Unions in government sector - possible to remove?

[canadiankorean]

Up in Canada, the government sector is pretty much run by unions.

They go on strike for more money more benefits.
It used to be that union workers in the public sectors were paid lower than the private sector but their benefits made up for the gap.

Now the union workers are paid 15-20% more than the private plus have great benefits.

The problem is that these workers are often not efficient and is a drain to the budget.
I've heard that 50% of the budget goes to salaries.

But shouldn't we remove unions from the government organizations since they cannot go bankrupt? the unions will continue to leech more money from the government, which leads to less services or more taxes. The unions treat the public money as if it's endless.

Is it even possible to remove unions once they are in place?

[Quartz]

And who will defend the workers? Just because the unions currently have too much power doesn't mean that they also perform a useful function.

[Little Nemo]

The problem is that these workers are often not efficient and is a drain to the budget.

I've heard that 50% of the budget goes to salaries.Well, yes, it's a service industry. Where else do you expect the budget to go to? Office supplies? Organizations like government offices, police departments, schools, banks, insurance companies, strip clubs, etc. that are based on people providing services (as opposed to manufacturing or selling products) are going to have salaries as their main expense.

[Regallag_The_Axe]

If we assume (or establish) that these workers are inefficient and a drain on the budget, I think a better question would be 'how can we make government workers more efficient?' Maybe the answer is removing unions, maybe not (I don't know much about the public sector in Canada).

[Ravenman]

If you're poorly paid compared to your union counterparts, why don't you join a union?

[canadiankorean]

And who will defend the workers? Just because the unions currently have too much power doesn't mean that they also perform a useful function.

There are laws to protect workers.

For example our transit workers.
TTC wokers are unionized.

The ticket collector makes a base of $60k-70k....
Job description = collect/sell transit tickets to people. (no education required)
Several of them made 100k with overtime.

Why are they paid 60-70k base + benefits to collect tickets?
Because it's the public money.
If it was privatized, do you think the salary would be 60k-70k?
More like it will be 30-40k which is right if you think about the job and the requirements.

The government says we are running a deficit but it's because it must hand over money to overpaid staff.

BTW, I'm paid fairly well but I hate that my tax money is being given to overpaid union workers. i hate that services get cut because there isn't enough money, then the union goes on strike for more money. they hold the city hostage as they stop services like transit, garbage collection, teaching....

Does any of this happen in the US?

[Damuri Ajashi]

In the US, Federal employees are generally not allowed to strike.

There is a significant pay disadvantage (about 20%) for federal employees.

State and municipal employees however can and do go on strike and their pay can get fairly high.

Perhaps eliminating the right to strike would be enough to get Canada's federal pay scales back into line (and for our state and municipal employees as well)

[smiling bandit]

If you're poorly paid compared to your union counterparts, why don't you join a union?

The problem with this is that is makes every problem worse. Everyone winds up spending massively to support the union, the unions themselves neccessarily start knifing each other to preserve their slice of the pie, while the actual services and output decline. This is exactly what's happening in California, although it hasn't gotten to the point of turning on each other. Instead, they're still cooperating to keep bleeding the state dry while offering increasingly poorer services.

[Spoons]

For example our transit workers.
TTC [Toronto Transit Commission] workers are unionized.TTC employees belong to the Amalgamated Transit Union, which is international: it covers transit workers in both the US and Canada. It is probably big enough and has enough resources to strenuously fight any decertifying effort brought by the people or city of Toronto.

If it was privatized....I think the word you're looking for is "decertified." Decertifying a union or a union local effectively makes it disappear. Additionally, unions tend to be private organizations anyway. Their members may provide services to the public sector (and in some cases, only to the public sector, as OPSEU and AFSCME do), but the union itself is not considered to be part of the public sector.

[A.Selene]

Of course it's a problem here in the US. It's a problem anywhere where there are protected industries. I say this as a supporter of unions in the private sector.

The problem arises because public sector jobs are insulated from any kind of competition. In an ideal system, unions will protect a worker, but must balance the act of striking and demanding of better pay/benefits with the goal of staying competitive in their sector. No such balance exists with public sector jobs. No matter how inefficient most public systems are, they will continue, as most don't have to stay competitive. They control a monopoly, or a near monopoly, on their product or service. They will continue to push for better compensation (as any sane worker would), but there is little pressure to become more efficient or cut costs. That's a very bad combination for the consumer.

Can we remove them, or is it a good idea? I think it would be good for the taxpayer. When you consider salary and benefits and job security, most public sector jobs in the US offer considerably better compensation then the private sector (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf) (Warning pdf), and have done so at an ever increasing rate, well beyond that of the private sector. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/)

Many are surely performing work that could not be effectively done in the private sector, and certainly many of those public sector employees earn the pay they get. Looking at the figures though, I'm inclined to say that public sector employees are over compensated in general, and I'm sure that the unions don't help the situation.

[Ravenman]

Why are they paid 60-70k base + benefits to collect tickets?
Because it's the public money.With all due respect, this shows a remarkable misunderstanding of how government budgeting works.

Every single person who works in government realizes that there are budget constraints that are well outside one's own control. If the director of the transit administration knows that his salaries are going to average, say, $70 grand a worker, and multiply by so many workers, that money isn't "free." The more he pays "his" workers, the smaller his budget will be for buying new buses, improving the subways, etc.

The idea that government agencies only have to ask the powers that be for endless streams of new money is kind of a conservative, anti-government fantasy.

Everyone winds up spending massively to support the union, the unions themselves neccessarily start knifing each other to preserve their slice of the pie, while the actual services and output decline. I'm not going to defend unionization of every job, but unions have done a great job at insuring that workers get wage increases at a time when CEOs pay is exploding, but CEOs are not giving real wage increases to the average worker.

If you, as a worker, feel you're getting screwed by your employer in terms of wages or benefits, looking at a union is a very reasonable proposition.

[Grumman]

If you're poorly paid compared to your union counterparts, why don't you join a union?
If the OP doesn't feel that the situation he describes is a good thing (what with the workers forming a cartel to control the supply of labour and the government decision-makers being spendthrifts with other people's money without personal consequence), this is sort of like saying "If you're so poorly paid compared to bank robbers, why don't you rob a bank?"

[canadiankorean]

With all due respect, this shows a remarkable misunderstanding of how government budgeting works.

Every single person who works in government realizes that there are budget constraints that are well outside one's own control. If the director of the transit administration knows that his salaries are going to average, say, $70 grand a worker, and multiply by so many workers, that money isn't "free." The more he pays "his" workers, the smaller his budget will be for buying new buses, improving the subways, etc.

The idea that government agencies only have to ask the powers that be for endless streams of new money is kind of a conservative, anti-government fantasy.

I'm not going to defend unionization of every job, but unions have done a great job at insuring that workers get wage increases at a time when CEOs pay is exploding, but CEOs are not giving real wage increases to the average worker.

If you, as a worker, feel you're getting screwed by your employer in terms of wages or benefits, looking at a union is a very reasonable proposition.

That's exactly what is happening...

TTC for example.
Strike to get pay hike.
Services degraded because there is no room in the budget.
TTC begs province for more money
Province says no.
TTC says screw you public you now pay more (fare hike) for less service
They reduced bus schedules, cut plans for transit expansion, and as a slap in the face, the fares increased.
Instead, what the employees and TTC should do is scale back salaries to match private sector, use all that freed up money to keep fares reasonable, increase or at least maintain services, etc.

Union workers at the rumours of such talk go on strike and demand 3% wage increases plus more benefits, bank sick days so they can cash it out at the end, and more more more.. all the while taxes are raised, fees increase for less service.

What should happen is that every budget time is that every sector gets their budget so it balances.
Then unions and management must make sure they don't go overboard.
Cut staff, reduce wages, whatever they can to balance the budget.

In a private company, do you think the CEO will say, "OMG we're losing money but we CANNOT fire people or reduce wages. Let's run a deficit endlessly."
The CEO would probably look at the services and see what is critical to maintain business. Then most likely look at staffing and cut people to reduce costs.

And not sure if it's pricey or not but we pay $3 cash for 1 way TTC ride. $6 cash for 2 way.

[Bridget Burke]

If the OP doesn't feel that the situation he describes is a good thing (what with the workers forming a cartel to control the supply of labour and the government decision-makers being spendthrifts with other people's money without personal consequence), this is sort of like saying "If you're so poorly paid compared to bank robbers, why don't you rob a bank?"

Robbing banks is illegal. Well, it is in the USA. I'll bet Canada has similar laws. Belonging to unions is legal in Canada; perhaps the OP can see about changing the law in his country.

By the way--where are his cites? Doesn't Canada have any right wing think tanks?

[Grumman]

Robbing banks is illegal.
It's also unethical, which is what I was actually talking about.

[Ravenman]

If the OP doesn't feel that the situation he describes is a good thing (what with the workers forming a cartel to control the supply of labour and the government decision-makers being spendthrifts with other people's money without personal consequence), this is sort of like saying "If you're so poorly paid compared to bank robbers, why don't you rob a bank?"No, it's like saying, "If you are so poorly paid compared to people who drive a hard bargain, you should drive a hard bargain yourself." If one is disinclined to drive a hard bargain, but doesn't like how much he's being paid, then it is difficult to help that person.

In a private company, do you think the CEO will say, "OMG we're losing money but we CANNOT fire people or reduce wages. Let's run a deficit endlessly."
The CEO would probably look at the services and see what is critical to maintain business. Then most likely look at staffing and cut people to reduce costs.I understand that you are opposed to service cutbacks and shortfalls in modernization, but you seem to be saying here that the transit authority is running permanent deficits. Is that really the case? I wouldn't think that local agencies like that would be capable of running deficits. My guess is that they'd either cut spending or try to raise revenues to pay for the costs.

[canadiankorean]

No, it's like saying, "If you are so poorly paid compared to people who drive a hard bargain, you should drive a hard bargain yourself." If one is disinclined to drive a hard bargain, but doesn't like how much he's being paid, then it is difficult to help that person.

I understand that you are opposed to service cutbacks and shortfalls in modernization, but you seem to be saying here that the transit authority is running permanent deficits. Is that really the case? I wouldn't think that local agencies like that would be capable of running deficits. My guess is that they'd either cut spending or try to raise revenues to pay for the costs.

Quote from a blogger

The TTC has been losing money for several years now. This has been attributed to the popularity of the Metropass over one-off transit fees and tokens. Roughly 260,000 people a month buy a Metropass, and they account for over half the adult ridership on the system. Apparently nobody at TTC headquarters foresaw the possibility that regular commuters would find it more fiscally beneficial, especially in these trying economic times, to purchase the unlimited pass rather than trying to budget out a handful of tokens over the course of a month. Why they didn’t foresee this is beyond me, but that seems to be the case. So, as a result of a predicted $100 million shortfall in 2010, the TTC is scrambling for a way to make up the deficit. In a few weeks they’ll be meeting with city councillors who will be presented with the three options the best minds of the transit unions could come up with. One, cut back service. Two, ask the government for more subsidies. Three – fare hike

.....

Why does the TTC not have any money? At the current prices, Metropasses alone account for over $28 million a month. That’s $340 million a year, just from Metropasses. That doesn’t take into account token sales, one-off rides, day passes, week passes or any of the other options offered by the Commission.

According to the TTC’s own 2009 budget their operating costs max out at about $1.2 billion per year. A full third of that is covered by Metropasses. The city of Toronto gave them an additional $282 million in subsidies in 2008; now we’ve covered $620 million – over half the operating budget.

Now I don’t know about you, but I travel the TTC every day, and I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if the sheer number of people crammed onto subways and streetcars every day can’t account for the $4.8 million a month they’d need to shore up the rest of the budget. At $2.75 a ride, that’s about 1.7 million rides, or 872,000 round trips.

The TTC boasted in May they’d delivered 470.8 million rides in the previous twelve months, so let’s break it down.

470.8 million rides in a year breaks down to 39.2 million rides a month. If each rider paid the regular fare that would amount to $107.8 million dollars a month. Now we know that isn’t the case because 260,000 people buy Metropasses, and there’s no real way to tell how many rides each of those passes accounts for.

But let’s take me for an example, since I’m on the high end of the transit spike as far as the amount of time I spend running all over this city. On average I swipe or show my card four times a day, six days a week. That’s 24 rides a week, or 96 rides a month. I think that’s reasonable as an estimate. If every Metropass user did about the same we pass holders would be accounting for 24.9 million rides a month – again, sounds about right.

So of the 39.2 million rides a month the TTC claims, that leaves about 14.3 million rides to the non-pass users. If they all paid the full fare (which they don’t), that’s a total of $39.3 million dollars a month coming in from the non-passers. Let’s assume only 30% of those people pay the full fare (as opposed to day or week passes) or 4.3 million full-farers. Works out to $11.8 million, folks.

That’s more than twice the amount they need to shore up the budget. Even if you take into consideration student, senior and child fares, I cannot for the life of me figure out how they’re looking at a hundred-million dollar deficit coming into 2010.

So the question comes back: why do they have no money?

I searched high and low for reliable estimates on TTC salaries, benefits and retirement plans, but I’ve not been able to find any that match, so much as I would love to lay this at the feet of the fatted calf of yet another Canadian union (a favourite whipping post of mine) I can’t do it in conscience. But I can assume that, given the number of people the TTC employs, they’re shelling out a fair chunk in union-determined payments. Where the rest of the money is going, I really can’t say. They’ve talked for years about extending the subway line up to York University – hasn’t happened. The so-called Light Rail system is slated to begin construction in a few years, but we’ll see if that actually pans out. And as I’ve beaten to death already, it’s pretty clear not a great deal of money is being dumped into upkeep of the transit system.

My point in all this is that I’m tired, sick unto death really, of being asked to pay more and more for less and less. If my transit prices are going to go through the damn roof, I want to see some bang for my buck. And by “bang”, I do not mean the sound of a streetcar being derailed, a train screeching to a crushing halt (and staying there for an hour) or a bus running aground on a sidewalk.

Toronto is the best city in the world, and it’s time our transit system reflected that. To the TTC: I’ll pay you if you pay me back. Don’t leave me stranded in the middle of the night. Don’t make me late for work. And do not complain to me about your budgetary concerns until you’ve gotten yourselves in order and started providing the kind of service the long-suffering commuters of this city deserve. If you’re going to call yourself “The Better Way”, start living up to it.

That’s my take.

[canadiankorean]

Of course it's a problem here in the US. It's a problem anywhere where there are protected industries. I say this as a supporter of unions in the private sector.

The problem arises because public sector jobs are insulated from any kind of competition. In an ideal system, unions will protect a worker, but must balance the act of striking and demanding of better pay/benefits with the goal of staying competitive in their sector. No such balance exists with public sector jobs. No matter how inefficient most public systems are, they will continue, as most don't have to stay competitive. They control a monopoly, or a near monopoly, on their product or service. They will continue to push for better compensation (as any sane worker would), but there is little pressure to become more efficient or cut costs. That's a very bad combination for the consumer.

Can we remove them, or is it a good idea? I think it would be good for the taxpayer. When you consider salary and benefits and job security, most public sector jobs in the US offer considerably better compensation then the private sector (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf) (Warning pdf), and have done so at an ever increasing rate, well beyond that of the private sector. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/)

Many are surely performing work that could not be effectively done in the private sector, and certainly many of those public sector employees earn the pay they get. Looking at the figures though, I'm inclined to say that public sector employees are over compensated in general, and I'm sure that the unions don't help the situation.

+1

[kunilou]

In the US, Federal employees are generally not allowed to strike.

There is a significant pay disadvantage (about 20%) for federal employees.

State and municipal employees however can and do go on strike and their pay can get fairly high.

Perhaps eliminating the right to strike would be enough to get Canada's federal pay scales back into line (and for our state and municipal employees as well)

In some states public employees can strike. In Missouri, they specifically are forbidden by law to strike. Public employees can, by law, bargain collectively, but they can not strike, nor are public agencies (governments, school districts, etc.) required to submit to binding arbitration.

[furt]

Every single person who works in government realizes that there are budget constraints that are well outside one's own control. If the director of the transit administration knows that his salaries are going to average, say, $70 grand a worker, and multiply by so many workers, that money isn't "free." The more he pays "his" workers, the smaller his budget will be for buying new buses, improving the subways, etc.

The idea that government agencies only have to ask the powers that be for endless streams of new money is kind of a conservative, anti-government fantasy. Except for the fact that it happens all the time. Do you really need cites for the fact that government spending at all levels has continually been rising faster than inflation+population, and has been for decades?


Every single person who works in government realizes you never, ever leave a budgeted dollar unspent. You spend every dime so that you can command more next year. In the example you give, the solution is to spend the money on salary, then if you need equipment, complain that your budget is too small.

So to take your example: Despite the fact that nonunion bus drivers make something in the realm of 20-30K a year (http://www.indeed.com/salary/Bus-Driver.html), Government Bus Drivers earn much more than that (http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/bus-driver-salary-SRCH_KO0,10.htm) ... sometimes starting at 60K, rising to over $100K a year with overtime. (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Driver-salaries-fueling-deficit-84933332.html) And we're not even getting into their pensions and benefits. This is true even when the transit agency in question is running a deficit, (http://www.bart.gov/docs/FY09_Budget.pdf) getting tax money from the state and federal sources (http://www.actransit.org/aboutac/budget.wu) (i.e. people that don't ride it), and even raising rates so much that people stop riding (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/10/golden-state-off-the-rails-as).

Some fantasy.

[Chronos]

How is it even possible to forbid workers to strike? What do you do if they all just happen to call in sick with the blue flu all on the same day? You can't arrest someone for calling in sick, can you?

[smiling bandit]

How is it even possible to forbid workers to strike? What do you do if they all just happen to call in sick with the blue flu all on the same day? You can't arrest someone for calling in sick, can you?

In some places they do this, though there are significant problems with it. It's not directly germane to the issue here, as it does happen (often illegaly). bannign them from striking is supposed to be part of the protection for the public: that in allowing them collective bargaining and a union we don't give them unlimited power to command the public simply by striking neccessary services (see the Air Traffic Controllers strike). This purpose is very often honored only in the breach.

I'm not going to defend unionization of every job, but unions have done a great job at insuring that workers get wage increases at a time when CEOs pay is exploding, but CEOs are not giving real wage increases to the average worker.

If you, as a worker, feel you're getting screwed by your employer in terms of wages or benefits, looking at a union is a very reasonable proposition.

Yes, I'm sure its very nice for them. However, it's punishing to everyone else, as you haven't made any useful counterpoint to the point that unions in aggregate neccessarily hurt almost everyone.

Furthermore, unions do not defend the "common man". They principally defend unskilled workers who pay them lots of money () against people with rare, useful, or valuable skills - and everyone else. They may get wage incfreases for union workers, but I don't really give a shit about that. They may get a nice good feeling for sticking it to "the fatcats," but I don't give a shit about that, either. I do care that the price of goods and services rise faster and faster because of wage inflation, and can spark a wage-price spiral.

More to the point, you should note that private-sector unions are dying. Their industries have become so uncompetitive that their demands are pointlessly moronic. It is public-sector unions, which rape the taxpayer and deliver poor service in general, that the future of unions unfortunately lies.

[Little Nemo]

How is it even possible to forbid workers to strike? What do you do if they all just happen to call in sick with the blue flu all on the same day? You can't arrest someone for calling in sick, can you?You can't arrest them. But the government can call it a job action and by doing so, can fine them two days pay for every day they don't work.

The OP can talk about how hard the government suffers from unionized workers. But don't irnore how much power the government has over its workers, unionized or not. I'm forbidden by law to strike even if I have no contract - and as a result the government has no incentive to sign a contract. I haven't had a current contract since 1995.

[Grumman]

How is it even possible to forbid workers to strike? What do you do if they all just happen to call in sick with the blue flu all on the same day? You can't arrest someone for calling in sick, can you?
You could presumably fire them for not showing up to work. If your entire workforce "coincedentally" all falls ill on the same day to an illness with no verifiable symptoms, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to realise something's up. If the fired workers tried to sue, I would be confident in my ability to demonstrate it was reasonable to assume they were conspiring to disrupt work with this synchronised sick day.

[Little Nemo]

Furthermore, unions do not defend the "common man". They principally defend unskilled workers who pay them lots of money () against people with rare, useful, or valuable skills - and everyone else.That's the problem. You apparently believe that corporate CEO's are the "common man".

[Ravenman]

Quote from a bloggerI understand you have a bone to pick with your local transit agency, but quotes from bloggers really aren't reliable cites. And I'd rather talk about the general situation of government employment and unions, because I don't live in Toronto and have zero knowledge of whatever local issues you may be facing there.

Do you really need cites for the fact that government spending at all levels has continually been rising faster than inflation+population, and has been for decades? Of course government spending has gone up, because government has been undertaking new policies which cost more to provide the health care, B-2 bombers, VA health benefits, and increased public transportation that voters want. It's far-fetched to argue that the increases in core government spending comes because of wage growth when the functions of government have expanded so greatly in the last half-century.

So to take your example: Despite the fact that nonunion bus drivers make something in the realm of 20-30K a year, Government Bus Drivers earn much more than that ... sometimes starting at 60K, rising to over $100K a year with overtime. And we're not even getting into their pensions and benefits.Perhaps your cite for bus drivers changed between the time you posted it and I read it, because the variations in pay did not rise anywhere near $100k, and appeared to be more based on geography than employer. (E.g., the urban New Jersey and California jobs paid more, and the rural Georgia and Alabama jobs paid less.)

Finally, that Cato study is as bogus as can be because it doesn't compare apples-to-apples. The Federal government employs very few low wage earners (that would compare to retail workers, janitors, etc) because those jobs were long since contracted out. The government employs more white collar workers, and I defy you to argue that lawyers and other professionals make more working for the government than in private practice. I don't hear a whole lot about the private sector having problems finding people to hire because everyone is fleeing to high-paid government jobs... do you?

More to the point, you should note that private-sector unions are dying. And there has been little to no growth in worker's wages (link) (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/feb2010/pi2010025_902249.htm) at the same time unions are dying, while executive pay has grown out of control. Coincidence?

Oh, wait -- all workers who don't get raises are lazy, because if they weren't lazy they would have gotten raises. And executives who get raises have earned them, because they wouldn't have gotten them if they hadn't earned them. It's so easy to be an economic conservative when so little critical thought is required!

[kunilou]

How is it even possible to forbid workers to strike? What do you do if they all just happen to call in sick with the blue flu all on the same day? You can't arrest someone for calling in sick, can you?

You can demand a doctor's certification, and if they can't produce it, you can call it an unauthorized absence/abuse of sick leave and fire them.

[Chronos]

You could presumably fire them for not showing up to work. If your entire workforce "coincedentally" all falls ill on the same day to an illness with no verifiable symptoms, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to realise something's up. If the fired workers tried to sue, I would be confident in my ability to demonstrate it was reasonable to assume they were conspiring to disrupt work with this synchronised sick day. Well, yes, of course you can fire the lot of them. That's the natural counterbalance against the power of the strike. But if the union's striking, then they're basically taking the bet that you can't afford to fire them all and replace them. And if they're right, then maybe they really do deserve whatever it is they're demanding. It's yet another example of the free market at work.

[Duckster]

In the US, Federal employees are generally not allowed to strike.

5USC1918 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=strike&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001918----000-.html)

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00007311----000-.html) of title 5 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sup_01_5.html) that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.
Federal employees can strike but the consequences of such an action are severe. Think air traffic controllers back in 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_%281968%29#August_1981_strike).

There is a significant pay disadvantage (about 20%) for federal employees.Generally speaking in the federal GS pay system there is locality pay to account for pay disparity between local non-federal pay and private pay levels (http://main.opm.gov/oca/payagent/2008/PayDisparities.asp). Even with locality pay, federal employees are paid less than private employees doing the same/similar job. There's been recent news articles claiming federal employees are way overpaid compared to private. Unfortunately, cherry-picking with an intended bias makes the headlines while accurate reporting is buried, if it exists at all.

Federal unions in the USA are limited in power and scope. The President and Congress totally control pay scales and most other major items private unions enjoy. Generally speaking, federal unions concentrate on working conditions, and fairness and equity issues. They do lobby their superiors on behalf of the American people.

The problem isn't with the existence of unions. The problem is an unfairness, greed and corruption which exists on both sides of labor and management.

[Little Nemo]

It's so easy to be an economic conservative when so little critical thought is required!If you're not making enough money to pay off some think tank, you deserve to be poor.

[Steve MB]

Can we remove them, or is it a good idea? I think it would be good for the taxpayer. When you consider salary and benefits and job security, most public sector jobs in the US offer considerably better compensation then the private sector (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf) (Warning pdf), and have done so at an ever increasing rate, well beyond that of the private sector. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/)

The paper you linked to was careless enough to give away the fast one the author is trying to pull -- it notes that most studies (which find government salaries to lag behind business salaries) compare the government to large corporations (well, duh -- any competent statistician does his best to compare apples to apples, and filter out any oranges that try to sneak in), while his dumps a bushel or oranges into the mix by adding small businesses (probably down to and including the illegal-alien day-laborers in front of your local hardware store).

[canadiankorean]

The paper you linked to was careless enough to give away the fast one the author is trying to pull -- it notes that most studies (which find government salaries to lag behind business salaries) compare the government to large corporations (well, duh -- any competent statistician does his best to compare apples to apples, and filter out any oranges that try to sneak in), while his dumps a bushel or oranges into the mix by adding small businesses (probably down to and including the illegal-alien day-laborers in front of your local hardware store).

I have first hand experience.
I worked for 2 mid to large sized corporations.

Help Desk staff make 30-35k starting.
Desktop staff make 40-50k starting

Public sector Help Desk staff make 47-57k starting.(job posting at TTC)
Public sector Desktop make 60-65k starting. (friend managed desktop group and told me salary band and if you added benefits another 15k)

Pretty big difference.
However management group is usually under paid... but also not part of the union.
I'm guessing also that the higher up (more skilled positions) tend to be lower or equal to private sector. But that doesn't mean you pay low skill set jobs a lot more than the private sector.

[Little Nemo]

Nobody can claim you didn't make your case. Many people would have only collected one point of data - but you went the extra distance and collected two.

[Declan]

But shouldn't we remove unions from the government organizations since they cannot go bankrupt? the unions will continue to leech more money from the government, which leads to less services or more taxes. The unions treat the public money as if it's endless.

Is it even possible to remove unions once they are in place?

The mayor and city council are probably more to blame than the unions. The unions job is simply to protect what they have and add more, the citys job is to snatch back what they can get and protect the tax payers , while retaining services.

The only real way to sort this mess out is to amalgamate the transportation service in the golden horseshoe and , this is the biggie, fix the wage. You get bennies out the yin yang, but your salary will not change.

Otherwise your gonna be locked into an ever increasing spiral of wage growth and a loss or reduction in services to pay for it.

Declan

[canadiankorean]

Nobody can claim you didn't make your case. Many people would have only collected one point of data - but you went the extra distance and collected two.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7191103/Public-Vs-Private-Sector-Compensation/

The BLS’s September 2008
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
(ECEC) survey shows that average total compensation in the private sector is $27.07 per hour, while the average total compensation in the public sector (state and local governments only) is $39.18 per hour.

Jeffrey R. Brown, the William G. Karnes Professor of Finance, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, focused on the cost of benefi ts. He noted that according to 2008 ECEC data, the employer cost per hour for benefits is $13.41 in the public sector (state and local governments only) and $7.93 in the private sector. This difference arises primarily from health and retirement benefits.



http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf



http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/minnecon/archive/2010/03/government-pay-vs-private-wages.shtml

This article is more reasonable.
Apples to apples they say public sector gets 7% more not including benefits.
Management get paid 73% of private sector equal

But as a commenter pointed out, it doesn't take into account how many people are required to do a job.
What about looking at the amount of state employees to do an administrative job compared the amount employed in the private sector? I would be interested in that.

The gov't doesn't seem to "trim the fat" it just gets bigger and spends more. In my opinion gov't and unions get paid too much for what they do, and because of their "status quo" mentality knowing they have a pay/benefits raise coming with no bearings on their performance hinders any motivation or drive. I have no numbers to back this up, it is just my experience when crossing paths with them in the business world.

[canadiankorean]

Nobody can claim you didn't make your case. Many people would have only collected one point of data - but you went the extra distance and collected two.

By Megan O’Toole, National Post

Growing public anger over Toronto’s municipal strike has shone a spotlight on disparities between compensation in government jobs and the private sector, analysts say.

And as a “demographic tidal wave” prepares to wash over the workforce, public frustration will only continue to build over massive differences in wages, benefits and pensions, noted Judith Andrew, Ontario vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

“That really is going to be very divisive for our society,” she said. “It’s like reverse Robin Hood. Why should people with modest pensions be having to pay very onerous taxes to top up these rich pensions for ... public servants?”

A recent CFIB report based on 2006 Census findings shows government and public-sector employees are typically paid between 8% and 17% more than similarly employed individuals in the private sector. When other benefits are taken into account, the number rises to more than 30%.

“Expressed in dollar terms, public-sector employers have a combined wage and benefits bill that is $19-billion higher than if they had kept costs to private sector norms,” the report says.

Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, acknowledges there is a wage gap in Canada, but maintains the disparity is based on unionization, not on public versus private. A unionized cashier in the private sector, for example, is compensated similarly to a unionized cashier in the public sector, he said.

As a general rule, unionized employees earn higher wages and benefits, Mr. Moist said, “which we would argue is a good thing.” The average salary for a CUPE worker countrywide is about $35,000.

In Toronto, workers have been organized to varying degrees for almost a century, and that is reflected in their benefits and pay, Mr. Moist said. The current strike is not a wage grab, but an attempt to maintain benefits that other city workers have not been asked to give up, he said.

Toronto residents are seeing the fallout as garbage is spilling over curbs in the downtown core while the city negotiates with 30,000 striking workers, who are angry over the city’s attempt to change sick leave benefits. The program allows workers to bank 18 sick days every year, and cash out a chunk of those upon retirement.

Ms. Andrew argues unions have historically abused their right to strike, withdrawing key services — such as monopolized garbage collection — in order to pressure municipalities for generous contract perks.

“Unions have an excessive amount of power,” Ms. Andrew said. “They’ve been able to hold the public to ransom for their own game, and it’s been done largely behind the scenes.”

Rather than drawing up collective agreements in a “confrontational labour relations environment,” she said, union and city negotiators should look to set compensation by finding fair matches in the private sector.

“It really is a slap in the face ... that the government taxes [small businesses] very heavily in order to compensate staff at levels that our small business members can’t even hope to pay,” Ms. Andrew said, noting the government has “no bottom line at all.”

“They can just go back and ask the taxpayer for more.”

WAGE COMPARISONS

Hourly wages earned by some Toronto city employees at the top of their seniority level:

Arborist inspector $32.68; compared to about $26 in the Ontario private sector and $29.80 in the City of Vaughan

Cashier $27.82; compared to about $12 in the Ontario private sector and $9.50 in the City of Vaughan

Cleaner, light duty $21.30; compared to about $16 in the Ontario private sector and $19.49 in York Region

Cook $25.02; compared to $13 in the Ontario private sector and $24.50 in York Region

Daycare housekeeper $25.02: compared to about $12 in the Ontario private sector and $23.17 in Peel Region

Dental hygienist $36.38; compared to about $39 in the Ontario private sector and $39.20 in York Region

Energy consultant $40.50; compared to about $49 in the Ontario private sector and $39.61 in York Region

Food service worker $22.46; compared to about $16 in the Ontario private sector and $20.55 in York Region

Garbage collector $25.11; compared to about $21 in the Ontario private sector and $24.84 in the City of Windsor

Law clerk $34.47; compared to about $26 in the Ontario private sector and $38.47 in York Region

Note: Private sector wages calculated based on provincial average for employees with 25 years of experience using PayScale.com

================
I remember reading the LCBO (liquor store that is public sector in Ontario) pays cashiers $25-30/hr... Cashiers.
You can get cashiers off the street who are willing to do the job for $15. Why are we paying them $25-30/hr?

[Ravenman]

I hope your point is that government employees should be paid equal to private sector employees. I would like to see the private sector give some actual wage growth to workers.

Also, since apparently I'm being paid 73% of what a similar person in the private sector is worth, that you'd be okay with me getting a 40% raise. Right?

[ralph124c]

Same situation in the USA. In Boston, arbitrators awarded the Boston FD a 19% raise (retroactive to 2006)!
This raises the specter of municipal bankruptcey-the fireman are now among the highest paid in the USA.
I can see the city firing them all and replacing them with a private operation.

[canadiankorean]

I hope your point is that government employees should be paid equal to private sector employees. I would like to see the private sector give some actual wage growth to workers.

Also, since apparently I'm being paid 73% of what a similar person in the private sector is worth, that you'd be okay with me getting a 40% raise. Right?

Why is there a union in the first place?
I'm not part of a union and surprisingly I have rights, benefits, and I'm not abused.

Surely these union workers will be abused by the public government if there was no union to protect them, right?

[Duke]

Arborist inspector $32.68; compared to about $26 in the Ontario private sector and $29.80 in the City of Vaughan

etc.etc.etc.

Tomorrow's National Post headline: Toronto in "more expensive to live in than City of Vaughan" shock

Seriously, the NP is comparing apples and oranges. $32.68/hr in Toronto is worth nowhere near $26/hr over all of Ontario. Tell me what the private sector in Toronto is paying, and then you might have a case.

[Ravenman]

Why is there a union in the first place?
I'm not part of a union and surprisingly I have rights, benefits, and I'm not abused.
Yeah, but you are in essence complaining that other people have better benefits at their jobs. If you want what someone else has got, maybe it's worth negotiating for... with collective bargaining. :eek:

[Steve MB]

Tomorrow's National Post headline: Toronto in "more expensive to live in than City of Vaughan" shock

I note that the examples use four different local points of comparison (in addition to the province-as-a-whole comparison). Apparently the writer found that not all of the cherries that best fit her thesis could be picked from the same tree....

[IdahoMauleMan]

If you're not making enough money to pay off some think tank, you deserve to be poor.

If you don't like your job or your contract with the government (meaning: me) you can quit and go find something else to do.

[Ravenman]

If you don't like your job or your contract with the government (meaning: me) you can quit and go find something else to do.Have you ever asked for a raise? If so, why didn't you just quit and find another higher paying job?

In other words, why is it that anti-union types think that the answer to every employee complaint is that the employee should quit?

[gonzomax]

Unions are organizations that use the power of numbers to fight against the owners who would separate and use them as they saw fit. Any organization can survive without an employee. They can not get rid of them all. Unions fight for safe working conditions, reasonable working hours ,fair pay and lots of other benefits. In America health care is one of those. Unions brought about the 8 hr, day, the 40 hour work week, the end of child labor, paid vacations and safe working conditions. Corporations fought and killed union organizers. They still would be happy to do that again. Organize a union in the coal mines of America and see how that works out.
The benefits that unions won, spilled out over the rest of employment. Non-union companies had to follow along or people with a choice would not work for them. The white collar workers automatically got the union increases. The company did not want them to organize.
But, unions are being destroyed. Benefits are being cut, Health care is being diminished. When they are successful with the dismantling. wages will drop( they already are), benefits will diminish,(they are now) and the power of a worker will disappear.
Unions get no good publicity at all . The newspapers killed the unions a decade ago. The TV networks are owned by huge powerful conglomerates that are anti-union. The people have heard so much anti-union messages that the people all have accepted it as fact. We will all suffer in the end. Just ask a 20 some year old about unions. They all hate them and don't know why. But they will say that unions are the problem. It is sad what we can be convinced of if we have the corporations controlling the message.

[Little Nemo]

If you don't like your job or your contract with the government (meaning: me) you can quit and go find something else to do.I'd miss the satisfaction I derive from knowing that every dollar I receive was taken from somebody like you.

It's true. We all sit around our air-conditioned offices (dozens of us) with our feet up on our desks, eating donuts and drinking coffee and laughing about how people like you have to go out and work real jobs while all we have to do is steal your money and spend it on ourselves. It's pretty sweet. And thanks to NAFTA I now get to steal canadiankorean's money as well.

[casdave]

Oh dear, what rubbish, I can produce study after study, cite after cite, quote after quote ad nauseaum that demonstrates that public sector workers are paid less for carryin gout similar work that the private sector, with one exception only.

State employed workers do very badly when their posts have been put out to private contracts, this is because the successful bid by the privatising organisation predicated it on the basis of asset stripping, that is reducing numbers, and of reducing wages, but in turn this also ends up with impoverished services.

There have been other privatisations that actually did the downsizing, cut the number of workers, but in turn they became even more dependant on thsoe reamining, such that their incomes rose to levels signifcantly higher than privatisations.

We have a multitude of fialed privatisations here in the UK, where the service cost has increased well beyond the rate of inflation, ask any Brit what has happened to energy costs.

We also need to look at the service provided, because many public services will never directly turn a profit, and so are not attractive for privatisation, however these services may well enable private business to take place, whether hospitals, roads, or transport.

There is an old adage about indusrial relations which is as true now as it always has been "There are no bad workers, just bad managers"

The way to reduce the power of any union, is to have a collaberative business, a non-adversarial labour system. When everyone is behind their barricades then costs rise, efficiency goes down.

I love how unions get the blame for poor management.

Blaming unions is shorthand for saying the management team is useless, transfers the responsibility for running an organisation from those who are paid to do just that, to those who are not paid to do it.

[Ravenman]

I love how unions get the blame for poor management.
Oh yeah. Like when gas prices spiked and SUVs became less popular, anti-union types tried to deflect the fact that Detroit executives were choosing to build cars that had little future by bringing up these allegations that unionized auto workers make too much money. Whatever.

[Little Nemo]

Suppose the worst complaints are true. Suppose union workers receive grossly unfair wages and benefits.

So what?

Isn't that the way capitalism is supposed to work? Everyone acts in their own self-interest? Buyers, sellers, owners, workers - everyone is trying to get as much as they can. The union member deserves his raise just as much as the board member deserves his bonus.

So if you think union members are making so much, stop complaining about it and go join a union.

[canadiankorean]

Suppose the worst complaints are true. Suppose union workers receive grossly unfair wages and benefits.

So what?

Isn't that the way capitalism is supposed to work? Everyone acts in their own self-interest? Buyers, sellers, owners, workers - everyone is trying to get as much as they can. The union member deserves his raise just as much as the board member deserves his bonus.

So if you think union members are making so much, stop complaining about it and go join a union.

My goodness....it's not about me getting paid the same.
It's about the wasted money paid to these union members that are ruining services and causing government budgets to run a deficit.

For example, Transit (I pick on them because they are in the news a lot recently).
They have to run buses and subways. You can't stop it or the city is down.
But instead of looking at union workers and cutting the fat like eliminating ticket collectors who sit and just collect tickets. Let's say there are 100 of them.
100x 65,000 base salary.. that's 6.5 million saved. Use that 6.5 million to build automated machines to collect / sell tickets. save the budget 6.5 million a year.
Now if we reduce wages to match private sector by 10% across the 30000 employees with an average savings of $6,000.. that's 18 million saved and hopefully used to improve service.

I'm complaining that my tax dollar is being misused.

[canadiankorean]

Suppose the worst complaints are true. Suppose union workers receive grossly unfair wages and benefits.

So what?

Isn't that the way capitalism is supposed to work? Everyone acts in their own self-interest? Buyers, sellers, owners, workers - everyone is trying to get as much as they can. The union member deserves his raise just as much as the board member deserves his bonus.

So if you think union members are making so much, stop complaining about it and go join a union.

Maybe a bad example but let's say you give $100 to a charity.
That charity decides to pay $30 to a worker to get it done. However, since they have 2 people on staff, they said let's pay $60 for the same work cuz we have 2 people.
Now they were committed to give $65 to a country in need from my $100.
So they now are asking the government to give them $25 to make up for the deficit.
The government says, ok since you promised to give that money.
The government comes to me and says, we need more money I'm taxing you $25.

How would you feel?
Wouldn't you say to the charity.. 1 person at $30 can do that job... why are you paying 2 people and losing money?
on top of that, the other charities have people that do it for $20. Now instead of asking the government for more money, you have leftover money to help more people.

[Little Nemo]

My goodness....it's not about me getting paid the same.
It's about the wasted money paid to these union members that are ruining services and causing government budgets to run a deficit.

For example, Transit (I pick on them because they are in the news a lot recently).
They have to run buses and subways. You can't stop it or the city is down.
But instead of looking at union workers and cutting the fat like eliminating ticket collectors who sit and just collect tickets. Let's say there are 100 of them.
100x 65,000 base salary.. that's 6.5 million saved. Use that 6.5 million to build automated machines to collect / sell tickets. save the budget 6.5 million a year.
Now if we reduce wages to match private sector by 10% across the 30000 employees with an average savings of $6,000.. that's 18 million saved and hopefully used to improve service.

I'm complaining that my tax dollar is being misused.But why single out the government for waste? Why not apply the same principles to everyone? Why don't we decide that the executives at General Motors don't deserve their high salaries; they're just going to spend in on high living anyway. They should all take a paycut down to $52,000 a year. Everything above that is waste. And the reduced cost of executive pay will be passed along to the consumer because they can charge less for the cars they sell.

How is paying one guy $65,000 a year wasteful when paying another guy $6,500,000 a year is not?

[furt]

Of course government spending has gone up, because government has been undertaking new policies which cost more to provide the health care, B-2 bombers, VA health benefits, and increased public transportation that voters want. It's far-fetched to argue that the increases in core government spending comes because of wage growth when the functions of government have expanded so greatly in the last half-century.

erhaps your cite for bus drivers changed between the time you posted it and I read it, because the variations in pay did not rise anywhere near $100k, and appeared to be more based on geography than employer. Nope, still there:
The average base pay for a Muni operator — those who drive buses, cable cars and light-rail vehicles — is roughly $60,000, which is determined by a City Charter mandate that says they must be among the top paid in the country.

And Muni’s 2,350 operators are almost guaranteed a bevy of overtime pay. In calendar year 2009, 622 Muni operators raked in more than $80,000 in total pay, including 82 who brought home more than $100,000. (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Driver-salaries-fueling-deficit-84933332.html)

Bus Driving is a low-skill job. $60,000 in base salary is about 1/3 more than the national average for all workers.

The Federal government employs very few low wage earners (that would compare to retail workers, janitors, etc) because those jobs were long since contracted out. The government employs more white collar workers, and I defy you to argue that lawyers and other professionals make more working for the government than in private practice. No, they do not. But this thread is not about white-collar workers, who are not unionized. I have several freinds, and a girlfriend who work white-collar government jobs. They do make less than private-sector equivalents; they also have more security and less stress. I know multiple lawyers and MBAs who work 40 hours a week; those are quite rare everywhere except government.

I don't hear a whole lot about the private sector having problems finding people to hire because everyone is fleeing to high-paid government jobs... do you?With unemployment at 10%, nobody has a hard time finding workers. But as I'm currently unemployed and I live in greater D.C., I've had lots of people advise me to get a government job.

[Grumman]

Suppose the worst complaints are true. Suppose union workers receive grossly unfair wages and benefits.

So what?

Isn't that the way capitalism is supposed to work?
No, it's not. Unions work the way they do by letting a significant fraction of a businesses suppliers of a particular resource (labour) get together and act as a single entity. This is not considered acceptable behaviour anywhere else - it's the whole reason we have antitrust laws. If Shell, BP and all the other petrol selling companies got together and tried to exert this sort of control over their customers, telling your business "If you don't buy Shell's petrol at $100 a gallon, none of us will sell you petrol," they'd be committing a felony.

But why single out the government for waste? Why not apply the same principles to everyone? Why don't we decide that the executives at General Motors don't deserve their high salaries; they're just going to spend in on high living anyway. They should all take a paycut down to $52,000 a year. Everything above that is waste. And the reduced cost of executive pay will be passed along to the consumer because they can charge less for the cars they sell.

How is paying one guy $65,000 a year wasteful when paying another guy $6,500,000 a year is not?
Because if you don't like how General Motors does things, you can tell them to go fuck themselves, and take your money elsewhere. General Motors can't force you to buy their product, the government can and does.

[anu-la1979]

Nope, still there:

Bus Driving is a low-skill job. $60,000 in base salary is about 1/3 more than the national average for all workers.

No, they do not. But this thread is not about white-collar workers, who are not unionized. I have several freinds, and a girlfriend who work white-collar government jobs. They do make less than private-sector equivalents; they also have more security and less stress. I know multiple lawyers and MBAs who work 40 hours a week; those are quite rare everywhere except government.

With unemployment at 10%, nobody has a hard time finding workers. But as I'm currently unemployed and I live in greater D.C., I've had lots of people advise me to get a government job.


You are wrong about this. At my federal agency, the attorneys are part of the bargaining unit unless they are classified as confidential. Many federal agencies have bargaining unit eligible OGC units that are either part of AFGE or NFFE (two of the biggest federal unions). I'm an OGC (Office of General Counsel) attorney as well as a volunteer union steward for one of the big two. I have to go to training for my labour position and meet plenty of unionized white collar federal workers from a variety of different agencies.

[Little Nemo]

No, it's not. Unions work the way they do by letting a significant fraction of a businesses suppliers of a particular resource (labour) get together and act as a single entity. This is not considered acceptable behaviour anywhere else - it's the whole reason we have antitrust laws. If Shell, BP and all the other petrol selling companies got together and tried to exert this sort of control over their customers, telling your business "If you don't buy Shell's petrol at $100 a gallon, none of us will sell you petrol," they'd be committing a felony.How do you describe a corporation board? Don't they get together and act as a single entity in representing the corporation? If management is allowed to act as a single entity, why can't labor?Because if you don't like how General Motors does things, you can tell them to go fuck themselves, and take your money elsewhere. General Motors can't force you to buy their product, the government can and does.I have a say in how the government is run. I don't have any say in how General Motors is run. It seems you have things backwards.

[Ravenman]

Bus Driving is a low-skill job. $60,000 in base salary is about 1/3 more than the national average for all workers. Great example. The cost of living in San Francisco is about 1/3 higher than the average American cost of living. Cite. (http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/bestcities_sort/index.php?sortby=cost&sortorder=DESC)

Do you expect bus drivers in SF to make the national average, so in effect be 1/3 poorer than the average American bus driver?

[Grumman]

How do you describe a corporation board? Don't they get together and act as a single entity in representing the corporation? If management is allowed to act as a single entity, why can't labor?
You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Bringing up management with regards to this topic is a massive non sequitur.

The important thing you must understand is that the business should have multiple choices of supplier for a particular resource, and the supplier should have multiple choices of customer for that resource. The existence of companies does not disrupt this arrangement, because each company only represents a portion of the market share. If you're selling labour and you don't like Company A's terms, there's nothing stopping you from going to Company B. And in return, in the absence of unions, there's nothing stopping Company A from hiring someone else who has similar skills if they don't like your terms. Forming an anti-competive agreement with other suppliers of labour is just as disruptive to this balance as if the businesses that buy that labour did the same thing.

I have a say in how the government is run.
No, you don't. Not unless you happen to have at least a couple of thousand friends that feel the same way you do. And even then, you're still only at the level of asking them nicely to desist, instead of being able to cut your ties unilaterally.

[gonzomax]

The real money of course is being gobbled up by the Bankers. Goldman just gave themselves another 5 billion in bonuses. That is tax money. But at least they aren't unions. Then you would be pissed off. But who are you to question your betters. Just jump all over a guy working for a paycheck. Your position is equal or above them so you have a right to criticize. But don't crab at those who have perfected the eating of tax money.

[Chronos]

And in return, in the absence of unions, there's nothing stopping Company A from hiring someone else who has similar skills if they don't like your terms.And likewise, in the presence of unions, there's still nothing stopping Company A from doing that.

[canadiankorean]

The real money of course is being gobbled up by the Bankers. Goldman just gave themselves another 5 billion in bonuses. That is tax money. But at least they aren't unions. Then you would be pissed off. But who are you to question your betters. Just jump all over a guy working for a paycheck. Your position is equal or above them so you have a right to criticize. But don't crab at those who have perfected the eating of tax money.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/01/22/snoozing-ttc.html

Love how I'm jumping over the 'working' guy.
The union blamed the public for taking this picture.....
Instead of apologizing and fixing laziness in the work, they blamed the public for taking pics.

[canadiankorean]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/01/22/snoozing-ttc.html

Love how I'm jumping over the 'working' guy.
The union blamed the public for taking this picture.....
Instead of apologizing and fixing laziness in the work, they blamed the public for taking pics.

Oh here's another one... lovely union workers.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/01/22/second-photo-emerges-of-another-ttc-napper.aspx

[Little Nemo]

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Bringing up management with regards to this topic is a massive non sequitur.You think management policies have nothing to due with labor negotiations?
No, you don't. Not unless you happen to have at least a couple of thousand friends that feel the same way you do. And even then, you're still only at the level of asking them nicely to desist, instead of being able to cut your ties unilaterally.Yes, I do. It may be only one voice among many thousands. But it exists.

Unlike my control over the management of General Motors which is zero.

Which, coincidentally, appears to be the influence the facts have on your opinions.

[canadiankorean]

Of those of you who defend the union, how many rely on it for income?
Either through parents working in one, spouse or children working in a union.

[Ravenman]

Not me. I'm don't have any family members or personal friends who are in a union... except maybe one high school friend who is an airline pilot.

When I was younger, I worked alongside unions in several jobs I had. I was not in a unionized position. I don't consider that union's performance to be ideal. There were continual squabbles about who is supposed to do what work, some workers were just deadbeats, and so on.

So why am I not anti-union? Because the criticisms of the union I worked with could equally apply to management.

Why are you asking about whether I rely on a union for income? What's your point?

[casdave]

It is not a case of defending unions, it is a case of saying that what is good for managers in terms of pay deals, is plenty good enough for workers.

Whatever argument you use to justify the salaries of managers, you can make a counter argument that workers should also have similar means of expression and negotiation.

There are no bad workers, only bad managers.

If the workers are not doing their job, then why are managers letting them get away with it?

Managers have responsibilities, and if they can't or won't make use of them, whose fault is it?

The only thing that is really under discussion is the balance of power in the labour market, and nothing else, sometimes it goes too far one way, and in turn it goes too far the other, but the reality is that the power tends to be in the hands of managers and it is unusual to see it go the other way.

There are no bad workers, only bad managers.

[robby]

No, they do not. But this thread is not about white-collar workers, who are not unionized. I have several freinds, and a girlfriend who work white-collar government jobs. They do make less than private-sector equivalents; they also have more security and less stress. I know multiple lawyers and MBAs who work 40 hours a week; those are quite rare everywhere except government.

With unemployment at 10%, nobody has a hard time finding workers. But as I'm currently unemployed and I live in greater D.C., I've had lots of people advise me to get a government job.My wife works for the federal government as a white-collar worker. Her pay is good, but while there used to be a lot of security and little stress, that is no longer the case.

She is under tremendous pressure to meet various metrics. The job is extremely stressful. Exployees who don't meet performance expectations are unceremoniously walked out of the door.

I think it is because many applicants have this expectation that working for the federal government will be a cake walk. Some new employees recalibrate, but many do not. Her director has no problem firing people who don't adapt quickly enough.

Oh, and she does belong to a union, but it is not very powerful. The union will not lift a finger for an employee fired for job performance issues.

[IdahoMauleMan]

Have you ever asked for a raise? If so, why didn't you just quit and find another higher paying job?

In other words, why is it that anti-union types think that the answer to every employee complaint is that the employee should quit?

I'm not an anti-union type.

People are free to associate and form a union if they choose to do so.

Companies are free to fire them, and hire someone else if they are free to do so.

If the formation of a union makes a company non competitive, then they will fail. Unless the government bails them out, as they did with GM. Or unless the 'company' is not subject to any competition, such as the government itself.

The problem is when the government and the union are on the same side of the bargaining table, as they are today. And they are bargaining with *our* money, taken from us against our will.

One of the most bizarre sights of the past few years was John Corzine (then gov of New Jersey) pumping up the government-employee union crowd with cries of "I'm going to fight for you, and a fair contract!" before his recent (unsucessful) re-election bid against Christie.

Hey! Dude! Corzine! You are supposed to be on *my* side! You are supposed to be negotiating *against* the unions, on my behalf. I'm the taxpayer. I'm the customer. It's my money. Who is on my side, here?

[robby]

Also, I work for local government agency, and actually belong to a union as well, which is unusual for an engineer. Being a union member is mandatory for the position.

I will say that there is one big benefit to belonging to a union, and that is protection of retirement benefits. When I worked for a private engineering consultant, I worked on an at-will basis and could be fired at any time. However, I had a 401(k), which I could take with me. I also knew I could quickly get a job with a competing firm. One frustrating thing with working in the private sector was that they did not readily give promotions and raises to in-house employees, so over time one's salary tended to fall below the market value. The only way to get a significant raise was to jump ship and go to another firm.

With my current government job, I have a defined-benefit pension, and raises are the same for everyone. However, without a union, nothing could stop my employer from firing me before I vest in the pension plan. If I leave my job before I vest, I simply get my contributions back. This is money that I could have invested in an IRA or 401(k). So as long as there is a defined-benefit pension plan, I want the union there to protect my benefits, which are not transportable.

If my agency dumped the pension plan and went toward a 401(k) plan, they'd have a lot more trouble attracting and retaining qualified personnel, because the job is very stressful and bureaucratic. On the other hand, the union tends to protect under-performing employees, which is maddening for the rest of us, who have to pick up the slack.

[furt]

Great example. The cost of living in San Francisco is about 1/3 higher than the average American cost of living. Cite. (http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/bestcities_sort/index.php?sortby=cost&sortorder=DESC)

Do you expect bus drivers in SF to make the national average, so in effect be 1/3 poorer than the average American bus driver?I pointed out that $40,000 is about the national average for ALL WORKERS; that includes brain surgeons with 20 years experience. (looking it up, it's actually $42,270 (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000))

Call me crazy, but I don't think "entry-level bus driver" should be a high-paying job. And in the private sector, it isn't. I have no problem with them making a decent living (drivers at Greyhound start at about $35K, though I'd bet most of them have some experience); but when a bus driver is pulling down over $100K a year of taxpayer money, something is seriously awry, no matter where they live.


Anecdotally, I had dinner last night with two government employees. Topics of conversation included 1) my girlfreind's unfirable coworker who spends 6 hours a day playing solitaire, 2) our friend's bump in salary (she is a proofreader) which will enable her to make almost $60,000 a year one year out of college, 3) how I need to work on making my resume more government-jargon-oriented in order to get government jobs, because 4) the people who process resumes for federal agencies are brain-dead unfirable idiots.

[canadiankorean]

I'm not an anti-union type.

People are free to associate and form a union if they choose to do so.

Companies are free to fire them, and hire someone else if they are free to do so.

If the formation of a union makes a company non competitive, then they will fail. Unless the government bails them out, as they did with GM. Or unless the 'company' is not subject to any competition, such as the government itself.

The problem is when the government and the union are on the same side of the bargaining table, as they are today. And they are bargaining with *our* money, taken from us against our will.

One of the most bizarre sights of the past few years was John Corzine (then gov of New Jersey) pumping up the government-employee union crowd with cries of "I'm going to fight for you, and a fair contract!" before his recent (unsucessful) re-election bid against Christie.

Hey! Dude! Corzine! You are supposed to be on *my* side! You are supposed to be negotiating *against* the unions, on my behalf. I'm the taxpayer. I'm the customer. It's my money. Who is on my side, here?

In Toronto, the union holds a lot of voting power. They can literally change who gets elected. That's how our current mayor got in. So he defends unions and gives in to their demands after a small act of defiance to look like he is on the public taxpayer side.

Management can't fire bad workers because of the union. The union protects them. That's one of the issues.

I wouldn't have a problem with unions if they managed things well. Fire lazy workers, don't keep people around if the job doesn't require it, and don't hold the public hostage so you can give the workers 3-4% raises every year (private sector is getting 1-1.5%)... I just want the union/government to not waste my tax money with an inefficient workforce.
If you get a union lawyer that works 80 hours and gets things done very quickly, sure pay him/her 20% more than private sector.
But do not keep 3 lawyers hanging around doing the job of 1 and pay them 20% above private sector. that's wasting my money. Fire 2 of them.

And as always, do not pay a low skill job like cashier or ticket collecting 60k+...

On another note, how could a group of people start a union?
A very good article in the Toronto Star on daycare workers.
Daycare workers have to get a diploma, get no summer vacation like teachers, etc. Yet they make half of what a union ttc ticket collector makes. These are workers entrusted to educating our infants in the very formative years.

[furt]

You are wrong about this. At my federal agency, the attorneys are part of the bargaining unit unless they are classified as confidential. Many federal agencies have bargaining unit eligible OGC units that are either part of AFGE or NFFE (two of the biggest federal unions). I'm an OGC (Office of General Counsel) attorney as well as a volunteer union steward for one of the big two. I have to go to training for my labour position and meet plenty of unionized white collar federal workers from a variety of different agencies.I stand corrected. The government lawyers I know are non-union, and I assumed. Thanks for the correction.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The problem arises because public sector jobs are insulated from any kind of competition. In an ideal system, unions will protect a worker, but must balance the act of striking and demanding of better pay/benefits with the goal of staying competitive in their sector. No such balance exists with public sector jobs. No matter how inefficient most public systems are, they will continue, as most don't have to stay competitive. They control a monopoly, or a near monopoly, on their product or service. They will continue to push for better compensation (as any sane worker would), but there is little pressure to become more efficient or cut costs. That's a very bad combination for the consumer.

Which would make a lot of sense if federal employees were allowed to go on strike.

Can we remove them, or is it a good idea? I think it would be good for the taxpayer. When you consider salary and benefits and job security, most public sector jobs in the US offer considerably better compensation then the private sector (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf) (Warning pdf), and have done so at an ever increasing rate, well beyond that of the private sector. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/)

This does not reflect the fact that the government has been outsourcing more and more of the unskilled and low skilled labor to the private sector. Perhaps it might make sense if the CATO institute compared salaries for similar job descriptions. A government employed doctor typically makes less than a private sector doctor, an SEC lawyer makes less than a private sector securities lawyer, an FDIC bank regulator makes less than bank controllers, etc. There are probably areas where you can make more in the government than you would in the private sector, but I can't think of what those areas might be.

Many are surely performing work that could not be effectively done in the private sector, and certainly many of those public sector employees earn the pay they get. Looking at the figures though, I'm inclined to say that public sector employees are over compensated in general, and I'm sure that the unions don't help the situation.

As far as I can tell, Unions can't do very much when it comes to federal pay (other than lobby congress), its part of the annual budget process.

The one thing that makes federal employees different tahn private sector employees is that theya re very hard to fire. This is intentional to prevent the entire bureaucracy from turning over every administration and to prevent the over-politicization of the bureaucracy. The unfortunate side effect is that it becomes very difficult to get rid of dead wood.

[Damuri Ajashi]

In some states public employees can strike. In Missouri, they specifically are forbidden by law to strike. Public employees can, by law, bargain collectively, but they can not strike, nor are public agencies (governments, school districts, etc.) required to submit to binding arbitration.

State employees can strike in all sorts of places, federal employees cannot strike anywhere.

[Damuri Ajashi]

How is it even possible to forbid workers to strike? What do you do if they all just happen to call in sick with the blue flu all on the same day? You can't arrest someone for calling in sick, can you?

Its a federal crime to strike. I don't know how they define it but I think the last timea nyone tried was the air traffic controllers strike during the Reagan years. IOW, the federal employee unions are not extorting concessions with threat of strike, which might explaint their relatively poor pay compared to their private sector counterparts.

[Damuri Ajashi]

You can demand a doctor's certification, and if they can't produce it, you can call it an unauthorized absence/abuse of sick leave and fire them.

Federal employees do not need to provide a doctor's note unless they take more than three sick days

[Damuri Ajashi]

I'm complaining that my tax dollar is being misused.

And wouldn't capitalism tell you to move somewhere else? Free choice and all that. In the US, we are being told that tighter regulations on bankers will make them all move to London or Nevis.

[Damuri Ajashi]

But this thread is not about white-collar workers, who are not unionized.

Yes they are.

I have several freinds, and a girlfriend who work white-collar government jobs. They do make less than private-sector equivalents; they also have more security and less stress. I know multiple lawyers and MBAs who work 40 hours a week; those are quite rare everywhere except government.

But they make less? right? even on an hourly basis, they make less right?

With unemployment at 10%, nobody has a hard time finding workers. But as I'm currently unemployed and I live in greater D.C., I've had lots of people advise me to get a government job.

I have worked for some fo the most elite law firms in the world and it was easier to get those jobs tahn it was to get a job in government. Not because standards are so high but because the procedure for hiring a federal employee is so complicated.

[anu-la1979]

Its a federal crime to strike. I don't know how they define it but I think the last timea nyone tried was the air traffic controllers strike during the Reagan years. IOW, the federal employee unions are not extorting concessions with threat of strike, which might explaint their relatively poor pay compared to their private sector counterparts.

The CSRA (Civil Service Reform Act) eliminated the right to strike.

[anu-la1979]

I stand corrected. The government lawyers I know are non-union, and I assumed. Thanks for the correction.

Unless they are classified as confidential, supervisory or in a very special agency, your non-union attorney friends are likely to be part of the bargaining unit and the union to which they do not pay dues still owes them a duty of representation under certain circumstances. Moreover, their union negotiates their contract and the rights contained therein. Basically, they're enjoying a bunch of rights their union team works for (on a volunteer basis).

[Damuri Ajashi]

Of those of you who defend the union, how many rely on it for income?
Either through parents working in one, spouse or children working in a union.

I'm in a union but I don't have to be. I could freeride and get the same benefits as union employees without paying the union dues. I am largely responding to folks who trot out the recently popular but erroneous notion that federal employees are overpaid.

[Sam Stone]

There are multiple levels of unionization:

1. Employees can form a union, but the employer can choose to hire non-union employees as well as union employees.

2. Once unionized, all employees must belong to the union. But the employer is free to fire the entire union if he wants, and find a new, non-union workforce.

3. Once unionized, the employer is forced to bargain with the union, and does not have the option to fire them. In the case of a unresolved dispute, a government mediator will rule.

4. A public sector union, mandated by law, and paid for with taxpayer money.

Let's look at how the four types function:

1. In this case, the power of the union is the power to have a chunk of the workforce walk off the job. The employer can fire them, but he will lose the cost of training, and suffer expensive downtime while trying to replace them. I fully support this level of unionization, and I think it represents the best mix of negotiating power between labor and management.

The union is basically negotiating based on the value the members collectively bring to the company. They have significant leverage, but if their demands exceed the accumulated value of their skills and training and the cost of replacing the workforce, management won't agree. But management is also constrained from gouging the employees and paying them well below their market value - they run the risk of killing the company if they do that.

A lot of trade unions in my province are set up this way. They work well, because their bargaining power stems from the values their employees provide. Thus, the union has a vested interest in making sure people do the work properly, get additional training, and in general offer more to the company than non-union alternatives. Employers actually like these unions, because they DO bring additional value and they simplify HR by providing common standards for pay and benefits (and manage those benefits for the company).

And they can still go on strike, and do. And they tend to bring in more money and benefits for their employers. My brother makes significantly more in his union job than non-union workers in the same company.


2. In this case, the union can essentially shut the company down completely unless their demands are met. But the employer still has the option of restarting with a non-union workforce. Of course, if the employees went on strike because they are being grossly mistreated or being paid under their market value, then the employer won't be able to hire replacements for the same money anyway. I tentatively support this level of unionization, although it's important to allow the employer to refuse the union as a whole.

3. Now we're in the region where the union's power over management is out of whack. If the employer can't fire the union, he's essentially a hostage. He's now reliant on a government official to determine his cost of employment - an official who doesn't know his business. This is destructive. It gives government too much control over labor negotiations. It puts people ignorant of business in charge of setting prices. I do not support this at all.

4. Public sector unions are a horrible idea, unless they are constrained by some form of market rule. You have a very strong imbalance of power here - not only are the employees paid with other people's money, which limits the desire of their employers to resist their demands, but they are also voters. If they get big enough (as in California), they can wind up in a position where they can essentially vote for their own benefits. Couple that with union political muscle in terms of getting public support by staging rallies and demonstrations and their use of big money to buy politicians, and you have... California. A state that is rapidly going bankrupt primarily because there are so many people in the public sector making so much money. And every time the government tries to reign in operations costs even a little bit, the big unions mobilize and destroy the effort. The foxes are running the henhouse.

A good reform for public sector unions would be to pass a law limiting their pay and benefits so that they cannot be paid a nickel more than the average wage for private sector employees in similar occupations in the same region. There's absolutely no reason why a government worker should make more money than the private sector person with the same job whose taxes are going to pay the public sector salaries. In fact, since government jobs are more secure than private sector jobs, I'd argue that they should make slightly less money than the private sector. Risk has a price, and a job that carries less risk of losing employment should pay less than an equivalent job that has higher risk.

[canadiankorean]

There are multiple levels of unionization:

1. Employees can form a union, but the employer can choose to hire non-union employees as well as union employees.

2. Once unionized, all employees must belong to the union. But the employer is free to fire the entire union if he wants, and find a new, non-union workforce.

3. Once unionized, the employer is forced to bargain with the union, and does not have the option to fire them. In the case of a unresolved dispute, a government mediator will rule.

4. A public sector union, mandated by law, and paid for with taxpayer money.

Let's look at how the four types function:

1. In this case, the power of the union is the power to have a chunk of the workforce walk off the job. The employer can fire them, but he will lose the cost of training, and suffer expensive downtime while trying to replace them. I fully support this level of unionization, and I think it represents the best mix of negotiating power between labor and management.

The union is basically negotiating based on the value the members collectively bring to the company. They have significant leverage, but if their demands exceed the accumulated value of their skills and training and the cost of replacing the workforce, management won't agree. But management is also constrained from gouging the employees and paying them well below their market value - they run the risk of killing the company if they do that.

A lot of trade unions in my province are set up this way. They work well, because their bargaining power stems from the values their employees provide. Thus, the union has a vested interest in making sure people do the work properly, get additional training, and in general offer more to the company than non-union alternatives. Employers actually like these unions, because they DO bring additional value and they simplify HR by providing common standards for pay and benefits (and manage those benefits for the company).

And they can still go on strike, and do. And they tend to bring in more money and benefits for their employers. My brother makes significantly more in his union job than non-union workers in the same company.


2. In this case, the union can essentially shut the company down completely unless their demands are met. But the employer still has the option of restarting with a non-union workforce. Of course, if the employees went on strike because they are being grossly mistreated or being paid under their market value, then the employer won't be able to hire replacements for the same money anyway. I tentatively support this level of unionization, although it's important to allow the employer to refuse the union as a whole.

3. Now we're in the region where the union's power over management is out of whack. If the employer can't fire the union, he's essentially a hostage. He's now reliant on a government official to determine his cost of employment - an official who doesn't know his business. This is destructive. It gives government too much control over labor negotiations. It puts people ignorant of business in charge of setting prices. I do not support this at all.

4. Public sector unions are a horrible idea, unless they are constrained by some form of market rule. You have a very strong imbalance of power here - not only are the employees paid with other people's money, which limits the desire of their employers to resist their demands, but they are also voters. If they get big enough (as in California), they can wind up in a position where they can essentially vote for their own benefits. Couple that with union political muscle in terms of getting public support by staging rallies and demonstrations and their use of big money to buy politicians, and you have... California. A state that is rapidly going bankrupt primarily because there are so many people in the public sector making so much money. And every time the government tries to reign in operations costs even a little bit, the big unions mobilize and destroy the effort. The foxes are running the henhouse.

A good reform for public sector unions would be to pass a law limiting their pay and benefits so that they cannot be paid a nickel more than the average wage for private sector employees in similar occupations in the same region. There's absolutely no reason why a government worker should make more money than the private sector person with the same job whose taxes are going to pay the public sector salaries. In fact, since government jobs are more secure than private sector jobs, I'd argue that they should make slightly less money than the private sector. Risk has a price, and a job that carries less risk of losing employment should pay less than an equivalent job that has higher risk.

+1

Very well put.
WHy can't people see that?
Why are there people defending government/public sector unions who are paid with other people's money. Worse also is that the government is handling our money. It's like it's free and endless. If they are short on money, more taxes or cut services. Usually it's both. But where does all that money go? To the unioned workers who should be paid market value.
Why am I paying $60k to a bus driver when the market value of the bus driver is 30k? Why doesn't the government step in and say, "Listen. this is the people's money and we need to make sure we spend it right."


All those union supporters. Answer this.

Would you agree with your government if they contracted out garbage collecting to their friend's business for 100million even if there were 5 companies offering to do it for $50million? If they did that, what would the public reaction be?
Even if it's not a friend's business. The public would be angered if they found out that the government contracted out to a business for $100 mil when the average contract for that job is $50mil.
Would you say, that's fair. The company deserves it.
What about your tax dollar? Don't you want it spent properly?

Or bring it down to a personal level.
Let's say your wife wants to buy some shoes.
They have the exact same model at two stores. One sells it for $600, the other for $300.
If your wife bought the $600, you'd be pissed no?
That's money that could have been used for something else...

[A.Selene]

Which would make a lot of sense if federal employees were allowed to go on strike.

Your criticism would make a lot of sense if the only public employees were federal employees.

This does not reflect the fact that the government has been outsourcing more and more of the unskilled and low skilled labor to the private sector. Perhaps it might make sense if the CATO institute compared salaries for similar job descriptions. A government employed doctor typically makes less than a private sector doctor, an SEC lawyer makes less than a private sector securities lawyer, an FDIC bank regulator makes less than bank controllers, etc. There are probably areas where you can make more in the government than you would in the private sector, but I can't think of what those areas might be.

Do you have cites for any of these? I believe that you're right on these, I'd just be interested in following up and learning more.

As far as I can tell, Unions can't do very much when it comes to federal pay (other than lobby congress), its part of the annual budget process.

The one thing that makes federal employees different tahn private sector employees is that theya re very hard to fire. This is intentional to prevent the entire bureaucracy from turning over every administration and to prevent the over-politicization of the bureaucracy. The unfortunate side effect is that it becomes very difficult to get rid of dead wood.

You're very right about this. Good point I neglected to mention.

[anu-la1979]

Your criticism would make a lot of sense if the only public employees were federal employees.



Do you have cites for any of these? I believe that you're right on these, I'd just be interested in following up and learning more.



You're very right about this. Good point I neglected to mention.

The payscales for federal employees, even with similar positions, vary across the agencies. For example, someone with my exact grade and position (GS-14) at the SEC is likely to be paid more. However, I work with private sector counsel because I secure private lender transactions (another thing most people don't know about the government!) and the lawyers I work with from Nixon Peabody, Skadden, Goldman Sachs and Sonnenschein make a shitload more than I do, I assure you of that.

Most attorneys hired out of law school start at GS-11 if they come in through the Honors Attorney Fellowwhatthehelltheycallitnow new attorney recruitment program.

[Voyager]

Can we remove them, or is it a good idea? I think it would be good for the taxpayer. When you consider salary and benefits and job security, most public sector jobs in the US offer considerably better compensation then the private sector (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf) (Warning pdf), and have done so at an ever increasing rate, well beyond that of the private sector. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/)

Many are surely performing work that could not be effectively done in the private sector, and certainly many of those public sector employees earn the pay they get. Looking at the figures though, I'm inclined to say that public sector employees are over compensated in general, and I'm sure that the unions don't help the situation.
Your cite has a big problem - it does not compare comparable jobs. Update 1 admits it. USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm) shows that today federal workers do make more, but only $67K to $60K, not the massive difference shown in your source.

Still horrible? Perhaps, but during the Bush years private wages stagnated, which is a direct cause of the excessive borrowing we saw which helped cause the meltdown. Perhaps if the increase in profits and productivity was distributed better we would have had spending of money we earned instead of borrowed, and would have needed neither bailouts not stimulus.
We need to build demand, sustainable demand, and cutting government wages to match the screwing the private sector got isn't the way to do it.

[A.Selene]

Your cite has a big problem - it does not compare comparable jobs. Update 1 admits it. USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm) shows that today federal workers do make more, but only $67K to $60K, not the massive difference shown in your source.

Still horrible? Perhaps, but during the Bush years private wages stagnated, which is a direct cause of the excessive borrowing we saw which helped cause the meltdown. Perhaps if the increase in profits and productivity was distributed better we would have had spending of money we earned instead of borrowed, and would have needed neither bailouts not stimulus.
We need to build demand, sustainable demand, and cutting government wages to match the screwing the private sector got isn't the way to do it.

Thank you for the correction. I should have more closely read my first cite. While it seems clear that the wage disparity is not near as drastic as I first thought, one point does remain:These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Other benefits for federal employees average over 30k more than private sector workers. That's a considerable amount compensation you forgot to mention.

[Voyager]

Of those of you who defend the union, how many rely on it for income?
Either through parents working in one, spouse or children working in a union.

I don't and never have. My wife isn't in a union either. when my daughter was 10 she was a member of SAG (Screen Actors Guild) and I assure you the union brought lots of advantages, like getting paid in a reasonable time.

I don't need a union where I work because talent is such a distinguishing factor that any company badly screwing employees would lose them in the first upturn. However, look how many video game developers are getting screwed, sucked in for the glamor and then worked up to burnout. For an average person without bargaining power, a union, joining with others, equalizes negotiating position with the management.

BTW, anyone claiming that government employment is safe should look at California. Teachers are being laid off left and right, and salaries are being cut through shutting down government offices a few days a month.

[Voyager]

Thank you for the correction. I should have more closely read my first cite. While it seems clear that the wage disparity is not near as drastic as I first thought, one point does remain:

Other benefits for federal employees average over 30k more than private sector workers. That's a considerable amount compensation you forgot to mention.

True, but that is not matched with job description either. I suspect the cook is doing much better working for the government than for private industry, the chemist not so much so. And as we have learned, things like health insurance have been cut more and more in the private sector, which increases the average gap - and that is not a good thing.
I'll accept that those who think that workers should be paid the bare minimum will be upset by federal pay scales - but they need to explain who is going to buy the products the workers make. Wall Street Bankers can only buy so much. And I'm not saying the money for these wages should come out of nowhere - they should come out of the productivity improvements that companies see, which used to happen but happens no more. I'd actually like to see something similar for government employees also - you can't measure profit or production, but you can measure productivity.

[MissTake]

Of those of you who defend the union, how many rely on it for income?
Either through parents working in one, spouse or children working in a union.
I do, and my mother did (until she retired) in the public sector. I'm a county worker, paid through a combination of county, state, and federal funds. Mom worked for a large metropolitan city and for that city's school district paid through city funds. Both she and I are/were white collar.

In opposition to what has been posted above about public sector employees continuously receiving raises, my salary had decreased over the past four years. 0% wage increase, between 2-4% increase in cost of insurance per year (with coverage decreasing every year, leading to more out of pocket fees paid. Also remember, for most union jobs there is a distinct ceiling. Raises are not given for performance, just for hours worked. Once you hit that ceiling (7 years in my position), there is no opportunity for wage increases unless the union manages to squeak one out of the governing board. Last year and this year we're required to take furloughs equal to a day every two weeks for the rest of the year. Positions are not being filled, leading to more cases per worker, which leads to less time to thoroughly work a case. Management (non-union, FWIW) shrugs.

I will wholeheartedly agree that there are workers that, if not unionized, would and should have been seen the door. Management, over the past six months, has found loopholes in out contract and have begun firing people.

[foolsguinea]

Can we remove them, or is it a good idea? I think it would be good for the taxpayer. When you consider salary and benefits and job security, most public sector jobs in the US offer considerably better compensation then the private sector (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf) (Warning pdf), and have done so at an ever increasing rate, well beyond that of the private sector. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/)

Many are surely performing work that could not be effectively done in the private sector, and certainly many of those public sector employees earn the pay they get. Looking at the figures though, I'm inclined to say that public sector employees are over compensated in general, and I'm sure that the unions don't help the situation.I would suggest that the real reason for the difference is the massive rise in non-unionized private labor over the last generation. Private sector wages can't keep up in a right-to-work environment. It's not that public sector is too well-paid & too unionized, but that the private sector (which includes food servers, farm workers, & the like) is not well-paid enough.

I'm suspicious of public-sector unions, but then I remember that Solidarnosc was a union in a nationalized industry.

[IdahoMauleMan]

How do you describe a corporation board? Don't they get together and act as a single entity in representing the corporation? If management is allowed to act as a single entity, why can't labor?I have a say in how the government is run. I don't have any say in how General Motors is run. It seems you have things backwards.

Good Heavens.

You don't need to have a say in how GM is run. It's a private enterprise. It's backed by private investors, who have chosen to put their own money into it by weighing the risks and rewards of doing so. Do you want GM managers to have a say over how you live your life?

Whoops. Strike that. GM *was* a private enterprise.

You have all the power. You and GM can only come together and engage in a transaction if you agree to do so. That's why it's called a voluntary transaction. Nothing can happen between you and GM without your consent.

The government, on other hand, is going to come and take my money and give it to GM whether I want it to or not. I have no choice in that matter. It is backed up by the legal means of force.

So no, Mr Little Nemo, we do not have it backwards. You have it backwards.

Because you foolishly believe that voting for 1 out of 435 Representatives every 2 years, 2 out of 100 Senators every 6 years and 1 President every 4 years gives you a 'say' over public-sector unions. It doesn't. Or rather, it barely does....measured in infinitesimal increments that are overwhelmed by the power the governmental unions yield from the other side.

But you have 100% power over your dealings with private enterprise, 100% of the time. Or at least, you can have 100% power if you want it.

But clearly, you don't want it. You would prefer to paint yourself as a helpless victim and someone who needs to rush into the arms of Saint Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and others to save you from yourself.

[gonzomax]

Oh yeah. What we need is to have more of a downward force of wages. We must have our public sector workers compete with illegal aliens, then we will show them. Our wages are frozen or dropping. Unless you run a bank where you can feed at taxpayers money until you are full. (they never fill up).
Don't try to hold other people wages down. If they make decent money, the private sector has to meet it. Every bodies wages go up. But if you force public wages to drop, companies can pay what they want. Where are you going to go? Where are you going to go? You should be damn happy if public workers make a good wage and get good benefits. Then you will. Unions set a bar. They fought for paid vacations and benefits that spilled over to you. They fight for safer better working conditions. I am sure you think corporations are generous and magnanimous and love to pay for vacations and health care. When the unions go, so will the benefits.

[Sam Stone]

The Unions do NOT set a bar. What they do is raise the price of goods and services in the industries over which they have sway. Californians are each carrying thousands of dollars in debt because of the money borrowed to pay the salaries of the public unions, and they're on the hook for even more money because almost every public union in the country is running a deficit in its entitlement funds. When you buy a GM vehicle, about $3,000 - $5,000 of YOUR money goes straight into the union's health care benefit fund. Every time someone who makes less than $78/hr in wages and benefits buys a new GM car, a wealth transfer is taking place - from the poor to the well off. How can you possibly support that?

This is why I keep saying that progressives are backing the wrong horse when they support big unions, and especially big public unions. Take Wal-Mart, and the left's never-ending attempt to push unions on that company. Do you know who would pay for that? Not 'the rich' - the rich don't shop at Wal-Mart. Not the Walton family, or any of the executive - they don't have enough money to cover the pay and benefit increases the left wants for Wal-Mart employees. No, the cost of higher labor would be transferred directly to the consumers at Wal-Mart, who are generally in the same income strata as Wal-Mart employees themselves. All you'd be doing is destroying jobs and shifting wealth between two groups of poor people - and in the process reducing the aggregate wealth of the poor community because Wal-Mart would lose market share and start laying people off.

But you can't see past your simplistic, "Management evil - workers good!" philosophy to really see the effect this has. But when public union workers are in the top income quintile, and they're demanding more money from taxpayers who are on average making significantly less, you've got a problem. If you're a left-wing type who cares about the poor, YOU have a problem if you're supporting these unions. You're betraying the people who need your help, in order to support a special interest that's on your side primarily because it throws huge sums of money at Democrat politicians.

[gonzomax]

The Unions do NOT set a bar. What they do is raise the price of goods and services in the industries over which they have sway. Californians are each carrying thousands of dollars in debt because of the money borrowed to pay the salaries of the public unions, and they're on the hook for even more money because almost every public union in the country is running a deficit in its entitlement funds. When you buy a GM vehicle, about $3,000 - $5,000 of YOUR money goes straight into the union's health care benefit fund. Every time someone who makes less than $78/hr in wages and benefits buys a new GM car, a wealth transfer is taking place - from the poor to the well off. How can you possibly support that?

This is why I keep saying that progressives are backing the wrong horse when they support big unions, and especially big public unions. Take Wal-Mart, and the left's never-ending attempt to push unions on that company. Do you know who would pay for that? Not 'the rich' - the rich don't shop at Wal-Mart. Not the Walton family, or any of the executive - they don't have enough money to cover the pay and benefit increases the left wants for Wal-Mart employees. No, the cost of higher labor would be transferred directly to the consumers at Wal-Mart, who are generally in the same income strata as Wal-Mart employees themselves. All you'd be doing is destroying jobs and shifting wealth between two groups of poor people - and in the process reducing the aggregate wealth of the poor community because Wal-Mart would lose market share and start laying people off.

But you can't see past your simplistic, "Management evil - workers good!" philosophy to really see the effect this has. But when public union workers are in the top income quintile, and they're demanding more money from taxpayers who are on average making significantly less, you've got a problem. If you're a left-wing type who cares about the poor, YOU have a problem if you're supporting these unions. You're betraying the people who need your help, in order to support a special interest that's on your side primarily because it throws huge sums of money at Democrat politicians.

What kind of weird fantasy world do you inhabit? Unions are under7 percent of the work force now. Yet you shudder and run in fear when they are mentioned. Do you actually believe they are a huge factor? Do you not see it will not be long before they are all gone. I believe it was you who said the Supreme Court decision was correct because it counterbalanced the corporate money with union . What an imbalance. It is the same imbalance that newspapers and TV show. The battle is over. Corporations won.
The last elections showed the Democrats can raise money in small doses from the internet. That is how they were funded. Unions did not run the Democratic platform or finance the campaign. You have to get over your anti union prejudice.

[IdahoMauleMan]

What kind of weird fantasy world do you inhabit? Unions are under7 percent of the work force now. Yet you shudder and run in fear when they are mentioned. Do you actually believe they are a huge factor? Do you not see it will not be long before they are all gone. I believe it was you who said the Supreme Court decision was correct because it counterbalanced the corporate money with union . What an imbalance. It is the same imbalance that newspapers and TV show. The battle is over. Corporations won.
The last elections showed the Democrats can raise money in small doses from the internet. That is how they were funded. Unions did not run the Democratic platform or finance the campaign. You have to get over your anti union prejudice.

It's really unfortunate when facts get in the way of your arguments, Mr Gonzomax. Just like when you thought the Bush administration supposedly facilitated "the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich" via the income tax, when in fact the exact opposite occurred.

Clearly, you must have missed this link.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Check out numbers 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 on the top 15. And notice the numbers of little blue donkeys to the right of each.

[Sam Stone]

Check out numbers 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 on the top 15. And notice the numbers of little blue donkeys to the right of each.

No one wants to talk about that link, because it disrupts the narrative. You know, that the Republicans are the party of big oil and big corporations. Exxon and Halliburton run the Republican party, while the Democrats get their funding from the people, and do not listen to the special interests.

Democrats claim they are the grassroots party. They do 'get out the vote' drives. They put commercials on TV asking everyone to vote more and take more of an interest in government. ACORN and other groups had as one of their key missions registering as many under-educated poor people as they possible could. Not because they were going to make thoughtful choices, but because they'd simply vote Democrat, and everyone knows it.

But when a real grassroots party rises up and takes an interest, one that wasn't the creation of a Republican get-out-the-vote campaign or driven in any way by Republicans in Washington, suddenly they're just ignorant rubes and must be demonized and opposed intensely.

Because Democrats only want the people to take more interest in politics if they're the kind of people who like to vote for a Democrat.

But they're just digging their own hole. The Democrats' only hope to avoid electoral blowout is to stop demonizing the tea party and others on the right, and start trying to engage them in a substantive discussion on just how much government Americans really want and try to work out some kind of arrangement that can satisfy both sides.

But no, they're wedded to this idea that an election starts a four-year dictatorship under which the government can simply ram through anything it think is good for the people, regardless of whether or not the people asked them to do it. Now the people are becoming increasingly angry, and the Democrats are responding by calling them racists and extremists. Yeah, that'll work.

[gonzomax]

You guys are suckers. We have created corporations without consciences. They are mindless industries with a single mind, to make money. Any concessions for decent treatment and treating workers humanely has taken strikes with union workers getting killed. You must believe corporations were glad to give up the use of child labor. But of course with offshoring they jumped all over it. They have kids all over the world working long hours ,giving up their schooling and childhood. Remember the Kathy Lee controversy? How about Nike? How about Bhopal?
Too long ago? How about the financial meltdown ? The financial sector sold insurance (swaps) on CDOs. They called them swaps to avoid insurance regulations. The payout on the swaps could have been 600 trillion dollars. That is multiple more money than exiists in all the banks in the world. Do you think they could have suspected they were selling instruments they could not pay off? Do you really believe they did not know that? There in nothing benign about corporations. They are soulless and created that way. That is why they require strong and powerful counterbalance. They have to be regulated. They have to be watched carefully by legal organizations. They are thieves. They are designed that way.
It is a constant battle against their greed. Coal power plants are not cleaned up. Why? Because it would cost money to do so. So they buy off the regulators and politicians. The result, a lot of sick people and pollution that does not have to happen.

[Sam Stone]

gonzomax, I have a few serious question for you:

How come there are non-union shops where the workers are treated well?

How come non-union companies pay above minimum wage?

How come non-union jobs often offer full benefit packages, including retirement and health care?

How come the U.S. has one of the highest median wages in the world, with one of the lowest rates of unionization?

I look forward to your specific, detailed responses to these questions.

[gonzomax]

It's really unfortunate when facts get in the way of your arguments, Mr Gonzomax. Just like when you thought the Bush administration supposedly facilitated "the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich" via the income tax, when in fact the exact opposite occurred.

Clearly, you must have missed this link.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Check out numbers 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 on the top 15. And notice the numbers of little blue donkeys to the right of each.

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm Note these tax charts from 2001 to n2010. In that Bushian propelled time the bottom 20 percent got a tax break of 744 bucks total. The top 1 percent got 342, 472 over the same time. Real numbers here.

[gonzomax]

gonzomax, I have a few serious question for you:

How come there are non-union shops where the workers are treated well?

How come non-union companies pay above minimum wage?

How come non-union jobs often offer full benefit packages, including retirement and health care?

How come the U.S. has one of the highest median wages in the world, with one of the lowest rates of unionization?

I look forward to your specific, detailed responses to these questions.

Because sometimes there are enlightened owners. But the vast majority are in an adversarial position with their employees.
Non union? Even restaurants must pay the going rate. If workers are scarce ,wages go up. Workers are not scarce. Wages are dropping .They will continue to drop until we reach equilibrium with the rest of the world. Perot told you . Did you listen.
I explained that before. Non union companies had to match union plans for 2 reasons. One is that they were preventing their companies from organizing. The other of course is workers were needed and they had to compete for employees. That is no longer true. Now there is a surplus of workers ,so wages are dropping and benefits are getting slashed. A few years ago nobody paid copays and kicked in fir health care. Now most people do. Vacation time has been slashed. The trend is very clear.
Our median wage is a relic of union and nearly full employment times. Our wages are dropping. I am sure you know that. Do you have some reason to think they will not continue to drop? Especially since there are no forces pushing wages and benefits up. The next generation will pay for our blind reckless acceptance of the corporate narrative. The generation after that will be even worse. The next generation will not live as well as we did. The trend is clear and unmistakable. But the longer time future is scary.

[IdahoMauleMan]

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm Note these tax charts from 2001 to n2010. In that Bushian propelled time the bottom 20 percent got a tax break of 744 bucks total. The top 1 percent got 342, 472 over the same time. Real numbers here.

Oh my. Oh dear.

I don't mean to hijack the OP, but I must....for just a post or two....please, to explain some basic mathematics. Please forgive me.

Mr Gonzomax, the reason your bottom 20 percent only get a tax break of 744 bucks total is....

Because.

They.

Pay.

Practically.

**Zero**

Taxes.

To Begin With.

Your link only shows differences, or changes, between a baselined prior tax burden and the supposed effects of the Bush tax cuts.

For people who pay almost zero federal taxes already, as is the case with 40+% of the lower income people in the US, a 'tax break' means nothing. Because they aren't paying any taxes to begin with, anyway!

If a wealthy person who pays a lot in taxes gets a tax break, *of course* he will retain more of his money. Of course the absolute $$ amount of his tax burden will be reduced more than a poor persons. It is mathematically impossible for it to be otherwise. If -X% is the reduction in tax rate, -X% of a big number is still a pretty big number. -X% of zero is zero.

That is what your link shows. Big differences in absolute $$ for the highest earners, who pay the most taxes. Small differences for the poor people, who were paying almost nothing to begin with.

Good gracious. I'm embarrassed for you.

Here are some more links of potential interest, that show how little the bottom taxpayers pay, and how many owe nothing at all.

And my links don't claim (like yours does) that the government is 'giving' money back to the taxpayers. Your link got that point a little backwards. The government only takes. And redistributes. It does not 'give'.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/207.html

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

[canadiankorean]

Because sometimes there are enlightened owners. But the vast majority are in an adversarial position with their employees.
Non union? Even restaurants must pay the going rate. If workers are scarce ,wages go up. Workers are not scarce. Wages are dropping .They will continue to drop until we reach equilibrium with the rest of the world. Perot told you . Did you listen.
I explained that before. Non union companies had to match union plans for 2 reasons. One is that they were preventing their companies from organizing. The other of course is workers were needed and they had to compete for employees. That is no longer true. Now there is a surplus of workers ,so wages are dropping and benefits are getting slashed. A few years ago nobody paid copays and kicked in fir health care. Now most people do. Vacation time has been slashed. The trend is very clear.
Our median wage is a relic of union and nearly full employment times. Our wages are dropping. I am sure you know that. Do you have some reason to think they will not continue to drop? Especially since there are no forces pushing wages and benefits up. The next generation will pay for our blind reckless acceptance of the corporate narrative. The generation after that will be even worse. The next generation will not live as well as we did. The trend is clear and unmistakable. But the longer time future is scary.

What causes wages to go up is competition. If there is better pay elsewhere, people will leave. It creates ambition, creates job movement so others can get into a new job.

gonzomax, you are probably part of a union.

The problem is not unions themselves. Unions are good if they protect workers that are abused or mistreated. But public sector unions are not abused. or mistreated. They abuse our money. They overpay staff that shouldn't be paid so much. If unions really set the bar, why are cashiers still paid $10/hr where union cashiers are paid $30/hr?

The problem is that the public sector is not managing the money properly.
Why are they paying a cashier or a ticket booth collector 30-50% more than a private sector job?

How does overpaying unskilled people help?

All I see is this
1. Less money for real stuff like services, upgrades and equipment
2. Government goes into deficit
3. More taxes
4. Unskilled workers that feel they deserve that money and slack on the job
5. Unions protect lazy workers because they pay union dues so more ppl means more money for union bosses

And regarding the government.
I'd love to think there are government elected officials that care about the poor but really they don't or can't.
The banks and wealthy run the USA and Canada.
Unless you overthrow everyone in politics, it will be the same thing, status quo.

[Ravenman]

Mr Gonzomax, the reason your bottom 20 percent only get a tax break of 744 bucks total is....

Because.

They.

Pay.

Practically.

**Zero**

Taxes.

To Begin With.
Folks who use this talking point so often screw it up. Like you just did.

It is factually wrong to state that the poor to lower middle class pay no taxes. The truth is that the bottom 40% or so pay very little in INCOME taxes, but they continue to pay PAYROLL taxes.

Here (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf) is a chart I'm almost tired of citing. It shows how much the average income earner pays in different Federal taxes. As I said, the lower two quintiles generally get some money back in Federal taxes because of EITC. But they pay payroll taxes, and in fact their overall Federal tax burden averages between 4 to 10 percent.

You are free to argue that the poor and lower middle class should pay more taxes. You are free to argue that it is only fair and just that they pay payroll taxes. But you cannot distort the facts and say that they pay nothing in Federal taxes, because they do. It's not as much as the wealthy or upper middle class, but get your facts straight.

[gonzomax]

Oh my. Oh dear.

I don't mean to hijack the OP, but I must....for just a post or two....please, to explain some basic mathematics. Please forgive me.

Mr Gonzomax, the reason your bottom 20 percent only get a tax break of 744 bucks total is....

Because.

They.

Pay.

Practically.

**Zero**

Taxes.

To Begin With.

Your link only shows differences, or changes, between a baselined prior tax burden and the supposed effects of the Bush tax cuts.

For people who pay almost zero federal taxes already, as is the case with 40+% of the lower income people in the US, a 'tax break' means nothing. Because they aren't paying any taxes to begin with, anyway!

If a wealthy person who pays a lot in taxes gets a tax break, *of course* he will retain more of his money. Of course the absolute $$ amount of his tax burden will be reduced more than a poor persons. It is mathematically impossible for it to be otherwise. If -X% is the reduction in tax rate, -X% of a big number is still a pretty big number. -X% of zero is zero.

That is what your link shows. Big differences in absolute $$ for the highest earners, who pay the most taxes. Small differences for the poor people, who were paying almost nothing to begin with.

Good gracious. I'm embarrassed for you.

Here are some more links of potential interest, that show how little the bottom taxpayers pay, and how many owe nothing at all.

And my links don't claim (like yours does) that the government is 'giving' money back to the taxpayers. Your link got that point a little backwards. The government only takes. And redistributes. It does not 'give'.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/207.html

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
There was a lot more to the chart than the bottom 20. The cuts were heavily weighted to go to the rich. No matter how you slice it, the rich were treated well by the Bush tax cuts.
You are simplifying to the point of stupidity.
You of course are buying the narrative that the bottom 20 percent pay no taxes at all. They actually pay a lot of taxes. They pay SS taxes for their entire wages. The rich don't pay after they reach a certain level. Sales taxes ,gasoline taxes ,state and local taxes are a large percentage of their income. These taxes are a whisper to the rich. They don't have to think about them at all .
Do you really feel the rich are being unfairly treated in America? I am sure you would feel better if you gave away all your money. Then you would not feel the oppression .

[gonzomax]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/tax-rates-for-americas-to_n_466480.html Mr. Idaho ,for your edification. The rich have many ways to hide their income. Billions went to Swiss Banks and the Caimans. They pay a max of 15 percent on many of their accounts.
Buffet said it is a war between the rich and the poor. And we (the rich) are winning. He pointed out that his secretary paid a far larger percentage of her money in taxes than he did. He thought it was unfair. You should send him a note to take away his guilt.

[canadiankorean]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/tax-rates-for-americas-to_n_466480.html Mr. Idaho ,for your edification. The rich have many ways to hide their income. Billions went to Swiss Banks and the Caimans. They pay a max of 15 percent on many of their accounts.
Buffet said it is a war between the rich and the poor. And we (the rich) are winning. He pointed out that his secretary paid a far larger percentage of her money in taxes than he did. He thought it was unfair. You should send him a note to take away his guilt.

I think the poor pay little tax.
The real problem is that the middle class is being squeezed.
The middle class is becoming the poor (lower class)

The rich can afford to lower their taxes with 'donations', offshore accounts, etc.
The middle class can't. They have to use all of their money to pay for things.
The higher taxes is something they have to pay and cannot offset.

[furt]

Missed this earlier, and never like to leave a question unanswered.
But they make less? right? even on an hourly basis, they make less right?My girlfriend is a government MBA. She could make 50% more tomorrow in the private sector; however that would likely involve working 60 hour weeks, travelling to consult at companies in Peoria and Sheboygan, having far more accountability and pressure and much less paid time off. (And of course, if she ever does go for the money, having government experience and contacts will help her land a more lucrative private-sector job.) As it is, she still makes a healthy salary, gets comp time if she works over 40 hours in a given week, and is more or less unfirable. (Although the downside is that she must work with people who are also unfirable, and know it) When we get together with her B-school friends for dinner and drinks or whatever, and they almost always express envy.


But again, this thread is not about white-collar management, but about unionized workers (http://www.hulu.com/watch/144719/saturday-night-live-public-employee-of-the-year).

[gonzomax]

What causes wages to go up is competition. If there is better pay elsewhere, people will leave. It creates ambition, creates job movement so others can get into a new job.

gonzomax, you are probably part of a union.

The problem is not unions themselves. Unions are good if they protect workers that are abused or mistreated. But public sector unions are not abused. or mistreated. They abuse our money. They overpay staff that shouldn't be paid so much. If unions really set the bar, why are cashiers still paid $10/hr where union cashiers are paid $30/hr?

The problem is that the public sector is not managing the money properly.
Why are they paying a cashier or a ticket booth collector 30-50% more than a private sector job?

How does overpaying unskilled people help?

All I see is this
1. Less money for real stuff like services, upgrades and equipment
2. Government goes into deficit
3. More taxes
4. Unskilled workers that feel they deserve that money and slack on the job
5. Unions protect lazy workers because they pay union dues so more ppl means more money for union bosses

And regarding the government.
I'd love to think there are government elected officials that care about the poor but really they don't or can't.
The banks and wealthy run the USA and Canada.
Unless you overthrow everyone in politics, it will be the same thing, status quo.

I have never been in a union.
How do you determine they are overpaying unskilled workers? They are setting a bottom that lifts all wages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/science/earth/22ander.html?_r=1 There are good bosses. They reason they get a story written up is because they are so rare.
For every guy like this, there are thousands like the owners of mines who don't care about their employees.
My grandfather came to America in the 1900s. He was a miner. The mine owners were ruthless , like they are now. He worked for a mine that had unions trying to organize . The mine owners hired thugs to beat and kill the organizers. The day my dad was born ,my grandfather was with her . At the same time there was a church holding a union meeting. There were men, women and children there. The thugs barred up the church and burned it down, killing everybody in it. They fled to Detroit.
He worked in an auto factory. Soon they started to organize. He and some of my uncles were at the "battle of the overpass". Ford had hired criminal thugs to stop the unions. They were beaten and some killed. They were ruthless and brutal. You can always hire someone to do dirty work, so you can sit back with clean hands and watch the carnage.
The benefits you people enjoy are a result of blood sweat and lives sacrificed to get them. Work places are safer. Workers have some rights and benefits.
If you think that wages being paid to union workers are a threat to the economy you are nuts. You are digging in the wrong spot. It is the bankers and owners who are looting the economy. They are doing it by taking over the legislative and judicial branches of every state and the nation. They have been very successful. They took the economy down and rewarded themselves billions of tax dollars. You should direct your anger at bosses who take mega-millions of dollars while shipping your jobs abroad. A boss that sends 400 jobs to China or Korea is rewarded with huge bonuses and stock option. He is lauded as a great leader. He is actually harming America and should be thought of as semi-traitorous. Hollowing out American jobs will not be a benefit to us. It will make them very rich.
Don't bitch about a working guy getting a living wage. It may be your lot someday. You will not be the guy getting hundreds of millions. That door has a private entrance .

[canadiankorean]

I have never been in a union.
How do you determine they are overpaying unskilled workers? They are setting a bottom that lifts all wages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/science/earth/22ander.html?_r=1 There are good bosses. They reason they get a story written up is because they are so rare.
For every guy like this, there are thousands like the owners of mines who don't care about their employees.
My grandfather came to America in the 1900s. He was a miner. The mine owners were ruthless , like they are now. He worked for a mine that had unions trying to organize . The mine owners hired thugs to beat and kill the organizers. The day my dad was born ,my grandfather was with her . At the same time there was a church holding a union meeting. There were men, women and children there. The thugs barred up the church and burned it down, killing everybody in it. They fled to Detroit.
He worked in an auto factory. Soon they started to organize. He and some of my uncles were at the "battle of the overpass". Ford had hired criminal thugs to stop the unions. They were beaten and some killed. They were ruthless and brutal. You can always hire someone to do dirty work, so you can sit back with clean hands and watch the carnage.
The benefits you people enjoy are a result of blood sweat and lives sacrificed to get them. Work places are safer. Workers have some rights and benefits.
If you think that wages being paid to union workers are a threat to the economy you are nuts. You are digging in the wrong spot. It is the bankers and owners who are looting the economy. They are doing it by taking over the legislative and judicial branches of every state and the nation. They have been very successful. They took the economy down and rewarded themselves billions of tax dollars. You should direct your anger at bosses who take mega-millions of dollars while shipping your jobs abroad. A boss that sends 400 jobs to China or Korea is rewarded with huge bonuses and stock option. He is lauded as a great leader. He is actually harming America and should be thought of as semi-traitorous. Hollowing out American jobs will not be a benefit to us. It will make them very rich.
Don't bitch about a working guy getting a living wage. It may be your lot someday. You will not be the guy getting hundreds of millions. That door has a private entrance .

That was back in 1900s when there were no laws to protect workers.
Sure unions helped back then but now it's not needed for the public sector.
Maybe unions should go around helping the low wage earners like daycare workers, or other skilled workers.
Why keep propping up a bloated system with overpaid unskilled workers.
If unions are the basis of salaries, why are there cashiers still being paid $10/hr or less?

You fail to see that I'm paying taxes to support overpaid union workers when the money should be managed better.

I don't like that bankers and them get paid that much either. The banks should have all failed and let the weak crumble. A better banking system probably would have emerged.
But that's something else.

I don't hearing public sector union workers complain about their inflated wages and then go on strike to get more and more. Then we have budget deficits, service cuts and long wait times for government things to get completed.
Why are the governments always in deficit? I bet majority of the deficit can be eliminated by bringing the union worker wages in line with private sector.

[gonzomax]

That is not where the bulk of your money goes. It is just something that you see. But the wealth is going to the top. You don't see them. The working class is having a lot of pressure on them to work cheaper. You are doing it here. If you think the bulk of your tax money is supporting the unwashed ,who should work for minimum wage, you are deluding yourself.
When I was working at the automotive companies in Detroit, when the unions got a raise we did. When they got better vacations or health care we did. If they got gutted, like so many of you think is right, all wages and benefits would drop. Well not the executives, they would get a chunk of that. They would get more.

[canadiankorean]

A good example of union workers being overpaid and ruining things is GM.
The workers were on average paid $29 (big 3) over the foreign workers.
This eventually led to the bailout of the big 3.
One could argue that the Big 3 produced bad cars.. One could argue that the union workers wage is what caused the company into having little money to innovate.

Anyway, the union worker wages wasn't sustainable. So the government had to throw YOUR money their way. Would you want the union workers to keep receiving the same pay but having the government fund GM the extra cash to sustain it? Or do you want the union workers to be in line with the foreign workers (who are still paid well)? That way the government doesn't have to bail them out.

BUT in the government situation, the money is endless.
They can go into deficit for long periods of time and just tax people to get money.
Or cut services.

[Ravenman]

One could argue that the Big 3 produced bad cars.. One could argue that the union workers wage is what caused the company into having little money to innovate."One could argue?"

How about GM was making money hand over fist when gas was cheap and GM execs were all too happy to have a business based around profitable sales of large SUVs. Then, when gas prices went up, and SUV sales tanked, the business cried, "Mercy! Mercy! 'Twas not our intention to make so much money off of gas guzzling vehicles! But for our union workers who were making these hot-selling vehicles, people would still be buying Escalades!! Psst.. hey... I just got a great idea. Even though Toyota is making a killing with the Prius, let's put a hybrid engine in our biggest trucks, so they get 14 MPG instead of 10 for only $5,000 more! Genius!!"

Oh, definitely. Unions are to blame for the awesome idea putting hybrid engines in huge trucks. If union wages weren't so high, GM could afford to spend more in advertising this winning line of products so Americans would realize what great cars they are.

You TOTALLY nailed the union there.

[gonzomax]

The Big 3 suffer from arrogance and GM was the worst. Once a GM president declared" so goes GM .so goes the country". Another w=hen asked about people wanting them to make smaller more fuel efficient cars responded" They will buy what we tell them to".
When VW started to make inroads with the Bug ,the big 3 let them have the market. They eventually cobbled together some crappy cars to badly compete. Just a decade ago, the Big 3 was making billions selling SUVs. The profit per car was enormous. They made record profits. They rode it as long as they could. It was too long. They had nothing to compete with the new markets for better mileage, electrical or battery cars. Now GM is coming out ,way too late with the Volt. They could have made it a long time ago.
But that is the flaw with capitalism. Every corporation is judged by what they do each year. If they came to the Board of Directors and declared we have smaller profits this year because we invested in Rand D ,they would lose their jobs or get a cut in bonuses. We do not think 5 years ahead or even a couple. The rewards for management are yearly. The greed of the bosses means they will not take a cut to position the company for the future. Why take 6 million when you can squeeze 15 out by gutting R&D. Jettison workers and the bottom line looks good. Who is in position to think about the long range future of the company? Nobody. How do we compete with countries that encourage corporatiions to invest in the future, like China and Japan.
Note when the Big 3 was raking in the gold with SUVs ,they had unions. When the company did not move to make products of the future, what was the union input. I assure you thousands of employees would have told you they had to make modern products. But who listens to them? Most of the people on this board could see they were headed for a fall. It does not require high power execs. But the system is flawed. It is made to enrich the top.

[anu-la1979]

I don't hearing public sector union workers complain about their inflated wages and then go on strike to get more and more. Then we have budget deficits, service cuts and long wait times for government things to get completed.
Why are the governments always in deficit? I bet majority of the deficit can be eliminated by bringing the union worker wages in line with private sector.

For the 3rd or 4th time-federal unions in the United States are not allowed to strike per the Civil Service Reform Act. They cannot set salaries. Management retains the sole authority to allocate work. They do not have the right to influence, write or help develop position descriptions. Their rights are severely circumscribed. The larger parent unions actually advise federal stewards to get as much settled out as possible because it's difficult to win at the FLRA and MSPB level. Most contracts have either split cost/loser pays provisions, which makes going to arbitration fairly difficult for unions, especially those that do not have dues-paying professionals willing to volunteer their time.

I'm currently on a negotiating team helping to re-write the contract for a major federal union for the Western states (I'm union but because I'm the only attorney at the table, I end up doing most of the legal research and the Management team accepts it because I'm rather impartial and both sides know that). Obviously a lot of stuff is confidential and I can't talk about what they're squabbling over, but if 10 cost-cutting measures are proposed, 7 of them originate with the Union but management digs in their heels because it would interfere with overpriced government contracts!

Honestly, I'm actually something of a moderate and see where the unions have gone wrong from the inside. I've always told my union supervisors that I think it would be a supremely bad idea for the CSRA provisions on strikes to be reversed and that I don't think that it's a good idea for them to get any work allocation power back. That said, I have an equal amount of disdain for management (for wildly different reasons)-but again, a lot of that crap is confidential and it's not worth losing my licenses to win points on Great Debates. canadiankorean, I have no idea what the situation is in Canada, but in the US, the unions are seriously circumscribed in what they can do by statutes that limit their power.