The Great Union-Busting Thread

[Admiral Yi]

Is that after 20 or 25 years vested?

They didn't say.

[CountDeMoney]

Even the crypto-commie inside of me feels that's not right.

And that's what they want you to think.

After all, the more your gaze is transfixed on a specific part of the workforce and their commie nazi Kenyan ways, the less you're focused on Wall Street, the banks, and the Koch Brothers.

[CountDeMoney]

The problem with Wisconsin and their ilk is that they're setting this up as a union-busting battle, and us lefties have no option whom to side with. If they just set it up as an anti-government worker perque battle, I might be more inclined to support the gov't on this.

I would've been too, if Walker hadn't bothered to steamroll all those corporate tax breaks his first two weeks in office.  So now we know it's not about the money.

[DGuller]

I don't think that makes more than a sentimental difference.  Pension is part of pay package, how much employee nominally contributes isn't that relevant.  What's relevant is the actuarial value of the pension being given to the employee (and how hidden a cost that is, given the habit of state governments to both severely undervalue pension obligations, and their refusal to fund them fully).

It makes much more than a sentimental difference to the state budget.  The more an employee contributes, holding the payout constant, the less the state has to poney up.

Well, duh, holding the payout constant is the assumption that you need.  Increasing the employee contribution is equivalent to reducing the pension payouts.  Yes, increasing employee contributions while keeping pension payments constant would help the state deficits, as pay cuts by any other name tend to do.

[Admiral Yi]

Well, duh, holding the payout constant is the assumption that you need.  Increasing the employee contribution is equivalent to reducing the pension payouts.  Yes, increasing employee contributions while keeping pension payments constant would help the state deficits, as pay cuts by any other name tend to do.

If that part is duh, what were you on about with sentimental differences?

[DGuller]

Agreed.  I never knew there would be a day where I would even consider siding with public employee unions, but Wisconsin Republicans sure tempt me.  Unions are bad, but oligarchs are much worse, and this appears to be a battle between resurgent oligarchs and decaying unions.  The Wisconsin fight threatens to discredit the effort to push back the unions in states where they really are a cancer on the economy.

Oligarchs aren't the only ones paying state workers.  Well, at least they're not the only ones.

Unions and oligarchs don't just involve themselves in economic matters directly, they also involve themselves in political matters to help themselves economically.  Whichever side wins the political battle gets the economic windfall, even if indirectly.

[DGuller]

Well, duh, holding the payout constant is the assumption that you need.  Increasing the employee contribution is equivalent to reducing the pension payouts.  Yes, increasing employee contributions while keeping pension payments constant would help the state deficits, as pay cuts by any other name tend to do.

If that part is duh, what were you on about with sentimental differences?

The point is that you can't judge how good a deal unions are getting just by looking at how much they contribute to their pensions.

[Admiral Yi]

Unions and oligarchs don't just involve themselves in economic matters directly, they also involve themselves in political matters to help themselves economically.  Whichever side wins the political battle gets the economic windfall, even if indirectly.

I would think the vast bulk of the economic windfall would accrue to future Wisconsin taxpayers and possibly current bond holders.

I understand that the Koch brothers have a vested interest in maintaining their factories union-free (more power to 'em).  But I think an honest person has to admit that the chain of causality between breaking the power of the Wisconsin state employees and preventing Koch Industries from unionizing is a very tenuous one at best.

[MadImmortalMan]

Koch is such a minor issue anyway. Who gives a fuck about them? Why did they suddenly become so bloody important? It's all hype. It's not like they haven't been doing the same thing for decades now. All of a sudden they're public enemy number one. I think it's a distraction.

[Habbaku]

The Kocheads are the left's version of George Soros.  Just like the right-wingers who carp on about him, I've learned to zone out mention of the Kochs.

[Admiral Yi]

Anyone (besides Mongers) know the details of the corporate tax cut?

[MadImmortalMan]

The Kocheads are the left's version of George Soros.  Just like the right-wingers who carp on about him, I've learned to zone out mention of the Kochs.

Whatever. They're number 83.

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


Seedy's right. I'm more concerned about Goldman Sachs.

[Barrister]

For the record, lawyers for the government of Alberta are NOT unionized.  And so if anyone wants to bitch about my non-union government pension they can kiss my ass.

Of course I have to contribute right up until I retire.

[MadImmortalMan]

For the record, lawyers for the government of Alberta are NOT unionized.  And so if anyone wants to bitch about my non-union government pension they can kiss my ass.

Of course I have to contribute right up until I retire.

Can you direct your investments?

[Ed Anger]

Terry, Randall A (Democrat, District of Columbia)
Status: Confirmed


Terry, born in 1959, filed a statement of candidacy on Jan. 18, 2011, to run for president as a Democrat. The outspoken anti-abortion activist has previously made unsuccessful bids in New York state for the U.S. House (1998) and in Florida for the U.S. Senate (2006).

Somebody filled out the wrong party on their form.