Government Unions vs. Taxpayers - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Skid Row Joe · #1 12-13-2010, 03:36 PM

The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment.-

By TIM PAWLENTY

When Americans think of organized labor, they might think of images like I saw growing up in a blue-collar meatpacking town: hard hats, work boots, tough conditions and gritty jobs. While I didn't work in the slaughterhouses, I did become a union member when I worked at a grocery store to help put myself through school. I was grateful for the paycheck and proud of the work I did.

The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America's working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hard-working but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation.

Much has changed. The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.

Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.

How did this happen? Very quietly. The rise of government unions has been like a silent coup, an inside job engineered by self-interested politicians and fueled by campaign contributions.

Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default. Decades of overpromising and fiscal malpractice by state and local officials have created unfunded public employee benefit liabilities of more than $3 trillion.

View Full Image

Images.com/Corbis

Over the last eight years in Minnesota, we have taken decisive action to prevent our problems from becoming a state crisis. Public employee unions fought us virtually every step of the way. Mass transit employees, for example, went on strike for 44 days in 2005—because we refused to grant them lifetime health-care benefits after working just 15 years. It was a tough fight, but in the end Minnesota taxpayers won.

We reworked benefits for new hires. We required existing employees to contribute more to their pensions. We reformed our public employee health plan and froze wages.

We proved that even in deep-blue Minnesota, taxpayers can take on big government and big labor, and win. In coming years, that fight will have to be joined throughout the country in city halls, state capitals and in Washington, D.C.

Reformers would be wise to adopt three overriding principles.
First, we need to bring public employee compensation back in line with the private sector and reduce the overall size of the federal civilian work force. Mr. Obama's proposal to freeze federal pay is a step in the right direction, but it falls well short of shrinking government and eliminating the pay premium enjoyed by federal employees.

Second, get the numbers right. Government should start using the same established accounting standards that private businesses are required to use, so we can accurately assess unfunded liabilities.

Third, we need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees. Defined-benefit systems have created a financial albatross for taxpayers. The private sector dropped them years ago in favor of the clarity and predictability of defined-contribution models such as 401(k) plans. This change alone can save taxpayers trillions of dollars.

The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.

If we're going to stop the government unions' silent coup, conservative reformers around the country must fight this challenge head on. The choice between big government and everyday Americans isn't a hard one

Mr. Pawlenty, a Republican, is governor of Minnesota.

LUVMBDiesels · #2 12-13-2010, 03:52 PM

My benefits, when I worked as a fed, were not all that great. My ex-FIL, on the other hand, worked for the government his entire career and his bennies are amazing!

The Clk Man · #3 12-13-2010, 04:36 PM

As a former employee and current employer, I think that unions are bad for America. The reason being, is that in a union shop, everyone gets paid equal for same job, what about the guy/gal that works hard and the lazy guy/gal that just works enough to get by. I think workers should be paid according to their output not because they are in a union.

Nate · #4 12-13-2010, 04:40 PM

Ok, cool. Federal employee's have a freeze in their paychecks... Ok, great. That includes the military...

What about all the "non federal employee's" that do "contract work" for astronomical fee's??? $280k a year for bio hazard waste disposal (throwing trash bags into an incinerator for 6 hours a day)

Or, Security contractors... Or wasteful government spending???

$250k vehicles (brand new) being cut up for scrap, because shipping them home costs too much... But the old beat up ones make it home..?
New office furnishings ever 2 years for the pentagon???

So, if a guy goes over seas, and gets paid 38k plus benefits for a year of service, so call it 60k a year... So, the 10 trucks I saw getting cut up for scrap would have paid for about 40 people's wages... A military "company" size element...

I wish the government could just quit with the over redundant bureaucracy, and wasteful spending... It's a problem at all levels...

I cant do anything about it. Other then closely monitor my department's spending, but even then, it's so widespread that you cant stop it...

UGH, back to shoveling snow. Good to be back home

~Nate

pj67coll · #5 12-13-2010, 05:07 PM

I agree with much of what Pawlenty wrote but I have a hard time believing the 123K a year pay and bennies as an average.

- Peter.

#6 12-13-2010, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I agree with much of what Pawlenty wrote but I have a hard time believing the 123K a year pay and bennies as an average.

- Peter.

http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/index.asp

Skid Row Joe · #7 12-13-2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I agree with much of what Pawlenty wrote but I have a hard time believing the 123K a year pay and bennies as an average.

- Peter.

It's accurate.

Pooka · #8 12-13-2010, 09:40 PM

By 'government employees' it appears he is including everyone who draws a check from the Feds. That wold put Judges and Diplomats in there with jobs that pay about $35,000 a year.

The figure may be accurate but I find it to be misleading. Many of the jobs higher government folks do have no private sector equal. How may private air traffic controllers are there and what do they get paid?

A good way to see what is really out there is to go to www.usajobs.com. One thing you will quickly notice is that most of the high paying jobs are in DC. If you read the fine print you will find that these jobs receive a 24% cost of living adjustment due the higher living costs in DC. Are these figures included in the salary numbers?

Contractors are something that is out of control. I know a guy who gets $280 an hour to look at (not test, just to look at) some supplies the Feds buy. He also hates Unions because he is afraid they will take away his job.

And the employees that wanted life-time insurance for which they would get to pay around $400 a month for after 15 years? I don't know of a major oil company that does not offer this after 10 years of service, so I don't see it as being that out of line.

And I must say I am shocked, SHOCKED! to see any Union spending money on an election. Just today someone who is running for head of the RNC said that money was the key to winning elections and they if they had only had a little more the Republicans could have picked up another 21 seats in the House. Yup, if it were not for all of those Union employees taking advantage of their legal rights to use their PAC to help fund a pols' run for office the Republicans would have really cleaned up.

Therefore the path is clear. The Republicans are never going to win all the seats they could as long as there are Unions that are working to prevent their elections. If only there were no Unions... The Republicans would sure have an easier time of it.

The quickest path to tyranny is to remove the ones who stand between the tyrants and the people. As Dick the Butcher once said, "The first thing we do, let us kill all the lawyers." If you are unsure of the meaning of this passage from The Second Part of King Henry VI then do a little research. I think it fits here very well.

RichC · #9 12-13-2010, 11:43 PM

This kind of moronic right wing drivel is saddening.

Cant you see thru the wool that being pulled over your eyes.

I suppose you want to repeal child labor laws also ?

Billybob · #10 12-14-2010, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

This kind of moronic right wing drivel is saddening.

Cant you see thru the wool that being pulled over your eyes.

I suppose you want to repeal child labor laws also ?

After that thoughtful response I'm voting for whoever RichC votes for!

RichC · #11 12-14-2010, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

After that thoughtful response I'm voting for whoever RichC votes for!

If this kind of idiocy continues the corporations will finish taking over our government and there will be no need for you to vote.

Billybob · #12 12-14-2010, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

If this kind of idiocy continues the corporations will finish taking over our government and there will be no need for you to vote.

I'm a stock holder!

gregs210 · #13 12-14-2010, 02:58 AM

In SF, the Muni drivers are guaranteed never to be lower paid than the second-best paid public transit workers in the US.

The City is facing a huge budget shortfall (nearly 30 million IIRC, and there are only about 750,000 residents) and there are cutbacks everywhere across the board.

But the muni union is going to sue if their members don't get holiday bonuses of about $5K each.

I think this country is where it is today because of unions. One need only look at mining as a singular example; absent organized labor that industry would here be as deadly as in China.

That said, with few exceptions unions have largely outlived their usefulness. Don't get me wrong, they still support their members, but they do so as though in a vacuum, blinded to any reality other than the one they construct. With OSHA and class-action tort litigation, workers are generally protected from unsafe conditions, so pretty much all unions do any longer is artificially inflate wages and protect marginal and abusive workers (the Peter Principle works well here).

One of the problems the auto industry had were their overly generous union agreements (paying workers who didn't work when their plants were idled is but one example).)

As noted elsewhere, the unions heavily support democratic candidates (regardless whether their members do) and it's very nearly an incestuous relationship.

I'm not sure how we go about changing this cycle, but I suppose people generally would have to agree that there was a problem that needed to be rectified.