

The portability of wealthy people comes into play. They already tend to have residences in multiple states. Raise their tax rate enough, and they wind up spending four months in the high-tax state instead of seven, while spending eight months in the low tax state (or at least claiming to).

Even a federal tax hike may just send these guys to claim foreign residency, no?

Not my area of expertise, lol.

As for the political play, there are way more private workers than public ones. However cynical it may be, I'm not convinced this is so risky. That's why I think the unions there, who are offering some concessions, have to be more adroit here and drive that point home.

Also, the alliance of the Democratic party and unions has often not been enough genuine "look out for the little guy" as much as "let's take care of each other." That's an issue just like Big Oil and Wall St etc.

I'm open to other insights on all this; interesting discussion. I know a lot of people (not necessarily here as we can see) are pretty set in their ways, but it's good for all of us to offer some sentiments that are ripe to be challenged..

[Lucky]

Much of my observations are about where I think things are headed, and how government cannot handle the future pension costs under the current system. Now, can taxes be raised on the highest earners enough to change that? That's a debate.

The portability of wealthy people comes into play. They already tend to have residences in multiple states. Raise their tax rate enough, and they wind up spending four months in the high-tax state instead of seven, while spending eight months in the low tax state (or at least claiming to).

Even a federal tax hike may just send these guys to claim foreign residency, no?

Not my area of expertise, lol.

As for the political play, there are way more private workers than public ones. However cynical it may be, I'm not convinced this is so risky. That's why I think the unions there, who are offering some concessions, have to be more adroit here and drive that point home.

Also, the alliance of the Democratic party and unions has often not been enough genuine "look out for the little guy" as much as "let's take care of each other." That's an issue just like Big Oil and Wall St etc.

I'm open to other insights on all this; interesting discussion. I know a lot of people (not necessarily here as we can see) are pretty set in their ways, but it's good for all of us to offer some sentiments that are ripe to be challenged..

Good points here...I'm just going to chip in on one of them.

Wealthy people may be portable, but wealth doesn't tend to be. If your wealth comes from a great job, you might not be able to take that to another state. If your wealth comes from real property, minerals, etc., you may be taxed on it even though you claim residence in a new state. An example would be income from commercial property.

People can move out of the country, but our citizens still have to pay income tax here on income made here, even if they live abroad.

The people moving out of state argument is, in my opinion, a red herring. Wealthy people live where they want to live...an added income tax of a penny on the dollar isn't going to send them fleeing en masse to North Dakota or some other state with lower taxes.

[Judge Jude]

from one "judge" to a real one - only on RJBullpen!


interesting stuff. I live in Jersey, where I know several mega-millionaires who already moved their primary residence out of state (at least officially) out of spite. But that would be typical aggressive Jersey style, wouldn't it? might not happen elsewhere, and of course major sample size issues here.

I'd like to see one state dramatically raise the state income tax on extremely wealthy people, and see if it results in much greater tax revenues and a way out of the mess, as asserted. And I would not be shocked if it did. Then if it works, it becomes the model. And if it doesn't, same thing.

[chancellor]

What many are unwilling to recognize is that this is not a financial crisis created by public unions and/or their pensions. Wisconsin had a budget surplus until this Governor recently pushed through $150 million in business tax cuts, which is what created the current shortfall. But, the Governor is not content merely to change the benefit system just to make up the shortfall he created...he wants to bust up the public unions as well, except for those public employee unions which supported him in the last election.

Uh...I have no idea what you're talking about here, as your statement of Wisconsin having a budget surplus is wholly false. At least if you're going to question Gov. Walker's motives, try and cut it from whole cloth.

Let's review the article, shortly after the election (Nov 19, 2010), by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...109275069.html

Lead paragraph:

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's administration on Friday told Republican Governor-elect Scott Walker that he would have to cope with a $2.2 billion deficit in the state's upcoming two-year budget, but this brighter-than-expected forecast contained more than $1 billion in hidden pain.

To arrive at the favorable estimate, the Doyle administration's estimate assumed that Walker and lawmakers would make spending cuts that have yet to actually happen - two more years of state employee furloughs, no pay raises, a virtual hiring freeze and belt tightening in state health programs. Without that $1.1 billion in savings, the state's projected shortfall rises to $3.3 billion - a significant increase over previous estimates that put the gap at between $2.7 billion and $3.1 billion.

So, let's get this straight: the Democratic governor at the time conceded Wisconsin was facing a $3+billion dollar deficit - and just to get a third of that deficit fixed, assumed extensive furloughs without pay, no raises, no hires, and.....what's this....cuts in the state health programs. And even that still left a $2.2 billion dollar deficit for the incoming administration to bridge. Handed to it by a Democratic House, Senate and Governor's chair.

And, reading further down in the article, where did about 10% of this remaining $2.2 billion dollar deficit come?

The deficit figure in the budget report - typically delivered after the November elections - assumes that the federal government doesn't kick in more money for state health care costs and the state has to pay a court-ordered $200 million over the next two years for an illegal raid on a fund for injured patients in 2007.

Yes, indeed, our Dem House, Senate, and Governor approved of a $200 billion dollar transfer from the state Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund to the general fund (on the premise that it would be used for health care) - later found by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to be illegal, with the money to be repaid to the fund. Say whatever you will about Walker, but none of his proposals are even remotely as close to as cold-blooded as cashing in a significant chunk of our state's Injured Patients Fund to balance the budget in 2007.

Moreover, the tax cuts you (and Rachel Maddow) mentioned...don't even take place until the next 2-year budget.

[Judge Jude]

Talking Points Memo was pitching the surplus angle today, fwiw

[swampdragon]

People say that teachers are underpaid.
Has anyone looked up a contract table for teachers in Wisconsin then compared it to other college degree and years of experience in other jobs - you will see that teachers are paid are substantially lower.

[Moonlight J]

Talking Points Memo was pitching the surplus angle today, fwiw

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/