The Great Union-Busting Thread

[derspiess]

Isn't it a tax break rather than a tax cut? With a price tag of $1m it doesn't sound very impressive

Potato, potahto.  But yeah, it's projected to be pretty small.  Theoretically, the actual cost to the state is zero, though that assumes no businesses were already planning to relocate to Wisconsin.  In which case I guess it could be a net gain in revenue, assuming the company pays other taxes & has in-state workers who pay income & sales taxes.

[grumbler]

I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember.  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.

Irony:  not just the opposite of wrinkly anymore.

Like public-employee unions, defined-benefit public pensions should be terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.

[KRonn]

I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember.  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.

Yep, that's basically correct - most union members are in the public sector. Private sector union numbers are much lower than public sector numbers. And given the trend in more states for "right to work" laws (Right-to-work laws are state laws that prohibit both the closed and union shop. A right to work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union), and more push back vs public unions, I'm thinking those numbers will fall. Though I believe that public sector union numbers had been rising for a while otherwise.

[Valmy]

Thank God it's not 30%.  It's 7.2% for private sector employees and 12.4% for public employees according to wikipedia.

It is not a good time to unionize anyway.  The opening up of the international labor market means the conditions that made unionizing a good strategy do not really exist.  In theory when labor grows scarce you should be able to renegotiate for higher wages and then management pushes back when it loosens up.  But it is unlikely American companies are going to be hurting for labor anytime soon.

[Barrister]

I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember.  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.

Irony:  not just the opposite of wrinkly anymore.

Like public-employee unions, defined-benefit public pensions should be terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.

And so if anyone wants to bitch about my non-union government pension they can kiss my ass.

[Barrister]

Thank God it's not 30%.  It's 7.2% for private sector employees and 12.4% for public employees according to wikipedia.

It is not a good time to unionize anyway.  The opening up of the international labor market means the conditions that made unionizing a good strategy do not really exist.  In theory when labor grows scarce you should be able to renegotiate for higher wages and then management pushes back when it loosens up.  But it is unlikely American companies are going to be hurting for labor anytime soon.

Labour is scarce in many areas of Canada and workers are able to increase wages quite nicely without having to unionize.   

[Valmy]

Labour is scarce in many areas of Canada and workers are able to increase wages quite nicely without having to unionize.   

The only time it makes any sense to pay dues to a Union and give up a bit of your independence doing so is when a Union has negotiating power that makes it worth it.  Otherwise you are just getting screwed for no good reason.  I am not sure where I said anything about not being in a Union meant your wages were going to suck or that even a union was necessary.

The reason there is such low union membership here is that having the labor force of an industry unionized tends to mean the jobs get shipped somewhere where the labor force is not unionized.  That sort of removes whatever incentive you had to pay those dues and put up with union crap.

[DGuller]

Like public-employee unions, defined-benefit public pensions should be terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.

There is nothing inherently wrong with defined-benefit pensions.  In fact, they make a whole lot more sense than defined-contribution plans, from the standpoint of providing insurance against poverty in the old age.  The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.

[Barrister]

Like public-employee unions, defined-benefit public pensions should be terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.

There is nothing inherently wrong with defined-benefit pensions.  In fact, they make a whole lot more sense than defined-contribution plans, from the standpoint of providing insurance against poverty in the old age.  The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.

I didn't want to respond to grumbles who was obviously just trolling me, but that's my take.  There's nothing inherently silly about a defined benefit plan.  Heck an individual can go out and purchase one themselves - it's called an annuity.

The problem is that because there are so many assumptions and planning built into them there can be great temptation to game the system.  After all the problems won't come home to roost for decades.

[Caliga]

The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.

Such as?

I'n not doubting you... I seriously don't know what tricks one games such plans with.

[DGuller]

The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.

Such as?

I'n not doubting you... I seriously don't know what tricks one games such plans with.

From the employee/union side, one common abuse is to peg the pension payments to employee's last year earnings, and then load up the employee in his last year to the hilt with overtime.  Of course, it's also aided by the union rules that assign overtime priority by seniority.  This means that employee's pension payments are out of line with what he contributes for most of his career (implicitly or explicitly, it doesn't matter who nominally contributes to the pension).

From the employer's side, there are two common abuses.  One abuse is to not fund the pensions fully.  The effect of that is that you don't pay the full wages to the workers you're emplying today, and leaving it to your successors to pay the "legacy costs".  The second abuse is assuming too high a rate of return on your pension fund's assets, which is a more hidden way of not funding your pensions fully.

[MadImmortalMan]

Bad management is number one. Look at CalPers. Ugh. Ulterior motives is another. The US pension funds are notorious for being gangster laundering devices. The ones that aren't are run by financial novices that got the position by being elected treasurer of the union. Some of them (the smart ones) outsource that to professionals, but a lot don't. They invest in things for political rather than sound investment reasons. They make ridiculous earnings estimates and budget using those numbers. Yeah, our fund is gonna earn 10% return in 2009...right. 

It's not bad if they just hand the fund over to Fidelity or Vanguard or something. Hopefully that what beeb's does, and it's not some former prosecutor running the fund.


Oh, and the Wisconsin public employee union owns something like 50 million in Koch corporate bonds... 

Apparently, it's pronounced like Coke. Didn't know that.


Personally, I wouldn't mind a defined benefit pension as long as there was a supplemental plan as well with some kind of stock investments I could do. I don't want to be locked in to a retirement package that can't grow aggressively and has an upper ceiling.

[MadImmortalMan]

Simul-posting ftw.

[Barrister]

My (upcoming) pension plan is a Government of Alberta Management pension plan, so it's administered by the Alberta government, with no union involvement whatsoever.

[grumbler]

There is nothing inherently wrong with defined-benefit pensions.  In fact, they make a whole lot more sense than defined-contribution plans, from the standpoint of providing insurance against poverty in the old age.  The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.

What is inherently wrong with defined-benefit plans is their lack of portability, since the chances any two plans will have the same defined benefit are small, and the mechanisms for transferring benefits from company A to company B are complex even where they exist.

Defined-benefit pensions are dinosaurs.  Best to put the beasties down, even if socialists eligible for them really want them.