Unions: good for workers or bad for business?

[Admiral Yi]

They did which is why it took so long for the contract to be negotiated and signed. They don't do the budget year to year in isolation which is why they can predict shortfalls in the next few years.

You're saying they *did* know at the time they signed the contract back in April that a major recession was coming that would necessitate deep spending cuts?  Where's your proof for this assertion?

You may be right for all I know but on the face of it the claim is puzzling.  Patterson signs a contract *knowing* he will have to turn around and cut.  What possible reason does he have for that?  Any political good will he gains with the unions is lost right back.  There's no intervening gubenatorial election that he needs union votes for (and can then fuck over).  As administrator of the state he would prefer to have more employees working for lower wages than vice versa.

I have the sneaking suspicion you're not being completely intellectually honest about this one Strix.

[grumbler]

I got it. He basically was saying that I am doing unskilled and/or low skilled work because it only requires a bachelor's degree. That reads to me as bachelor degree or lower is unskilled and/or low skilled labor at best but perhaps it reads differently to you.

Nope, you still don't get it.  He said you were doing unskilled and/or low skilled work and your job only required a bachelor's degree.  That's pretty much the only way to read that.  Had he meant that any job that only required a bachelor's degree was unskilled/low skill, he would have said that.

Obviously, he doesn't believe that.  Flying airplanes and fixing tank electronics both require skills, and neither requires any college degree at all.

Now, i don't happen to know what skills your job requires, and only know that I wouldn't do if for only $77k/year, but that is neither here nor there.

[garbon]

and only know that I wouldn't do if for only $77k/year

Especially if that is one's salary after 7 years of experience...

[Berkut]

Well since the government has the authority to pass alws in order to re-write contracts, and you do not, I would say there's a very key difference...

And that is the rub right now in NY. No one is certain if the governor has the power to ignore/tear up the contracts or not. He is playing chicken with the Unions hoping they blink before it gets that far. If he goes that route and loses....

THat is simply not true.

The governor asked the union to agree to forgo raises. This is called negotiating. He never said he would simply refuse to pay them.

The unions basically told him to take a long walk of a short pier, so he said fine, he would go ahead and lay people off - which is perfectly within his power under the contract.

And now the unions are going to exert their political power to make him pay for that. How you can call this a "free market" is rather beyond me. What a conservative of convenience you are...

[Razgovory]

  This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

[Berkut]

This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

I have never once called myself any kind of conservative.

[Strix]

THat is simply not true.

The governor asked the union to agree to forgo raises. This is called negotiating. He never said he would simply refuse to pay them.

The unions basically told him to take a long walk of a short pier, so he said fine, he would go ahead and lay people off - which is perfectly within his power under the contract.

And now the unions are going to exert their political power to make him pay for that. How you can call this a "free market" is rather beyond me. What a conservative of convenience you are...

The truth is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Paterson asked the Unions to forego their raises for 2009, agree to 10 days of lag pay (employees don't get paid for one day of work each pay period until they have worked for free for 10 days. Money to be paid back at retirement or separation from the State), and agree to a new Tier for retirement. He was also giving no guarantee that he wouldn't come back and ask for more next year.

Basically voiding out the contract.

And, yes, Paterson did say he would refuse to pay them. He retracted that when he realized that he lacked any support to back it up.

The Union attempted to negotiate with Paterson. They agreed to lag pay, and were mulling a new Tier for retirement. They also provided him with a detailed plan on how NY could save money by cutting back on contract labor for jobs that could be done by state employees. The plan proposed by the Union would have not only covered the costs of the raises but increased savings.

Paterson refused to negotiate. Contract work is a great way to pay back political favors and he was unwilling to discuss reducing it in any manner. He basically stated that he would ignore the contract come April 1st. And he was unwilling to offer any assurances to the Union in exchange for them making concessions.

April 1st came and went, and he realized that the Union wasn't going to back down. So, he cut the raises and other pay increases for all non-union and upper management because he could legally do so. And than sent a letter to all Union employees stating he would lay off 8,700 workers by July 1st.  As we speak, the various department heads are determining where they can make cuts in their areas. Parole, for example, is expected to lose 120 positions but the majority will be from DOCS (prisons) and Department of Transportation plus attrition from the various agencies.

It is a free market because employees are able to get paid for their skills and abilities based on what the market is willing to pay. NY has the option of not paying competitive salaries and the employees have the option of going elsewhere. That is the basis of a free market.

It took me 5+ years to get into NYS Parole because they only offer the exam every 3-4 years, and they have a very low turnover. The turnover they do have is mainly because of retirements. NC Probation/Parole doesn't offer competitive wages because they are an "at will State" and they have a 35-40% vacancy rate as a result. In fact, even in these trying times they had to recently increase minimum starting pay because no one was willing to apply. And those that stay past the 5+ years it takes to get vested in their retirements are those unable to get hired elsewhere.

I am not sure how the idea of not being able to get a fair and competitive wage fits into the free market idea but perhaps you will explain it for me.

[Admiral Yi]

A salary that leads to zero turnover is probably a little better than competitive.

[Berkut]

You are such a good little socialist Strixy.

I love how the governor asking for concessions is "voiding out the contract".

NYS has a very low turnoever because they pay exhorbinant salaries way out line with what the market will bear. Pointing out how that screws over other states who are not capable of over-paying is not helping your argument very much.

Of course, New York isn't really capable of this gross over-payment either, hence the insance budget deficits.

But hey, as long as you guys get yours, that is all that matters.

And tell me again how it can be a "free market" where someone doing your job in the next state over gets half the salary, while in New York, it is the existence of poltically powerful unions that get you guys the double pay and benefits?

It is delicious that you are arguing that it is NC, the state that does NOT have a incredibly powerful union that is NOT the free market!

[Berkut]

A salary that leads to zero turnover is probably a little better than competitive.

Why do you hate free markets so much?

[Neil]

At any rate, when economic times get tough, a properly balanced state will break the shit out of these contracts, with massive public support.  Public employees are generally despised as lazy and overpaid by the general public, especially during times of economic uncertainty.  If a politician positions himself properly, he can defeat the unions.

[Strix]

You're saying they *did* know at the time they signed the contract back in April that a major recession was coming that would necessitate deep spending cuts?  Where's your proof for this assertion?

You may be right for all I know but on the face of it the claim is puzzling.  Patterson signs a contract *knowing* he will have to turn around and cut.  What possible reason does he have for that?  Any political good will he gains with the unions is lost right back.  There's no intervening gubenatorial election that he needs union votes for (and can then fuck over).  As administrator of the state he would prefer to have more employees working for lower wages than vice versa.

I have the sneaking suspicion you're not being completely intellectually honest about this one Strix.

You are confusing two issues together here.

First, yes, everyone knew that a recession was on the way. They may have not known how severe a recession. The housing market was crashing by 2007 which many realized would lead to major issues in the banking world. This is common knowledge you can look up anywhere.

Second, the budget deficit is effected by the recession but is not caused by the recession. The deficit was already going to be something around $10 billion dollars and the loss of revenue by the recession is adding another $2 billion or so. You can look up the exact figures, and probably look up what was said in 2007-2008. If you look up any budget info you will see that they tend to project out 2-3 years.

The State knew the economy was going to face issues before they signed the contract which is why it took them so long to negotiate it. The Union was basically told to enjoy it because chances are the next one would have no raises in it.

Paterson probably signed it to make issues go away and make his transition easy. I can't speak for him though.

[Strix]

You are such a good little socialist Strixy.

I love how the governor asking for concessions is "voiding out the contract".

NYS has a very low turnoever because they pay exhorbinant salaries way out line with what the market will bear. Pointing out how that screws over other states who are not capable of over-paying is not helping your argument very much.

Of course, New York isn't really capable of this gross over-payment either, hence the insance budget deficits.

But hey, as long as you guys get yours, that is all that matters.

And tell me again how it can be a "free market" where someone doing your job in the next state over gets half the salary, while in New York, it is the existence of poltically powerful unions that get you guys the double pay and benefits?

It is delicious that you are arguing that it is NC, the state that does NOT have a incredibly powerful union that is NOT the free market!

It is a "free market" because the employee is able to take his/her job skills to a place willing to pay for them. It is a "free market" because each State i.e. employer has the ability to pay what is required for them to get the best employees available.

You appear to be arguing that State jobs should have a set ceiling and that in Berkut's Free Market every state would pay according to that set rate. I am confused how that is a free market. Perhaps I am reading what you're posting wrong.

North Carolina is a great example of what happens when a State ignores the "free market" system. Twenty years ago working for the State was the job to have in NC. Wages and benefits were good and the retirement was excellent. North Carolina didn't keep up with the market, so they have priced themselves out of competition. They can barely compete with Virginia, Tennesse, and South Carolina, let alone the Northern States.

I am not sure what you were trying to argue there? Are you saying that low balling state workers is a good business model?

And, yes, Paterson is voiding out parts of the contract by asking for concessions. That is what happens when line X5637 is crossed out. Normally when you negotiate you offer the otherside something. That's what makes it a negotiation. Paterson saying I want to not pay this, that, and these things, and in exchange I won't promise you that next year I won't come again, is not a negotiation.

[Berkut]

Tell me Strix, can you honestly say that if you were not a public employee, you would have the exact same stand on this issue?

[Admiral Yi]

It is a "free market" because each State i.e. employer has the ability to pay what is required for them to get the best employees available.

That's not true.  The state's determination of what the appropriate pay rate is is subject to approval from the unions, who have the ability through voting, lobbying, physical intimidation and sympathy strikes to impose political and economic costs on the employer.

If the system were totally free then the state would just offer terms and the labor market would either fill the jobs or it wouldn't.