The Great Union-Busting Thread

[DGuller]

Hmm, interestingly enough, it turns out that I have a defined-benefit pension of my own.   It's not a typical defined-benefit plan, but rather a cash balance plan.  I managed to get hired by my company just a month before new employees stopped being eligible for it.  It feels nice to be a fat cat. 

[CountDeMoney]

And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.

But more importantly, their ability to raise funds for political campaigns.

On the left, the only substantial players left in the national political campaign contribution game are a mere handful of unions.  Once they're gone, the ability of the Democrats to raise money in the post-Citizens United world of unlimited campaign contributions will go with them.   Which is just what the GOP is hoping will happen.

Destroy the unions > destroy the liberal left's ability to raise money > destroy the Democratic Party on the national and state election level.  Easy peasy Japaneasy.

[Admiral Yi]

So Seedy links one article & you assume that's conclusive?  Here's another.  Though it expires after a couple years & is targeted toward companies that relocate to Wisconsin, it's still a tax cut: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/wis-gov-inks-tax-cut-bill-for-businesses-into-law.html

It seems you and I are approaching this issue from diametirically different directions.  You seem to be defending Walker's tax cutting bona fides, whereas I'm agreeing with DGuller's and Seedy's premise that if you're going to be cutting payrolls it's unseemly to be cutting taxes at the same time.  My point is that the Wisconsin legislation, which has been regularly described in the media as "a corporate tax cut" is a) miniscule and b) not really a tax cut at all but rather every true-blue Democrats favorite form of spending, a jobs bill.

I wouldn't be shocked to learn that the police and firefighters got exempted from the current cuts because either they already took a round of cuts earlier or they're underpaid relative to everyone else.

Speaking of which, just heard on NPR that five Ohio GOP state senators voted against their version precisely because it did include cops, firefighters, and prison guards.  Squeaked through the Senate by one vote; expected to breeze through the House.

[derspiess]

It seems you and I are approaching this issue from diametirically different directions.  You seem to be defending Walker's tax cutting bona fides, whereas I'm agreeing with DGuller's and Seedy's premise that if you're going to be cutting payrolls it's unseemly to be cutting taxes at the same time. 

Walker campaigned heavily on cutting corporate taxes/enacting other business-friendly measures and cutting public employee pay & benefits.  Call it unseemly if you want, but a majority of Wisconsin voters didn't seem to think so.

My point is that the Wisconsin legislation, which has been regularly described in the media as "a corporate tax cut" is a) miniscule and b) not really a tax cut at all but rather every true-blue Democrats favorite form of spending, a jobs bill.

Then go argue with Seedy & D4G

Speaking of which, just heard on NPR that five Ohio GOP state senators voted against their version precisely because it did include cops, firefighters, and prison guards.  Squeaked through the Senate by one vote; expected to breeze through the House.

These guys were from the urban districts, which tend to be more pro-union.  I have a feeling a back room deal was cut and just enough GOP senators were 'allowed' to vote no without spoiling the bill.  My own senator was the sponsor of the bill, so I sent her a "thank you" email.

[grumbler]

I mean I do not have any problem with unions per se but they have not been that effective at helping workers for awhile now.  The economic climate is not very union friendly.

But for the opposite reason most people seem to believe:  labor doesn't greatly exceed jobs, so unions don't do the worker much good.  When they were big, it was because they created artificial scarcity of labor.

That is for the US, of course.  Unions serve a completely different purpose in some other nations.

[sbr]

I just got the info on my new defined-benefit pension from the union in the mail yesterday. 

[Caliga]

7 per cent of private employees in America are unionized. That's seriously disturbing.

I agree.  It's much too high.

[The Brain]

And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.

But more importantly, their ability to raise funds for political campaigns.

On the left, the only substantial players left in the national political campaign contribution game are a mere handful of unions.  Once they're gone, the ability of the Democrats to raise money in the post-Citizens United world of unlimited campaign contributions will go with them.   Which is just what the GOP is hoping will happen.

Destroy the unions > destroy the liberal left's ability to raise money > destroy the Democratic Party on the national and state election level.  Easy peasy Japaneasy.

I just came.

[Berkut]

And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.

But more importantly, their ability to raise funds for political campaigns.

On the left, the only substantial players left in the national political campaign contribution game are a mere handful of unions.  Once they're gone, the ability of the Democrats to raise money in the post-Citizens United world of unlimited campaign contributions will go with them.   Which is just what the GOP is hoping will happen.

Destroy the unions > destroy the liberal left's ability to raise money > destroy the Democratic Party on the national and state election level.  Easy peasy Japaneasy.

So your basically arguing that the only way for the "liberal left" to raise money is by extorting it from union members?

An interesting perspective.

I guess I am thinking that if the "liberal left" can only raise money via these means, they probably deserve to be made irrelevant. However, I am not really buying the claim that the only way the left raises funds is via these handfuls of unions. Obama seemed to be rather capable of raising rather stunning amounts of cash, and I don't think he got it all from a handful of unions.

[Josephus]

Especially when they only make up 7 per cent of the private workforce. I imagine the Dems are getting money from others sources.

[KRonn]

Especially when they only make up 7 per cent of the private workforce. I imagine the Dems are getting money from others sources.

Public sector unions contribute heavily to the Dems. One Union, I think AFSCME maybe it was, gave about 90 million dollars to Dems in the last election. So it can be huge dollars. Of course, then the Union bosses sometimes get to negotiate with the same politicians they helped elect! Lol...

[saskganesh]

unions are organised, and I think it's their organisational depth that helps more in dem campaigns, more than their money (which is also appreciated).

[MadImmortalMan]

unions are organised, and I think it's their organisational depth that helps more in dem campaigns, more than their money (which is also appreciated).

This.

While most of the biggest campaign contributors in the country are unions, it's really the organization that makes the massive difference in GOTV and activism.

[Barrister]

I've always wondered if it was wise for public service unions to take such overt partisan positions.

My wife was involved in YEU/PSAC, so we'd get there material in the mail all the time.  It was always, universally, blistering in its attacks on Harper.

Is it really serving your members best interests to attack their employer so loudly?

Whatever its sins, at least the AJC (the union that represents me, though I studiously have never joined) does not do that.

[Berkut]

I've always wondered if it was wise for public service unions to take such overt partisan positions.

What in the world could be wrong with a union you are required to join in order to work being able to force you to fund political positions you may not agree with or support?