Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Well this is interesting. Wonder if the media will address this?

Posted by   + Show Post

Emails obtained by The Daily Caller show that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind terminating the pensions of 20,000 salaried retirees at the Delphi auto parts manufacturing company.

The move, made in 2009 while the Obama administration implemented its auto bailout plan, appears to have been made solely because those retirees were not members of labor unions.

The internal government emails contradict sworn testimony, in federal court and before Congress, given by several Obama administration figures. They also indicate that the administration misled lawmakers and the courts about the sequence of events surrounding the termination of those non-union pensions, and that administration figures violated federal law.

Delphi, a General Motors company, is one of the world’s largest automotive parts manufacturers. Twenty thousand of its workers lost nearly their entire pensions when the government bailed out GM. At the same time, Delphi employees who were members of the United Auto Workers union saw their pensions topped off and made whole.

The White House and Treasury Department have consistently maintained that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) independently made the decision to terminate the 20,000 non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan. The PBGC is a federal government agency that handles private-sector pension benefits issues. Its charter calls for independent representation of pension beneficiaries’ interests.

Former Treasury official Matthew Feldman and former White House auto czar Ron Bloom, both key members of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry during the GM bailout, have testified under oath that the PBGC, not the administration, led the effort to terminate the non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan.

“As a result of the Delphi Corporation bankruptcy, for example, Delphi and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation were forced to terminate Delphi’s pension plans, which means there are Delphi retirees who unfortunately will collect less than their full pension benefits,” Feldman testified on July 11, 2012.

The emails TheDC has obtained show that the Treasury Department, not the independent PBGC, was running the show.

Under 29 U.S.C. §1342, the PBGC is the only government entity that is legally empowered to initiate termination of a pension or make any official movements toward doing so.

NEXT: Read the internal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation emails >>

by on Aug. 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM
Replies (41-50):
Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Aug. 8, 2012 at 11:05 AM
1 mom liked this

And what if you want to work there?

Anyhow, labor dues should not go to political campaigns without the donaters consent, but that does not seem to happen as it should:

"It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations."

http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm

Union members should not be harassed for their political leanings:

This hearing was the first of many discussions Issa wants to have about political contributions from unions, he said.

Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, professor of labor and employment law at Indiana University, said there should be a law that gives a legal right for employees or shareholders to abstain from being forced to pay for corporate political activity. There are already extensive laws upholding the rights of union employees to dissent, he said.

UAW member Terry Bowman said in a House hearing Wednesday that he doesn't want unions to be "quasi-political parties."

Terry Bowman, a United Auto Workers member and president of Union Conservatives, Inc., said he is pro labor, but he doesn’t like it when unions become “quasi-political parties and socio-economic groups pushing a radical, left-wing ideology.”

Bowman said that Republican union workers are “harassed, ridiculed and persecuted” by union bosses because their money is spent supporting candidates they do not support.

The only effective solution to this problem, Bowman said, is to establish a national “Right to Work” law, which would give laborers the freedom to not support political activities financially as a condition of employment.

http://medillonthehill.net/2012/02/union-dues-workers-debate-if-their-money-should-go-to-campaigns/

In addition, the card check process supported in many cases could virtually eliminate the private ballot vote for employees, opening the door to intimidation. 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

How so? You don't have to work there if you dont want to join the union.

Ask the auto workers who got to KEEP their pensions if they are complaining about paying their $30 a month. Somehow I doubt they are.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 "Pay the dues" is arguably a legal form of extortion. 


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

You don't have to do anything. There are many jobs that are not unionized. But if you (general) don't want to pay the dues, don't expect the same protection that union members have.


Quoting momof31995:

Why should anyone have to pay for a job?

 

 

The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Aug. 8, 2012 at 11:07 AM
I agree with you. In a perfect world, corporations would give a hoot about their employees and their quality of life in addition to the bottom line. It's sad that we don't live in a perfect world and throughout history employees have had to band together to ensure their best interests are considered.

Quoting 4kidz916:

I understand that you don't have to do anything but I feel that anyone who has worked hard and has done well at their job should be protected.  Paying for protection is ridiculous, it seems to further reduce good work ethic IMO.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

You don't have to do anything. There are many jobs that are not unionized. But if you (general) don't want to pay the dues, don't expect the same protection that union members have.



Quoting momof31995:

Why should anyone have to pay for a job?


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Aug. 8, 2012 at 11:24 AM

 Why do people generally want to work somewhere?  Good pay and good benefits, right?  I mean, I doubt there are many children dreaming of the day they can work on an assembly line.  How many auto worker costumes do you see at Halloween?  I've never seen one.  So, they want to work there because the pay and benefits are good.  So, your hypothetical person wants to enjoy the fruit of the union's collective bargaining, but they don't want to join the union.  Is entitlement only bad when it is people who have the audacity to want to be compensated fairly for their labor?  It's okay to feel entitled to the benefits without participating in the collective bargaining that resulted in those benefits?

I think that unions should operate within the law.  I also think that corporations should operate within the law, but they don't always do that either and with catastrophic consequences not only to their own employees, but also the economy as a whole.

Again, if you are very opposed to unions, don't work in an industry that is unionized.  It's not like they are glamourous jobs that the average person is clamoring for because the work is so wonderful and fulfilling.

Quoting Meadowchik:

And what if you want to work there?

Anyhow, labor dues should not go to political campaigns without the donaters consent, but that does not seem to happen as it should:

"It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations."

http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm

Union members should not be harassed for their political leanings:

This hearing was the first of many discussions Issa wants to have about political contributions from unions, he said.

Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, professor of labor and employment law at Indiana University, said there should be a law that gives a legal right for employees or shareholders to abstain from being forced to pay for corporate political activity. There are already extensive laws upholding the rights of union employees to dissent, he said.

UAW member Terry Bowman said in a House hearing Wednesday that he doesn't want unions to be "quasi-political parties."

Terry Bowman, a United Auto Workers member and president of Union Conservatives, Inc., said he is pro labor, but he doesn’t like it when unions become “quasi-political parties and socio-economic groups pushing a radical, left-wing ideology.”

Bowman said that Republican union workers are “harassed, ridiculed and persecuted” by union bosses because their money is spent supporting candidates they do not support.

The only effective solution to this problem, Bowman said, is to establish a national “Right to Work” law, which would give laborers the freedom to not support political activities financially as a condition of employment.

http://medillonthehill.net/2012/02/union-dues-workers-debate-if-their-money-should-go-to-campaigns/

In addition, the card check process supported in many cases could virtually eliminate the private ballot vote for employees, opening the door to intimidation. 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

How so? You don't have to work there if you dont want to join the union.

Ask the auto workers who got to KEEP their pensions if they are complaining about paying their $30 a month. Somehow I doubt they are.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 "Pay the dues" is arguably a legal form of extortion. 


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

You don't have to do anything. There are many jobs that are not unionized. But if you (general) don't want to pay the dues, don't expect the same protection that union members have.


Quoting momof31995:

Why should anyone have to pay for a job?

 

 

 

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Aug. 8, 2012 at 11:33 AM
1 mom liked this

 In addition to the concerns I addressed with the links in my previous posts, I do think it's pretty preposterous that you use the defense of "if you don't like unions, don't work in a unionized industry." For some people that can mean the difference between being employed or not, and that is why there are right-leaning members of left-leaning unions.  The very least we can do for them is to ensure that the private ballot is preserved and that the political contribution laws are enforced, to stay as far as possible from an extortion-like setup.

Heck, that's goes for the left-leaning members as well, they need fair conditions, too, as I am sure you would agree that not all Dems agree with every left-leaning policy.

 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 Why do people generally want to work somewhere?  Good pay and good benefits, right?  I mean, I doubt there are many children dreaming of the day they can work on an assembly line.  How many auto worker costumes do you see at Halloween?  I've never seen one.  So, they want to work there because the pay and benefits are good.  So, your hypothetical person wants to enjoy the fruit of the union's collective bargaining, but they don't want to join the union.  Is entitlement only bad when it is people who have the audacity to want to be compensated fairly for their labor?  It's okay to feel entitled to the benefits without participating in the collective bargaining that resulted in those benefits?

I think that unions should operate within the law.  I also think that corporations should operate within the law, but they don't always do that either and with catastrophic consequences not only to their own employees, but also the economy as a whole.

Again, if you are very opposed to unions, don't work in an industry that is unionized.  It's not like they are glamourous jobs that the average person is clamoring for because the work is so wonderful and fulfilling.

Quoting Meadowchik:

And what if you want to work there?

Anyhow, labor dues should not go to political campaigns without the donaters consent, but that does not seem to happen as it should:

"It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations."

http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm

Union members should not be harassed for their political leanings:

This hearing was the first of many discussions Issa wants to have about political contributions from unions, he said.

Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, professor of labor and employment law at Indiana University, said there should be a law that gives a legal right for employees or shareholders to abstain from being forced to pay for corporate political activity. There are already extensive laws upholding the rights of union employees to dissent, he said.

UAW member Terry Bowman said in a House hearing Wednesday that he doesn't want unions to be "quasi-political parties."

Terry Bowman, a United Auto Workers member and president of Union Conservatives, Inc., said he is pro labor, but he doesn’t like it when unions become “quasi-political parties and socio-economic groups pushing a radical, left-wing ideology.”

Bowman said that Republican union workers are “harassed, ridiculed and persecuted” by union bosses because their money is spent supporting candidates they do not support.

The only effective solution to this problem, Bowman said, is to establish a national “Right to Work” law, which would give laborers the freedom to not support political activities financially as a condition of employment.

http://medillonthehill.net/2012/02/union-dues-workers-debate-if-their-money-should-go-to-campaigns/

In addition, the card check process supported in many cases could virtually eliminate the private ballot vote for employees, opening the door to intimidation. 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

How so? You don't have to work there if you dont want to join the union.

Ask the auto workers who got to KEEP their pensions if they are complaining about paying their $30 a month. Somehow I doubt they are.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 "Pay the dues" is arguably a legal form of extortion. 


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

You don't have to do anything. There are many jobs that are not unionized. But if you (general) don't want to pay the dues, don't expect the same protection that union members have.


Quoting momof31995:

Why should anyone have to pay for a job?

 

 

 

 

The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Aug. 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM
1 mom liked this

 I find this turnabout fascinating.  When those of us who complain about the lack of living wage jobs, the refrain is, "If you don't want to make so little, gain the skill to work in an industry that pays well."  And when we say, not everyone is able to do that for X, Y, Z reason, and besides, the world needs X,Y,Z, and they should be able to support their families, or those are the only jobs in their area, there is a general sense of, "Oh well.  That's life," from that side.

The difference is, it is much easier to find a non-union job than it is to find a living wage job.

Quoting Meadowchik:

 In addition to the concerns I addressed with the links in my previous posts, I do think it's pretty preposterous that you use the defense of "if you don't like unions, don't work in a unionized industry." For some people that can mean the difference between being employed or not, and that is why there are right-leaning members of left-leaning unions.  The very least we can do for them is to ensure that the private ballot is preserved and that the political contribution laws are enforced, to stay as far as possible from an extortion-like setup.

Heck, that's goes for the left-leaning members as well, they need fair conditions, too, as I am sure you would agree that not all Dems agree with every left-leaning policy.

 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 Why do people generally want to work somewhere?  Good pay and good benefits, right?  I mean, I doubt there are many children dreaming of the day they can work on an assembly line.  How many auto worker costumes do you see at Halloween?  I've never seen one.  So, they want to work there because the pay and benefits are good.  So, your hypothetical person wants to enjoy the fruit of the union's collective bargaining, but they don't want to join the union.  Is entitlement only bad when it is people who have the audacity to want to be compensated fairly for their labor?  It's okay to feel entitled to the benefits without participating in the collective bargaining that resulted in those benefits?

I think that unions should operate within the law.  I also think that corporations should operate within the law, but they don't always do that either and with catastrophic consequences not only to their own employees, but also the economy as a whole.

Again, if you are very opposed to unions, don't work in an industry that is unionized.  It's not like they are glamourous jobs that the average person is clamoring for because the work is so wonderful and fulfilling.

Quoting Meadowchik:

And what if you want to work there?

Anyhow, labor dues should not go to political campaigns without the donaters consent, but that does not seem to happen as it should:

"It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations."

http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm

Union members should not be harassed for their political leanings:

This hearing was the first of many discussions Issa wants to have about political contributions from unions, he said.

Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, professor of labor and employment law at Indiana University, said there should be a law that gives a legal right for employees or shareholders to abstain from being forced to pay for corporate political activity. There are already extensive laws upholding the rights of union employees to dissent, he said.

UAW member Terry Bowman said in a House hearing Wednesday that he doesn't want unions to be "quasi-political parties."

Terry Bowman, a United Auto Workers member and president of Union Conservatives, Inc., said he is pro labor, but he doesn’t like it when unions become “quasi-political parties and socio-economic groups pushing a radical, left-wing ideology.”

Bowman said that Republican union workers are “harassed, ridiculed and persecuted” by union bosses because their money is spent supporting candidates they do not support.

The only effective solution to this problem, Bowman said, is to establish a national “Right to Work” law, which would give laborers the freedom to not support political activities financially as a condition of employment.

http://medillonthehill.net/2012/02/union-dues-workers-debate-if-their-money-should-go-to-campaigns/

In addition, the card check process supported in many cases could virtually eliminate the private ballot vote for employees, opening the door to intimidation. 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

How so? You don't have to work there if you dont want to join the union.

Ask the auto workers who got to KEEP their pensions if they are complaining about paying their $30 a month. Somehow I doubt they are.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 "Pay the dues" is arguably a legal form of extortion. 


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

You don't have to do anything. There are many jobs that are not unionized. But if you (general) don't want to pay the dues, don't expect the same protection that union members have.


Quoting momof31995:

Why should anyone have to pay for a job?

 

 

 

 

 

LIMom1105
by on Aug. 8, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Not at all.  You have a choice, but if you choose to not pay dues, you also don't get protection.  And when times are lean, those in charge of budgets will let you go first--why, because it's easy.  

Why should they get the same protection as those who pay the dues each month? 

I find this thread ironic--so many conservative kvetching about the treatement non-union members received.  If no one was unionized and the same number of people lost their benefits, there would be no uproar.

Quoting Meadowchik:

 "Pay the dues" is arguably a legal form of extortion. 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

You don't have to do anything. There are many jobs that are not unionized. But if you (general) don't want to pay the dues, don't expect the same protection that union members have.

Quoting momof31995:

Why should anyone have to pay for a job?

 


LIMom1105
by on Aug. 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Why is this preposterous?  I see conservatives post on here all the time, if you want to earn more money, get off your butt and get a better job. If you are working a lousy job for lousy pay, it's your fault.

So, by that rationale, if you don't like unions, it would make sense to not work in a field that is unionized, correct? 

Quoting Meadowchik:

 In addition to the concerns I addressed with the links in my previous posts, I do think it's pretty preposterous that you use the defense of "if you don't like unions, don't work in a unionized industry." For some people that can mean the difference between being employed or not, and that is why there are right-leaning members of left-leaning unions.  The very least we can do for them is to ensure that the private ballot is preserved and that the political contribution laws are enforced, to stay as far as possible from an extortion-like setup.

Heck, that's goes for the left-leaning members as well, they need fair conditions, too, as I am sure you would agree that not all Dems agree with every left-leaning policy.

 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 Why do people generally want to work somewhere?  Good pay and good benefits, right?  I mean, I doubt there are many children dreaming of the day they can work on an assembly line.  How many auto worker costumes do you see at Halloween?  I've never seen one.  So, they want to work there because the pay and benefits are good.  So, your hypothetical person wants to enjoy the fruit of the union's collective bargaining, but they don't want to join the union.  Is entitlement only bad when it is people who have the audacity to want to be compensated fairly for their labor?  It's okay to feel entitled to the benefits without participating in the collective bargaining that resulted in those benefits?

I think that unions should operate within the law.  I also think that corporations should operate within the law, but they don't always do that either and with catastrophic consequences not only to their own employees, but also the economy as a whole.

Again, if you are very opposed to unions, don't work in an industry that is unionized.  It's not like they are glamourous jobs that the average person is clamoring for because the work is so wonderful and fulfilling.

Quoting Meadowchik:

And what if you want to work there?

Anyhow, labor dues should not go to political campaigns without the donaters consent, but that does not seem to happen as it should:

"It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations."

http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm

Union members should not be harassed for their political leanings:

This hearing was the first of many discussions Issa wants to have about political contributions from unions, he said.

Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, professor of labor and employment law at Indiana University, said there should be a law that gives a legal right for employees or shareholders to abstain from being forced to pay for corporate political activity. There are already extensive laws upholding the rights of union employees to dissent, he said.

UAW member Terry Bowman said in a House hearing Wednesday that he doesn't want unions to be "quasi-political parties."

Terry Bowman, a United Auto Workers member and president of Union Conservatives, Inc., said he is pro labor, but he doesn’t like it when unions become “quasi-political parties and socio-economic groups pushing a radical, left-wing ideology.”

Bowman said that Republican union workers are “harassed, ridiculed and persecuted” by union bosses because their money is spent supporting candidates they do not support.

The only effective solution to this problem, Bowman said, is to establish a national “Right to Work” law, which would give laborers the freedom to not support political activities financially as a condition of employment.

http://medillonthehill.net/2012/02/union-dues-workers-debate-if-their-money-should-go-to-campaigns/

In addition, the card check process supported in many cases could virtually eliminate the private ballot vote for employees, opening the door to intimidation. 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

How so? You don't have to work there if you dont want to join the union.

Ask the auto workers who got to KEEP their pensions if they are complaining about paying their $30 a month. Somehow I doubt they are.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 "Pay the dues" is arguably a legal form of extortion. 


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

You don't have to do anything. There are many jobs that are not unionized. But if you (general) don't want to pay the dues, don't expect the same protection that union members have.


Quoting momof31995:

Why should anyone have to pay for a job?

 

 

 

 


momof31995
by Bronze Member on Aug. 8, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Why Unions Are Harmful to Workers


By John Lott

Published March 17, 2011

FoxNews.com




Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has finally won his first battle with public employee unions. But the fight against excessive union rights now moves to Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Of course, union leaders are upset, with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently telling PBS’s "News Hour": “This is about [Gov. Scott Walker] trying to take away the rights of workers to come together to bargain . . . .”

But in fact, Governor Walker’s budget will help the vast majority of workers in the state. Mr. Trumka naturally wants to make it appear that he is fighting for workers generally, but that is not the case. He is just fighting for some workers, but he is hurting other workers -- other union workers who are laid off because the state cannot afford them or other workers who are forced to pay higher taxes.

Unions are harmful because they act as monopolies. If the union members won’t work, the law makes it extremely difficult for anyone else to step in and do their jobs. As a result, union workers have little competition -- so they can demand higher wages and do less work.

By threatening to stop work if companies don’t pay employees more, unions force companies to layoff some workers. That hurts some union workers. Unions don't just pit workers against employers. They pit a select group of workers against consumers, stockholders, and other workers. Unions don't even make agreements that are in the interest of all their own workers, just those in the majority, usually just older workers with more seniority.

Suppose demands for higher wages or benefits means 20 percent of unionized workers would be fired. That isn't such a hard decision for a union. Twenty percent of its members will oppose the agreement, but they won't be union members for long. Most of the remaining 80 percent are likely to support the agreement.

Unions also protect seniority, not the most productive workers. When layoffs occur, it is the most recently hired workers who are laid off first.

Recently, there have been cases of teachers’ unions holding lotteries to see who gets laid off. When was the last time you saw a private company make hiring/firing decisions that way?

Union advocates talk about the "right" to collective bargaining, but it is unclear why this "right" trumps the right of other workers to have a job.

In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker threatened to lay off 6,000 workers if he wasn't able to get his union bill passed. But Trumka and other union members, over the objections of Wisconsin’s non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, claim that the layoffs are all part of budget trickery, alleging that Wisconsin actually has a budget surplus.

Bad corporate monopolies face competition. By restricting sales and raising prices, other companies see a chance to start producing the product and make profits.

There is a reason why only 6.9 percent of private sector workers are in unions. Unions have tried reduce this competition by representing the workers in an entire industry, such as steel, cars, or coal mining. That way they can raise wages without worrying about non-union companies getting the jobs. But ultimately there is still competition from foreign workers. Unions help ship a lot of would be American jobs overseas.

So how do unions end up representing 36.2 percent of public sector workers? Simply put, they have an additional type of monopoly. Not only do unions have a monopoly in bargaining with the government, the government has a kind of monopoly as well.

Take education. Parents pay for public education through their property and other taxes -- whether they send their kids to public or private schools. Public schools must really be a lot worse than private ones before parents are willing to pay the public school taxes and still pay private school tuition on top of that -- effectively paying twice for school.

In contrast, private schools that kept paying more and more for teachers would quickly find themselves out of business. Not surprisingly, teacher unions not only oppose any weakening in their current rules that they alone represent teachers in any negotiations, but they also strongly oppose anything that would create competition for public schools, whether it be charter schools, vouchers or tax credits.

Gov. Walker was willing to compromise and let public employee unions negotiate over everything: salaries without limit, mandatory overtime, performance bonuses, hazardous duty pay and classroom size for teachers. Yet, he drew the line at pensions, which have accumulated huge unfunded liabilities. At least voters could see the current costs of paying public employees higher salaries, but both politicians and unions have proven untrustworthy over the hidden long-term costs of these retirement payments. But even that was too much for the unions and their Democratic allies.

Wisconsin’s public employee unions have been problematic in another way: high mandatory dues. With union dues of $500 to $1,000, employees have had to give money to unions whether they approved of what they did with the money or not. Walker’s changes finally give government employees the choice of whether they would rather spend their money on something other than unions. The new law doesn’t supersede union contracts that are already in place.

Unfortunately, Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug La Follette, a Democrat, has taken the unprecedented practice of delaying a governor’s request to immediately publish the new law, a requirement that must be met before the law goes into effect. Delaying the publication date until March 25 allows unions and local Democrat officials around Wisconsin rush to pass contract extensions that protect unions from increased contributions to their pensions and health care benefits.

Few would sympathize with a company that raises prices by restricting the amount they produce, let alone supporting the government protecting the monopoly from competition. But unions do that and more, and they only accomplish this through government force.

Well-paid union members shouldn’t be given benefits at the expense of other Americans.

John R. Lott, Jr is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of ”More Guns, Less Crime” (University of Chicago Press, 2010).


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/17/unions-harmful-workers/#ixzz22yKIyNkJ
Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Aug. 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Explain the turnabout, because it seems to me that you are simply repeating a pre-recorded response, rather than addressing the content of my post:  is it wrong to make workplace political intimidation easier? Is it wrong to improperly use union dues for political campaigns?

If you want to compare union discrimination to something, how about comparing it to discrimination based on race or sexual orientation?  I oppose all three.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I find this turnabout fascinating.  When those of us who complain about the lack of living wage jobs, the refrain is, "If you don't want to make so little, gain the skill to work in an industry that pays well."  And when we say, not everyone is able to do that for X, Y, Z reason, and besides, the world needs X,Y,Z, and they should be able to support their families, or those are the only jobs in their area, there is a general sense of, "Oh well.  That's life," from that side.

The difference is, it is much easier to find a non-union job than it is to find a living wage job.

The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Aug. 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting LIMom1105:

Not at all.  You have a choice, but if you choose to not pay dues, you also don't get protection.  And when times are lean, those in charge of budgets will let you go first--why, because it's easy.  

Why should they get the same protection as those who pay the dues each month? 

I find this thread ironic--so many conservative kvetching about the treatement non-union members received.  If no one was unionized and the same number of people lost their benefits, there would be no uproar.

Quoting LIMom1105:

Why is this preposterous? I see conservatives post on here all the time, if you want to earn more money, get off your butt and get a better job. If you are working a lousy job for lousy pay, it's your fault.

So, by that rationale, if you don't like unions, it would make sense to not work in a field that is unionized, correct?

As I replied in an earlier post, this response of yours and shimabab's actually seems like some kind of pre-recorded meme.

The OP itself is about evidence linking the Obama admin to improper and illegal action regarding delphi pensions, and about lying about it.

Furthermore, I also brought up the issue of union dues being spent on political campaigns without the proper documentation required by federal law.  I also mentioned the issue of card checking, which can effectively eliminate the benefit of private ballot in the workplace and therefore increase the likelihood of workplace intimidation.

The "work someplace else" response sounds like a big fat deflection.

The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN