Unions: good for workers or bad for business?

[Strix]

Strix really doesn't have a clue what "at-will" means, does he?

Funny story--a former co-worker of mine was very anti-union, because of experiences she had with a union she had belonged to.  She had worked at a grocery store, and she and her co-workers there had voted in a union because they felt mistreated.  Their biggest concern was job secutity.  When the union came in, the union leaders negotiated a contract that still stated that employees were hired at-will and could be terminated at any time without notice at the discretion of management.  The only thing different was that the employees got 1 more week of paid vacation a year, and there was now a union shop in place, so they had to pay $35 a pay period in union dues.  They didn't even get a pay raise, or even a contractually agreed on pay scale--the contract left pay rates to the discretion of management as well.

She had voted against the proposed contract, but apparantly her co-workers were so ticked at the company that they viewed the union leaders as saviours, and when the leaders told them it was a good contract, they bought that line and approved it, though apparantly it was a narrow margin.  She left there as soon as she could find another job.

Of course, most unions don't do that bad of a job representing their members--it's obviously an extreme case--but it is a bit instructive, as well as quite amusing.

My guess is that you don't have a clue.

In NYS government, union workers cannot be terminated without reasonable cause and without due process, period. I don't really care about your former co-worker because she did not work for NYS nor belong to one of it's unions, so it has no bearing on anything I have been discussing.

Than again, perhaps what you're saying is that "at will" means that management cannot fire a person when they feel like it but only after that employee has done something that can reasonably be construed as a basis for termination and than only after that employee has been afforded due process along with an appeal.

[Strix]

Come now guys, we all know that there's no way that Strix can back down on this issue.  He's a guy who's proud of what he does, and feels that he's really contributing to society.  How can he admit that he's overpaid?

No matter how angry Berkut gets or how badly the Languish Professionals undress his arguments, he's not going to budge an inch, because to do so would be to say that he's less valuable.

The funny part is that according to the "standard" for parole-type work i.e. the federal government. I am not overpaid. I don't make what they do, and I definitely don't get the sweet benefits package available to them.

There are always haters. If someone isn't smart enough to find a job in a field they enjoy and get well paid doing it don't blame me for it.

[MadImmortalMan]

The funny part is that according to the "standard" for parole-type work i.e. the federal government. I am not overpaid.

LOL ok. 

[dps]

Strix really doesn't have a clue what "at-will" means, does he?

Funny story--a former co-worker of mine was very anti-union, because of experiences she had with a union she had belonged to.  She had worked at a grocery store, and she and her co-workers there had voted in a union because they felt mistreated.  Their biggest concern was job secutity.  When the union came in, the union leaders negotiated a contract that still stated that employees were hired at-will and could be terminated at any time without notice at the discretion of management.  The only thing different was that the employees got 1 more week of paid vacation a year, and there was now a union shop in place, so they had to pay $35 a pay period in union dues.  They didn't even get a pay raise, or even a contractually agreed on pay scale--the contract left pay rates to the discretion of management as well.

She had voted against the proposed contract, but apparantly her co-workers were so ticked at the company that they viewed the union leaders as saviours, and when the leaders told them it was a good contract, they bought that line and approved it, though apparantly it was a narrow margin.  She left there as soon as she could find another job.

Of course, most unions don't do that bad of a job representing their members--it's obviously an extreme case--but it is a bit instructive, as well as quite amusing.

My guess is that you don't have a clue.

In NYS government, union workers cannot be terminated without reasonable cause and without due process, period. I don't really care about your former co-worker because she did not work for NYS nor belong to one of it's unions, so it has no bearing on anything I have been discussing.

Than again, perhaps what you're saying is that "at will" means that management cannot fire a person when they feel like it but only after that employee has done something that can reasonably be construed as a basis for termination and than only after that employee has been afforded due process along with an appeal.

I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse, or if you're really just this stupid.

[grumbler]

My guess is that you don't have a clue.

In NYS government, union workers cannot be terminated without reasonable cause and without due process, period. I don't really care about your former co-worker because she did not work for NYS nor belong to one of it's unions, so it has no bearing on anything I have been discussing.

My guess is that it is you who is clueless.  I think everyone here understands that you no more understand the protections of your employment contract that you understand the posts you read here.  Your contract will protect you from personally being fired for job performance without due process, but it does not protect you from being laid off by your employer as part of a jobs cut.  No employment contract does that, with the exception of a few professional athlete contracts.  Your contract will ensure that you obtain certain benefits in the event of a termination because of downsizing, but it won't protect you against such termination.

I encourage the governor to begin the downsizing process in accordance with the demands of the union (and you).  It will be a very salutary lesson for everyone involved, and won't much affect the other people in the state because NY state workers are generally inefficient and obviously overpaid anyway.  More work spread to less people will force the remainder to actually earn more of their pay.

[Caliga]

The funny part is that according to the "standard" for parole-type work i.e. the federal government. I am not overpaid.

I'm pretty sure going that by government salaries isn't a good way to determine if one is overpaid or not.

[Razgovory]

Raz seems to have trouble understanding that most ordinary people are not ideological slaves to their party and always think precisely what the platform tells them to think. 

I have trouble understanding lots of stuff.  I'm an under-incorporator!

But not this.  What you said doesn't really have any bearing on what I said.

[Caliga]

I interpreted your reply to Berkut regarding him and Strix to mean that you were questioning them on claiming to not be Republicans, even though you perceive them to take Republican-esque positions and therefore must be Republican party ideologues.

I realize the conclusion is a stretch based on that specific post, but I seem to recall you having made similar comments in the past.  I recall you accusing me of being a hardcore Libertarian at one point because I identify with a fair number of libertarian principles, for example.

[Razgovory]

I interpreted your reply to Berkut regarding him and Strix to mean that you were questioning them on claiming to not be Republicans, even though you perceive them to take Republican-esque positions and therefore must be Republican party ideologues.

I realize the conclusion is a stretch based on that specific post, but I seem to recall you having made similar comments in the past.  I recall you accusing me of being a hardcore Libertarian at one point because I identify with a fair number of libertarian principles, for example.

I don't think I called you "hardcore", but you have self-indentified with libertarians before.  Nobody here is a "hardcore" libertarian cause nobody is that off the wall.

[Strix]

My guess is that it is you who is clueless.  I think everyone here understands that you no more understand the protections of your employment contract that you understand the posts you read here.  Your contract will protect you from personally being fired for job performance without due process, but it does not protect you from being laid off by your employer as part of a jobs cut.  No employment contract does that, with the exception of a few professional athlete contracts.  Your contract will ensure that you obtain certain benefits in the event of a termination because of downsizing, but it won't protect you against such termination.

I encourage the governor to begin the downsizing process in accordance with the demands of the union (and you).  It will be a very salutary lesson for everyone involved, and won't much affect the other people in the state because NY state workers are generally inefficient and obviously overpaid anyway.  More work spread to less people will force the remainder to actually earn more of their pay.

It's pretty much you that doesn't have a clue. I think everyone here doesn't understand the protections given public employees for NYS by their unions because they have not enjoyed similar benefits themselves at any point in their lives.

I have never stated that NYS public employees are 100% protected from losing their jobs because that has never been the question at hand. You would like to change the discussion in that direction because you lost the current one regarding if NYS is an "at will" state or not if you are in a union. That was spelled out by the NYS Department of Labor which stated that NYS employment is not an "at will" if it has been collectively bargained. So, I understand the need for you to change what is being discussed because you were proven wrong.

The governor will not being firing 8,700 people he will be cutting jobs.  Perhaps that difference requires more intellectual ability to understand than you possess?  So, I will explain it to you in simple terms that even you should be able to comprehend though I doubt it.

The governor will not be firing 8,700 people. He cannot do so because of a collectively bargained agreement with the various public employee unions. He will be eliminating jobs. Those people whom have their jobs eliminated have the ability because of their contracts with NYS to find another position within NYS if a position is available that they are willing/able to take and willing/able to relocate to if required. This ability to laterally transfer is ranked according to state seniority.

NYS has begun the first step in this process. All department heads have been directed by the governor to make X number of cuts in jobs, and they will send him their recommendations by July 1st.

The next step will be sending 60 day notice (as required per law) to those whose positions have been targeted for elimination.

The step after that will be the reshuffling of employees through out the state to fill any vacancies that exist with displaced workers.

The final step will be separation from the state of any displaced workers that are unable/unwilling to take a new job assignment.

The last benefit provided these workers is the ability to be first in line when their old job or another state job opens. They jump ahead of anyone on the Civil Service list who doesn't have permanent status already (permanent status means they finished their 1-2 year probationary status with the state when initially hired).

That is pretty much the process. Workers aren't individually fired "at will" but rather become the last person without a chair to sit on when the music stops.

[grumbler]

It's pretty much you that doesn't have a clue. I think everyone here doesn't understand the protections given public employees for NYS by their unions because they have not enjoyed similar benefits themselves at any point in their lives.

I think the evidence about who doesn't understand the NY state system is pretty obvious.  I argued for Patterson to proceed with state job downsizing, and you told me he couldn't do that.

I have never stated that NYS public employees are 100% protected from losing their jobs because that has never been the question at hand.

It was with me because when i argued that patterspon should cut jobs if the unions won't agree to cut salaries, you said he couldn't do that.

You would like to change the discussion in that direction because you lost the current one regarding if NYS is an "at will" state or not if you are in a union. That was spelled out by the NYS Department of Labor which stated that NYS employment is not an "at will" if it has been collectively bargained. So, I understand the need for you to change what is being discussed because you were proven wrong.

Given that I never argued that NY state was an at-will state for people in unions (in fact, stated explicitly that this was untrue in NY, NC, and Virginia), I guess i am moving on to this point because I won the earlier point and have now pinned you down onto the issue of whether or not Patterson can downsize the NY state employee ranks to compensate for the unions failing to agree with compensation concessions.

I say he can.  Do you disagree?

The governor will not being firing 8,700 people he will be cutting jobs.  Perhaps that difference requires more intellectual ability to understand than you possess?  So, I will explain it to you in simple terms that even you should be able to comprehend though I doubt it.

This is what I have argued for, so it seems that the issue is your reading comprehension, not my understanding of the law.

(snip of a bunch of obvious steps pretty much identical with procedures everywhere)

Sounds like Patterson is doing what I recommended.  Let's hope he cuts deeply enough to restore some sanity to the system.

[Berkut]

It is too bad that these cuts have to come as a result of the econmic crisis, rather than simply because NYS has a ridiculously over-paid, bloated, and inefficient public employee services.

It is kind of sad that in order to be able to afford grossly over-paying the Strixs of the world, other people have to work for a pittance in sub-contracted jobs.

Mrs. berkut has decided she wants to go back to work - not because we really need the money, but because she misses the work she used to do (social work). Of course, getting one of those cushy jobs with the state where you sit around all day picking your ass and shooting the shit while getting paid is nearly impossible, plus she said she doesn't think she could stand working in such an apathetic atmosphere.

So she is getting a part time job working for Easter Seals doing in home care for kids with disabilities. Her bachelors degree in social work combined with over a decade of experience helping people with developmental disabilities will get her slightly above minimum wage. Which doesn't matter much to her, but you wonder how many people simply cannot afford to do that kind of work, all so the state employees can burn through the states resources doing nearly nothing.

It amazes me that the state has actually managed to create an almost completely perverse system where the more competent you are, the less you will be rewarded, while the lazy and incompetent are untouchable.

[Caliga]

It amazes me that the state has actually managed to create an almost completely perverse system where the more competent you are, the less you will be rewarded, while the lazy and incompetent are untouchable.

That's what government does.  Always been that way, always will be that way.

[Berkut]

It amazes me that the state has actually managed to create an almost completely perverse system where the more competent you are, the less you will be rewarded, while the lazy and incompetent are untouchable.

That's what government does.  Always been that way, always will be that way.

Yeah, you are right, of course.

[Valmy]

Yeah, you are right, of course.

The lazy and incompetent have a much bigger lobby and voting base than the competent.