Collective Bargaining
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-02/collective-bargaining
A national poll shows about 60% of Americans oppose efforts to weaken collective bargaining rights for public employee unions. Understanding the pros and cons of collective bargaining, and how battles over state budgets could influence future rights.
Guests
Mary Kay Henry
president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Richard Hurd
professor of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University.
Randi Weingarten
president of American Federation of Teachers.
Phil Kerpen
vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity.
Steve Greenhouse
New York Times labor and workplace reporter.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I find the Republican demonization of unions curious ... to say the least.
When mortgages went into default because borrowers were unable to honor the commitments they had negotiated and make the payments required, many Republicans were all too eager to blame the borrowers. The borrowers were the villains, and the lenders were the victims.
In Wisconsin, the governor has declared that the state cannot honor the commitments it has negotiated with public employees. Does that make Wisconsin the villain and the public employees the victims? Apparently not. Those same Republicans are telling us that the public employees are to blame for Wisconsin’s inability to honor its commitments and the state is the victim.
If Wisconsin had outnegotiated the unions, it would certainly demand that those unions meet their contractual obligations. Why should the state of Wisconsin not be held to the same standard?
I watched the PBS program about the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire Monday night and it felt like sitting in a time machine. Owners living on Park Avenue while workers were docked for thread and fabric.
One simple question: Cui bono? Who benefits when workers no longer have a voice in the workplace? Can we really go back to those dark days?
Tricia Lynn
Macedon, NY
Some eerie comments from union bashers:
David Brooks: There was a time we needed unions to protect people, but employers are not like they were before.
Mitch Daniels: Union workers are the new elite.
Unions are the most powerful lobbies in the country.
It's not the unions that are wining and dining the supreme court. That employers are not like they were before is a testament to unions' effectiveness. Mitch Daniels ploy of closing BMV offices in poor, black (Democrat?) areas after the enactment of our Motor-Voter policy is telling of his agenda. Wasn't he an architect of the Bush economy that caused these shortfalls?
I hope people are aware that federal government workers do not have collective bargaining rights unlike state government employees. There are in place many civil servant protections laws to help government workers from being taken advantage of. Collective bargaining rights have only brought about the ability of unions to buy state politicians and therefore all the unsustainable pension and health care cost that states are burdened with. I do not think anyone appreciates the buying of elected officials whether by corporate or union forces, we all want honest and responsible government. Collective bargaining rights or powers have no place in any government capacity it is obviously a corrupting influence on state governments.
Isn't it odd that the staff of the D.R. show decided not to show the protest signs with swastikas, targets, images and comparisons to Hitler and other despots. If this was a Tea Party rally you better believe the reverse would be true.
A really useful resource to understand current aggression against unions is the recent book: “Winner-Take-All Politics” by Hacker and Peirson. Net: Unions in the aggregate (what is left of them) represent the only organization of scale remaining to advocate for the interests of lower- and middle-income Americans in opposition to the relentless concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. The significance of unions extends well beyond the individuals who are their members, and the concentration of rhetoric (like Scott Walker's) on budget savings is a red herring.
I am disheartened by the conversation that centers around union workers, especially teachers, as the new "elite". I don't understand how creating a lower standard of living for everyone can be intepreted as moving forward. The entire American workforce has benefited from the hard fought battles for week-ends, vacation days, health benefits, 40 hour workweeks, pensions, child labor laws, safer workplaces, fair treatment, .... unions helped everyone obtain those things. Shouldn't we be trying to restore what has been lost to some rather than taking away from everyone else? What's happening in Wisconsin is about all of us, not just unions.
This panel is very lopsided to the left-as Diane's panels typically are...
Why is the libertarian and conservative element so hypocritical regarding contract rights in this country?
A union is about the right of a person to negotiate with their employer, and the right of a person to assign that right to another to negotiate on their behalf (under a specific set of limitations - e.g. bargaining as a unit).
A LARGE percentage of people in this country consider these contract rights fundamental and inviolable - when exercised by the wealthy and powerful. When exercised by those who can only negotiate on even terms with the wealthy and powerful by negotiating as a unit, contracts are free to be broken, the very rights themselves subject to being ripped away by the whim of the government.
Why?
How is unions donating money to politicians any different from corporations donating money to politicians and getting legislation favorable to them?
Also, when public employees began getting better benefits in lieu of salary increases, it was a good deal for the public because those benefits were relatively cheap. It's health care costs that have risen and keep rising that has made these benefits so costly, not action by the unions. The benefits haven't changed; in fact, each year employees pay more and more of these benefits.
Would the public employers like to go back and undo the benefit packages and increase salaries instead?
Mr Kerpen keeps comparing apples to oranges. He used figures from 2 cities (NY & SF) and federal employees to compare to private sector workers, but we're talking about state and local employees. AND the federal employees don't have collective bargaining, so he's not comparing unionized federal jobs to non-unionized private sector jobs.
The unions and their members - our neighbors - did not cause the economic mess we are in!
I have a friend who was a New York fire fighter. He said they all purposely rack up much overtime in their last year or 2 so that their retirement + pensions is as large as can be. It's because the rate they'll receive in benefits is based on that last year or 2.
Is that a honestly moral thing to do -- even if it's "legal"?
If the guest believes that legislatures cannot confer rights - that rights are only inalienable and endowed by the Creator - how does he explain the existence of corporations and recent Supreme Court decisions?
Have state and local government retirement plans subject to the same Federal rules that liabilities be funded as they are earned and the damages done by collective bargaining will be moderated to some extent.
Pallas- the difference between unions and corps donating to politicians is that the public unions are employed by the politicians, abnd can directly influence their wages/benefits. Corporations cannot do this. There should not be any public employee unions as they are a monopoly.
How does Mr. Kerpin reconcile the fact that public services are allowed to be let out to private sector management anytime, yet public sector workers are now being told they cannot make those types of decisions, to let out their voice to a management group that specializes in working with hard line politicians, city managers, etc. Grandma might not be very good at working with management and needs help.
For any of the other panelists', how are private sector workers treated when their jobs are bidded out to the lowest bidder by the public sector management? Are they still represented by the union?
I would like to know who funds Americans for Prosperity.
We know that union members pay the great majority of funds spent by their unions on their behalf.
Is Americans for Prosperity a lobbying group of, by, and for Really Prosperous Americans like the Koch Brothers?
Interesting to compare salaries of executives of the SEIU with those of the State officials in Wisconsin
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Wisconsin_state_government_salary
http://www.unionfacts.com/unions/unionOfficers.cfm?id=420778
To add balance, have Steve Greenhut on with his 2009 book, "Plunder: How Public Employee Unions are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation" (Paperback)
description from Amazon:
Public employees have become the new American elite. In the past, Government workers earned less money but had slightly better job security and benefits than Americans working in the private sector. These days, government workers not only earn more than other Americans, but they have vastly superior benefits, including pension plans that often allow them to retire as early as age 50 with 100 percent or more of their final year's salary. These pensions often to $100,000 a year and come with cost of living adjustments and free lifetime medical care. Getting a government job and sticking with it is like winning the lottery. This plundering of treasuries, made possible by aggressive union tactics and spineless politicians, results in higher taxes and massive debts that ultimately will be borne by our grandchildren. The current situation is "unsustainable." The problem goes beyond finances. Government unions protect even the worst public employees from accountability. Schools don't attempt to fire incompetent teachers-and union protections make it nearly impossible to even fire ones accused of abuse and other misdeeds. As government gets bigger and more powerful, government officials have more uncontrolled power over the rest of us-to enrich and protect themselves at the expense of the public good. The public's servants have truly become the public's masters.
Thank you, Diane, for pointing out what I see as the inflammatory use of the word "lavish" in regard to worker's pay and compensation. Why is it a problem if workers are fairly compensated for their lifetime of work? What is wrong with a decent pension and health care plan? This should be the model--not the private sector, wherein the worker is subject to the whims of management and the marketplace.
My pension (as a public school teacher in Illinois) is not in addition to social security, it's instead of SS. I pay 11.75% of my income, while private sector workers pay 6%. Now, because the state legislature has failed to fund the teacher retirement system, there is a proposal that teachers pay NINETEEN (19) PERCENT of their income for our "lavish" pensions.
This is only one example of why we need collective bargaining.
Isn't collective barginning merely a process?? It's the outcome of that process that affects the budget, not the process itself. And it's the process that the Union is trying to preserve - a democratice process that allows all parties a seat at the table and a voice in their futures.
double post error
Why don't anti-union forces acknowledge that unions give a person who has only his/her mind and body time as tools to earn a living the ability to get what they need from those who need to purchase their time to make money?
Corporations form alliances to make more money at the expense of the general public (cartels, etc).
What is wrong with individuals forming alliances to protect their futures and lives?
These who complain about pensions and benefits should not be complaning that the civil servants are getting too much. They should be complaining that more people are not able to bargain a good retirement for themselves. Instead, they propose the civil servants join the union-busted race to the bottom
I am standing with the Union, and will never cross a picket line.
I have never joined any union, though for most of my adult life I've had professional roles which are often unionized. Further, I have never resorted to violence in any form.
However, if there were a professional guild focused on kicking the bloody hell out of that lying sack of shit from Americans for Prosperity, I would enroll -- merely to support their profession.
the argument should not be how much money they get or don't get. its about value, if it takes 100,000 or 30,000, so be it, if you get the better value its a win win, better teachers, fireman, etc and bring better people into the community.
Look at the recent NFL union. The NFL has the strongest union and even most social league when compared to other MLB, NHL, NBA. Salery caps, minimum wages, and revenue sharing has made all the party owners and players benefit more and they are the most successful league in the nation right now. Every year almost all the teams have a fair chance at the playoffs, again, unlike other leagues.
we need a fair chance at equal life opportunity, where everyone wins, workers and bosses
cant wait how the NFL solves this problem, ironic how all the jocks have to show us how its done
It's important to note that many public sector employees do not work under Social Security. What they and their employers contribute to their pension is all they will have when they retire. Many people are under the mistaken idea that teachers and others will receive both social security payments and their pension. This is not true. For many their pension will be all they have. Please asks you guest to speak to this issue. Thank you
I am a retired teacher from Ohio. That somethings need to be change may be apparent, but is ramming these far-reaching bills through the legislatures the way to do it? These bills affect so much in each profession and in peoples' lives. Change through negotiation, compromise, and respect builds a foundation for a future; change from power, control, and order lays the groundwork for acrimony, contempt, and division. Let's think this through if change is needed -- or are those in control of Wisconsin and Ohio concerned that their views may not stand up to scrutiny!
It amazes me Phil Kerpen keeps saying that they "get lavish" pensions but the works have to pay about 5% of their pay check into their pension and only get around $25,000. Also as Sen. Lena Taylor stated on this show on Feb. 23 part of the reason that the Dems. left the state was because of the speed the bill was put through. She stated that it would only have had three days from start to voting and at that point from them being gone it had then made it only 5. To me that seems like a proper filibuster. It gives time for people to see what it's about and it actually takes has some cost for the representatives to force it. They actually have to leave home and state.
Really Bad Reporting in Wisconsin: Who 'Contributes' to Public Workers' Pensions?
David Cay Johnston | Feb. 24, 2011 12:16 PM EST
Tax.com
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument
We have a unique problem here on this show, NPR, and other media outlets. The media's refusal to consider job solutions has become part of the jobs problem. The media is not balanced, and that's become a key part of the problem Example National Hiring Day
There is a solution to the jobs problem and it could quickly put hundreds of thousands of people back to work. But not as long as the media refuses to talk about it. It is not pro left or right. It is not from any corporation, it's outside the government control, it's totally voluntary, and helps all with little sacrifice from anyone.
National Hiring Day #2 is suggested for March 15,2011. This is a day that corporations are encouraged to hire new employees. Corporations are called on to put patriotism first and help their country in hard times. Those corporations that cannot hire, are asked to stop firing for that month.