Hi. I see you quoted my post but it appears that you failed to read it and blindly smashed your face into your keyboard. Instead of getting a raise, my mother actually took a paycut. This was forced and they were not given an option.
Uh huh. And all that happened *before* Walker took office, right? And maybe even in another state (you didn't say where your mother worked). Why protect and fund an organization which isn't protecting you? Think about it. My argument is that the unions claim to care about the workers, but in practice care more about their own political power. And that power comes more from using union dues to fund political campaigns and causes than it does providing good pay and pensions for the
The union was however able to negotiate to keep their fringe benefits largely untouched.
Lol! Yay for them, right?
If Walker had his way, they would probably banish pensions completely (or raid the sh*t out of them to give his buddies tax cuts). I mean, you are aware that he borrowed money to give tax cuts after taking office which suddenly, somehow turned the unions into a problem that required reckoning? How did those business tax cuts work out by the way? He presided over twelve months of job loss.
Nice job repeating talking points. I'm struggling to understand what this has to do with public sector unions and collective bargaining though.
As to your second head smashing bit, I have no bargaining power. You know why?
Are you in a union? If so, then *you* have no bargaining power because the union took it from you.
If you work in the public sector (union or not), the government compensation system is already structured like that of a union. You knew that going in. And you're always free to quit and find employment elsewhere if it's just too crappy for you. That's your bargaining power btw.
Where you lose bargaining power as an individual is when you become tied down to a pension which requires you to remain working within the union, and when you've been working in an environment that has atrophied your real world skills to the point where you can no longer get a job in the non-union workforce that pays what you can get right now. That's how you get trapped btw.
Because raises are now linked to CPI (which won't happen). Don't read too much into those two hundred or so merit raises over the last three months. Ninety of those were DOJ workers and state crime lab employees that would have fled into higher paying jobs.
And? There's a point here somewhere besides you lamenting how little unions do for their workers, while still remaining so active in politics (which I thought was my point). You haven't said if you work for a union though, so I'm not sure what exactly you're complaining about.
Point three, you're wrong. The only thing unions are able to bargain on now is raises and they are not able to be larger than inflation for CPI. Nothing else, nada, zip. Anything larger has to be approved by referendum. Do you really think that someone that just had their health costs jacked up so that they are essentially losing an additional few thousand a year are going to shell out the union fee? Don't bring his argument up either. The cost of dues was much less than the significant increase I saw for my pension/health benefits and I don't have kids or a spouse, imagine it levied on them now.
So you agree that unions don't really do much for their workers. Great! That's what I've been saying all along. I'll ask again: While this process of steadily declining benefits gained for the workers of unions has been going on, have the unions also reduced the amount of money they spent on political lobbying? Don't you see how the unions don't really care about the workers, but about their own political power?
I just find it funny as hell that I say that the unions don't really help their workers much, but mostly just use them as a revenue source for their political activities, and you attempt to refute that by talking about how little the unions help their workers. Um... That' was my point.
As previously stated, yes they were a middleman. That's the whole @#%^ing point innit? When you have around thirty thousand people employed by several ever changing umbrella government branches, it helps to have an organization on your side that understands the system and is at least generally looking out for your welfare.
Does it really help though? I'm asking you to challenge that assumption. Can you do that? I mean, somehow magically, millions of workers in the US are employed where unions do not exist, and yet they somehow manage to make good livings doing it. They are generally happier, more productive, and feel like they both contribute to their fields and receive fair compensation for those contributions. At some point, shouldn't the fact that despite these unions existing for multiple decades, their workers appear to constantly be unhappy with everything maybe clue you in that the unions aren't really making their jobs better? They aren't really "helping". Especially in the public sector unions, where it appears that they really do nothing to help at all, but act as a means for politicians to launder public money back into their own re-election coffers.
Seriously. Drop the assumption that unions are good for workers and actually step back and look at what's going on. They aren't good for workers. They use workers for their own ends.