One reason why Wisconsin needed union reform: captive benefits

posted at 12:15 pm on February 26, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The standoff in Wisconsin will stretch into its third week, and the fleebaggers in the state Senate still refuse to return to vote on the bill passed in the Assembly on Friday morning.  Legislators say they will remain out of state as long as the bill is on the table, and demand that Governor Scott Walker pull it back.  Walker, for his part, has refused to do so, and will have to announce layoffs during Tuesday’s budget address if the budget-repair bill remains stalled in the legislature.

Some have called for Walker to reconsider his push to remove pensions and benefits from collective bargaining with public-employee unions as a compromise, but Gary Gross recalls a Patrick McIlheran column from December that explains exactly why Wisconsin needs to push for PEU reform now.   The MSJ columnist wrote about the big stake that the Wisconsin Education Association has in forcing individual school districts to negotiate benefits — because they can demand that their own WEA Trust have a monopoly on health insurance:

Districts that buy WEA Trust plans average $1,665 a month for family premiums, according to their state association, while those choosing other carriers average $1,466. The difference is greatest where taxpayers cover the whole premium.

Milton was paying $48,301 more in premiums for every month that it couldn’t switch from WEA Trust to a pair of plans from Madison-based Dean Health and Janesville-based MercyCare that it said were comparable. The district already had switched its administrative staff, said Nikolay, and while the union objected that the new plans would restrict choices, most teachers already used doctors at Dean or MercyCare clinics, Nikolay noted. “That made it less problematic for a lot of our families.”

And it saved a bundle for a district saddled with “bleak local economic conditions,” as its arbitration case put it. It is losing students and, thus, state aid. The area is losing population. The district needed to control premiums, and the arbitrator agreed.

The question is why it had to go to arbitration at all. The answer is that in Wisconsin, school districts can’t change health carriers – even if they keep benefits the same – without negotiating. And teachers unions have been very partial to keeping WEA Trust.

This may be changing. If unions won’t agree to dump WEA Trust plans, a district could always get an arbitrator to side with them. But districts were loath to use arbitration, which they could lose badly, so long as they had the old qualified economic offer law in place.

That guarantee of no arbitration in exchange for a certain compensation hike got killed, however, by Democrats last year.

When Walker says that the PEU reforms will allow counties, cities, and school districts more latitude in budget cuts, this is what he means.  The protesters in Madison have avoided this particular point, perhaps because it exposes one of the real stakes in the fight.  The WEA, perhaps the most powerful union in the state, makes a fortune off of selling its insurance at inflated prices to districts around the state.  Milton, for instance, saved $382 per month per employee when it got an arbitrator to agree to end the WEA Trust concession.  Spread that around to the thousands of teachers in Wisconsin, and taxpayers can get a pretty good idea what PEU reform might mean in reducing stressed budgets at every level of government in Wisconsin.

The Wall Street Journal noticed this yesterday as well:

Under the current collective- bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage. These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin’s unique arrangement under which the teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district’s contributions for health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

No doubt the WEA gets a good deal for its members, but it’s getting a better deal for itself.

Gary says this heretofore overlooked context explains why unions are bitterly opposing the changes, and why they are so important to defend:

That the union opposed the switch from WEA Trust to a more taxpayer-friendly insurance plan says everything about the teachers union’s priorities. That $1,000,000 in savings could’ve gone towards hiring more teachers to lower class sizes. It could’ve been used to get better equipment in science labs. It could’ve just been saved. It could’ve been used for a combination of those options.

This isn’t a tiny consideration. It’s gigantic in impact.

The refusal to collect union dues probably fuels the union opposition most, as it will strangle their political operation in Wisconsin.  But for the WEA in particular, the loss of their near-monopoly on health insurance in the public sector will do the next-highest level of damage to union finances.  Just remember that when people tell you that the cause for which they’re fighting isn’t about money, it usually is.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

In the middle of the past week, I was worried that Walker would lose momentum as time wore on. I’m not worried any more.

BuckeyeSam on February 26, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I’m not either. The Unions are saying the same things they said last week and the new information that is coming out — like this article about the WEA trust — is devasting to the public union cause. More information and discusses helps Walker and hurts the Dems and the Public Unions, because they don’t have a lot to offer after yelling their slogans and banging their drums all day.

Walker handled this type of situation in Milwaukee County and won because he knew that patience and the facts would win the day.

PackerBronco on February 26, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Knucklehead on February 26, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Thank goodness my only son thinks as I do…

ladyingray on February 26, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Anyone who gathers in sufficient numbers and chooses to do so. Who are you to insist that the plebs “maintain the privilege of negotiating their wages”??? What next? Let them eat cake?!

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM

How would you feel about the military rise up ‘en masse’ and demand that you fund tripling their salary and paying all of their benefits for the rest of their lives?

ladyingray on February 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM

darwin on February 26, 2011 at 2:08 PM

That the taxpayers in question are not receiving the pensions and health coverage that unionized employees are receiving is their fault, no one else’s. They should have joined a union and negotiated for better benefits. In this day and age, with profits through the roof, that you would make workers do more with less is ridiculous…exploitative, even.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:15 PM

As I wrote above, get a hold of Kim Strassel’s column in Friday’s Wall Street Journal. BOR mentioned two or three times. It’s a real eye opener. I suspect that HA didn’t run it through the Headlines because she’s a columnist that WSJ puts behind a pay wall or whatever it’s called.

BuckeyeSam on February 26, 2011 at 2:08 PM

That link I posted goes directly to the Kim Strassel article and not through the Wall Street Journal. And you’re right, it is a must read.

Knucklehead on February 26, 2011 at 2:15 PM

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:15 PM

The unions are going down, at least in the public sector. There is no choice.

ladyingray on February 26, 2011 at 2:18 PM

The unions are going down, at least in the public sector. There is no choice.

ladyingray on February 26, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Oh, there is a choice. The choice is between siding with hardworking people or siding with the super-rich. Profits are at record highs, and the top 1%’s share of national wealth is at gilded age levels. THEY HAVE OUR MONEY. They took it through bailouts and regulatory loopholes.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I have over the years, belonged to two public employee unions in New York State. NYS is an Agency Shop, which means that even though union membership is voluntary, they still charge you a fee to negotiate on your behalf.
Interesting to note that in most cases, your union dues, or “agency fee” in the case of non-members, is a flat percentage of your gross salary. The reason they negotiate exorbitant raises for you, is it translates into an exorbitant raise for them.
Also, in the two times in the last year I have been laid off, my union did nothing, read NOTHING for me. I sure as H*ll would have given back raises, benefits, whatever, just to keep a job. I was never even given the opportunity. NYS employee unions would rather lose members than income.

Mr. Grump on February 26, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Oh, there is a choice. The choice is between siding with hardworking people or siding with the super-rich. Profits are at record highs, and the top 1%’s share of national wealth is at gilded age levels. THEY HAVE OUR MONEY. They took it through bailouts and regulatory loopholes.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

hey gomer, we’re the hard working people who pay the salaries of those fat-cat RICH UNION THUGS.

get a clue.

the top 1% don’t have our money….such a lie they pay most of the taxes so union scum leeches can have a good life .

right4life on February 26, 2011 at 2:30 PM

I guess if you’re Jewish and spoke out about reducing the man that attempted to exterminate their race being reduced to a governor trying to balance his State’s budget, you would be a “bad Jew”!?!

Hening on February 26, 2011 at 2:31 PM

the top 1% don’t have our money

right4life on February 26, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Oh yes they do. Their share of national income has skyrocketed. How did that happen? Explain it; explain to me how the top 1% managed to increase their share of national income, and then tell me why that’s totally ok.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Milton, for instance, saved $382 per month per employee when it got an arbitrator to agree to end the WEA Trust concession.

Wait so, the district was able to make the changes without ending collective bargaining, but instead was forced to weigh the pro’s and con’s instead of making an arbitrary change in the name of $? (most insurance policies are not created equal, fyi)

If that’s the case, what exactly is the point of this article?

The refusal to collect union dues probably fuels the union opposition most, as it will strangle their political operation in Wisconsin.

Um, no. Look at what Walker’s doing. “Do what I say without compromise or discussion or suffer as I smear you in the media”. Without collective bargaining, every WI teacher is essentially dealing with this idiot on a 1-1 basis. If your company gives you a bum deal, you can leave for a new one. If you’re a teacher and the state gives you a bad deal, since you have no voice, what do you do? Move hundreds of miles to a NEW state?

Hogwash! Keep coming up with new “reasons” why this is important, while pretending they are what Walker had in mind. It’s pretty transparent that you guys are playing cover for him even more intensely then the idiot dems did for Obamacare.

Rainsford on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Ernesto, are you ever going to address the article? This is the same hissy fit you throw in every thread. Entitlements at every level are over a 100 trillion in the hole. No possible way to fix that without brutal cuts.

Chuck Schick on February 26, 2011 at 2:35 PM

No possible way to fix that without brutal cuts.

Chuck Schick on February 26, 2011 at 2:35 PM

I’m not arguing that cuts don’t have to be made. What I’m arguing is that a) the fabulously wealthy have a higher share of income than they ever have, and that should be accounted for in budgetary solutions and b) unions can grant concessions without having their bargaining rights stripped entirely.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM

That the taxpayers in question are not receiving the pensions and health coverage that unionized employees are receiving is their fault, no one else’s. They should have joined a union and negotiated for better benefits. In this day and age, with profits through the roof, that you would make workers do more with less is ridiculous…exploitative, even.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Yes yes ernesto, we know … it’s the Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat.

Little commie. You’re really showing your colors today. Go to a protest and beat up some old folks or something?

darwin on February 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM

. You’d have us back in the 20′s, and we simply will not let you.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 1:34 PM

You just hide in the corner and watch Che.

darwin-t on February 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

They took money from bailouts? And teachers didn’t get any money from bailouts?

You are naive.

I am a hard working person and I don’t belong to a union.

ladyingray on February 26, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Explain it; explain to me how the top 1% managed to increase their share of national income, and then tell me why that’s totally ok.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Because they have held onto the profits that their companies have earned rather than reinvesting it under fears of what the Pantload in Chief might do next to cripple the economy.

These little demonstrations sure have you wound up. When they crumble your tears will not feed you as much as hard work and thrift would.

darwin-t on February 26, 2011 at 2:47 PM

I’m not arguing that cuts don’t have to be made. What I’m arguing is that a) the fabulously wealthy have a higher share of income than they ever have, and that should be accounted for in budgetary solutions and b) unions can grant concessions without having their bargaining rights stripped entirely.
ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Still not addressing why tax payers in WI are forced to purchase benefits from the more expensive plan provided by union-owned inurance

Chuck Schick on February 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM

When they crumble your tears will not feed you as much as hard work and thrift would.

darwin-t on February 26, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Typical commie. Still doesn’t understand that the only people being exploited are the union members. They’re simply the mechanism the union bosses and democrats use to extort money from companies and taxpayers. Probably about half goes into the union bosses pockets and the rest goes into democrats pockets.

All unions do is extort.

darwin on February 26, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Still not addressing why tax payers in WI are forced to purchase benefits from the more expensive plan provided by union-owned inurance

Chuck Schick on February 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM

You’re nothing but a greedy capitalist exploiting workers !11!!111!!1!!!1!1

Sincerely,

ernesto

darwin on February 26, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Ernesto, are you ever going to address the article?

Chuck Schick on February 26, 2011 at 2:35 PM

He can’t. All he has today are lefty union talking points given to him late last night. His union bosses are out being bussed around the country today protesting and forgot to get their permits to protest on the capitol of Missouri’s statehouse.

Knucklehead on February 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM

and forgot to get their permits to protest on the capitol of Missouri’s statehouse.

Knucklehead on February 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Beautiful/david koch

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Knucklehead on February 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM

*SNORT*

darwin-t on February 26, 2011 at 3:01 PM

and forgot to get their permits to protest on the capitol of Missouri’s statehouse.

Knucklehead on February 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM

That’s understandable. When you have no regard for the law or rules things like that tend to slip your mind.

darwin on February 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM

They receive good wages, retirement, health care and benefits.

darwin on February 26, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Sorry, but I’m not taking your word for it what you say goes against everything my Union professors taught me, so I can’t accept it. $30,000 a year with the private equivalent of medicaid is not good wages and health care.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Fixed it for ya, ernie!

Hate to tell you this, ernie, but the exact same thing is true for my town here in New Hampshire. No unions. And after it snows, my road gets plowed much quicker than your roads in NYC do. In fact, my town has one of the finest group of municipal employees in the entire state.

Remember, my state doesn’t tax its Subjects to death like your state of New York does. We have no state income tax and no state sales tax.

As a former resident of NYC myself (Lower Manhattan, no less) I can tell when someone has been brainwashed by being in the city too long. Take some friendly advice and get out of there.

Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2011 at 3:07 PM

ernesto:

Revoking collective bargaining is not budgeting, its law.

I’m glad you feel that way. It, in fact, is budgeting for the future, not the present. So…..

Walker (as Krauthammer pointed out) should separate the collective bargaining part from the rest of the budget adjustment and thus be able to pass it without the the presence of the fleebaggers.

That would be sweet.

MaggiePoo on February 26, 2011 at 3:17 PM

In this day and age, with profits through the roof, that you would make workers do more with less is ridiculous…exploitative, even.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:15 PM

What US companies in 2010 had “profits through the roof”? McDonald’s was giving its product away.

Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Rhetoric that reached a low point on Wednesday, when Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) told a group of union supporters that “[E]very once in awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”

Really, Mr. Capuano? Doing battle with whom, the taxpayers who underwrite union wages and benefits? Shame on you.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33794

ladyingray on February 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM

The WEA Trust losing their monopoly on union medical care, giving the contract to a local company that can offer a less expensive alternative that the union members are using ALREADY…and adding additional jobs for Wisconsin to service the additional policy holders. No, that is a BAD idea. /s
And, when you begin to GIVE (PAY) instead of TAKE (RECEIVE), you will understand why people are so enraged by the idiocy of these union protests.

HornetSting on February 26, 2011 at 3:26 PM

If that’s the case, what exactly is the point of this article?

The point is that in many districts, they’re stuck with the WEA trust.

And the larger point is that the only reason that the district was able to get from underneath the WEA trust was that it went to 3rd party arbitration. The Union didn’t want to agree to go with the cheaper plan that would offer the same benefits (but not the same bennies to the Union bosses.) So much for the Union being interested in saving the taxpayers money.

And the even LARGER point is why should the budget be held hostage to the whims of an unelected official like an arbiter? So much for democracy.

PackerBronco on February 26, 2011 at 3:30 PM

…why tax payers in WI are forced to purchase benefits from the more expensive plan provided by union-owned insurance.

Chuck Schick on February 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Hmmmmm. I wonder what the correlation is between Union-owned insurance plans and exceptions from Obamacare?

scituate_tgr on February 26, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Gahh…exemptions from Obamacare.

scituate_tgr on February 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM

ernesto ~ perhaps you just need to move to a true Worker’s Paradise like Cuba or Venezuela.

Estúpido.

Adjoran on February 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Many of exemptions from Obamacare were unions of all shapes and sizes.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Oh yes they do. Their share of national income has skyrocketed. How did that happen? Explain it; explain to me how the top 1% managed to increase their share of national income, and then tell me why that’s totally ok.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Two points.

One of the great things about a market-driven economy is that the identity of those who make up the top [whatever number]% isn’t static. That is, people move in an out.

To the extent that owners of privately owned firms make a great deal of money, I’m not sure what to tell you. In those cases, a great deal of their wealth is tied up in the entity. Beyond a reasonable level of income taxation for the purpose of necessary governmental functions (not “services”), the money is theirs. They have built or perpetuated an enterprise that customers are willing to support.

With regard to executive officers of publicly traded companies, I wish there were a decent public policy discussion about the issue of pay inequity. However, governmental control is not a legitimate response. Offhand, it seems to me that perhaps executive compensation should be a decision for shareholders rather than members of the board of directors. That’s a matter of individual corporate governance.

Whatever the discussion of executive compensation, I’m not persuaded by your shrill and superficial complaints about the level of income earned by the top 1% of earners in this country.

BuckeyeSam on February 26, 2011 at 3:51 PM

That the taxpayers in question are not receiving the pensions and health coverage that unionized employees are receiving is their fault, no one else’s. They should have joined a union and negotiated for better benefits. In this day and age, with profits through the roof, that you would make workers do more with less is ridiculous…exploitative, even.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:15 PM

May socialism destroy you and yours.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2011 at 3:57 PM

***

They took it through bailouts and regulatory loopholes.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Who got these bailouts? Are you complaining about the banking industry? What portion of the economy is that? The only other widely publicized bailout was GM, whose union(s) benifitted.

And please identify the boogey-man loopholes that you are noting.

For crying out loud, support your argument.

BuckeyeSam on February 26, 2011 at 3:59 PM

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM

No, what you’re doing is crying that their not rocking your hobbyhorse. Taking money form middle-class taxpayers to fund a self-licking ice-cream cone of union dues/Democrat political funds is not the way to do it.

If you look at this situation calmly and clearly, you might just realize that the PSUs have created a system that is emblematic of and perpetuates rampant cronyism – something you’re only worried about when it may possibly be circumstantially ascribed to eeeevil corporations. then again, it’s unions, Democrats, and liberals who benefit, so to you it’s no big deal.

I mean really, you’re agitating against the greed of…taxpayers.

JeffWeimer on February 26, 2011 at 4:00 PM

That the taxpayers in question are not receiving the pensions and health coverage that unionized employees are receiving is their fault, no one else’s. They should have joined a union and negotiated for better benefits. In this day and age, with profits through the roof, that you would make workers do more with less is ridiculous…exploitative, even.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:15 PM

We’re talking about Public Sector unions here – what profits?

Oh, and you just told the taxpayers that since they may not be unionized, they can just eat cake. GFU.

JeffWeimer on February 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Rainsford on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

The point of the article is that the governmental authority had to go to arbitration at all to get its employees out of an exorbitantly expensive healthcare plan.

I have a loud object to the government incurring the time and expense of withholding and remitting union dues and providing recordkeeping of those amounts all for the convenience of organizations that contribute an extraordinary amount of money to political campaigns–98% or so of which goes to the Democratic party.

Taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot that bill. Tell the unions to buy some postage-paid, addressed envelopes or set up automatic transfers with their members. Members contributions are NONE of the government’s business.

BuckeyeSam on February 26, 2011 at 4:06 PM

If one is really serious about public union benefit reform, ‘Defined Benefit’ plans need to be outlawed and existing plans converted into market based 401k plans. ASAP.

Defined benefit plans allow those receiving them to promote endless political attacks on our free market capitalist system without facing the consequences of their action. If public unions were vested the market based pensions, they’d be a lot more supportive of a prosperous and dynamically growing private sector with low corporate taxes with appropriate but minimal regulation.

Go figure why our nation and economy are stuck on stupid on the other side of this fence… Folks, getting out of this mess isn’t complicated — just change this key component to how public unions work, and presto, the rest will quickly fall in place.

Public unions (or at least there membership) could be quickly persuaded that the best way to improve their pensions would be to lower (or eliminate) corporate taxation and appropriately reduce regulations so businesses of all sizes around the US could get to work moving the economy rapidly forward.

Best place to do this — perhaps a small tweak at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation would do. Something like — after x date, we will no longer guarantee any define benefit pensions. Existing pensions can be converted into 401ks according to Y formula, based upon actual age adjusted contributions into other existing plans by the individual and employer.

drfredc on February 26, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Rainsford on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

You’re like the Oakland(a poster)but instead of being only able to talk about the issue of Climate Change you talk unions. Wow get out. Get a life.

This economic exploitation of the taxpayer is ending. Too bad for you leeches.

———————-

Ernesto- you are one whiny bit*h.

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM

they can just eat cake
JeffWeimer on February 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Nail meet head.

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM

So when will the federal government works get there rights for collective bargaining for benefits?

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Collective bargaining should be allowed to take place.

The compulsory funding of public sector unions through payroll deduction by the employer (you and I) and the compulsory delivery of those funds to the unions should be abolished. It is a conflict of interest and a compulsory defacto funding of the democratic party by non-democrat, non-republican members of society.

Allow them to bargain. Just not with my money.

Key West Reader on February 26, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Rainsford on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

So typical of a lefty; no one is taking their privilege to collectively bargain.

P. Monk on February 26, 2011 at 4:12 PM

b) unions can grant concessions without having their bargaining rights stripped entirely.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Their bargaining rights is what got them into this mess in the first place.

Let’s take GM for example. Does any one really believe that they aren’t going to be back in a year or two at most, getting more federal bailouts???

What happened with GM is a disgrace. What’s happening with these PEUs is a bigger disgrace.

BigWyo on February 26, 2011 at 4:15 PM

We’re talking about Public Sector unions here – what profits?

Oh, and you just told the taxpayers that since they may not be unionized, they can just eat cake. GFU.

JeffWeimer on February 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM

It’s misdirection. Clowns like ernesto are arguing that there are these magic money fields that can be harvested for cash to pay utopian benefits. Break down his arguments as I did, and you realize he’s a babbling populist.

He reminds me of a Wisconsin PEU official I saw on TV who complained breathlessly that Walker was cutting benefits to PEU employees when “two-thirds of Wisconsin corporations aren’t paying any taxes.” Well, what does that figure really mean? Some of those companies could be breaking even or losing money, right? More important, many closely-held corporations elect to be taxes as S corporations–that is, the entity pays no income tax, but the income is taxed on the tax returns of the individual owners. In the end, the statistic the guy cited proves nothing. Was he suggesting that two-thirds of WI corporations are committing tax fraud?

Seriously, I’m interested in a sound public policy debate. But my response arguments like those I’ve seen from the PEU supports is WTF.

BuckeyeSam on February 26, 2011 at 4:16 PM

If you have to depend on a union is this day and age…You can’t cut the mustard.

Like Judge Smails says: The world needs ditch diggers too…

Start digging

BigWyo on February 26, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I’m not arguing that cuts don’t have to be made. What I’m arguing is that a) the fabulously wealthy have a higher share of income than they ever have, and that should be accounted for in budgetary solutions and b) unions can grant concessions without having their bargaining rights stripped entirely.c) Unions need more money for research to guarantee equal penis length.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Also revealed: ernesto suffers from a severe case of penis envie.

P. Monk on February 26, 2011 at 4:21 PM

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Ernesto, please post some factual information instead of accusations. Can you explain which companies have been posting record profits, and for how long? Can you correlate the timelines to show how they did for 2005-2011? Can yo post what their balance sheets actually say? (In other words; did they post profits, but are still in the red because they ran deficits for several years before cost cutting helped stem the bleeding?) Can you show me how their market shares look in their respective business segments during the same time period?
I suspect, if you actually took the time to see how some of these companies are ACTUALLY doing, you’ll find they are clawing their way back to solvency, and are still facing inhospitable business environment due to excessive regulation and harsh tax codes, and are in fact, looking at an uphill fight due to losses of market share and outsourcing.
I guess what I’m trying to say is: get the facts straight before you blindly follow someone’s agenda.

KMC1 on February 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Oh, there is a choice. The choice is between siding with hardworking people or siding with the super-rich. Profits are at record highs, and the top 1%’s share of national wealth is at gilded age levels. THEY HAVE OUR MONEY. They took it through bailouts and regulatory loopholes.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Producers are the “hard working people”.

The rest are your moochers. Suffocate by socialism/communism, all of you.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Mold was met with sunshine. It’s tons of fun to watch the leeches shrivel.

Media, may you suffocate in O’s ars.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2011 at 4:24 PM

The WEA Trust is scandalous in it’s way of dealing. This report from Fall of last year shows how incestuous the relationship to the union it is. Shameful.

Conservalicious on February 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I think public unions should be banned from contributing to either political party. Maybe just that measure alone would make lots of this bad stuff go away.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Oh yes they do. Their share of national income has skyrocketed. How did that happen? Explain it; explain to me how the top 1% managed to increase their share of national income, and then tell me why that’s totally ok.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

you ‘sir’ are a LIAR.

incomes reported by tax returns at the high end of the income spectrum plummeted from 2007 to 2008, as did their share of the nation’s income and income taxes paid. In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—were their lowest since 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

you’re just a commie stooge.

right4life on February 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM

“our money”

Hmmmmm

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 4:31 PM

I think public unions should be banned from contributing to either political party. Maybe just that measure alone would make lots of this bad stuff go away.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 4:25 PM

You are right. The issue is, that Unions fund the dem prog parties.

So, as a taxpayer, regardless of your political affiliation, through your tax dollars, you are funding the demprog party.

This is why all States must immediately cease and descist withholding funds from state worker’s paychecks that are now in the form of “dues”.

Very simple, actually.

I’m a Libertarian. I don’t want to fund either party. But at this juncture, it appears that I am funding the demprog’s against my will. It’s no different than forcing me to fund some republican fund.

Key West Reader on February 26, 2011 at 4:34 PM

We’re talking about Public Sector unions here – what profits?

Oh, and you just told the taxpayers that since they may not be unionized, they can just eat cake. GFU.

JeffWeimer on February 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM

They don’t need profits…they have us.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Very clear article. The rest of the media need to be plagued for not explaining all this.

Amazingly, the answer is: now. Led by famously progressive Wisconsin – Scott Walker at the state level and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan at the congressional level – a new generation of Republicans has looked at the debt and is crossing the Rubicon. Recklessly principled, they are putting the question to the nation: Are we a serious people?

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Days of reckoning coming to CA.

But a new report from the Little Hoover Commission in Sacramento makes a more troubling point: Many state and local government employees have been promised pensions that the public couldn’t have afforded even had there been no crash.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM

If public unions were vested the market based pensions, they’d be a lot more supportive of a prosperous and dynamically growing private sector with low corporate taxes with appropriate but minimal regulation.

drfredc on February 26, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Right on Dr. Fred.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Anyone who gathers in sufficient numbers and chooses to do so. Who are you to insist that the plebs “maintain the privilege of negotiating their wages”??? What next? Let them eat cake?!

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Exactly, union strikes and protests should always get everything they ask for every time on the backs of the taxpayers. Who cares what the little people want, the unions are more important.

But… “let them eat cake” to refer to the opinion of the majority of the population… do you understand history at all?

Who are you majority in a democracy paying the bills to decide that you don’t want to pay for something. We’ve got the control and the power to take your wages and who cares what you think… and if you decide you don’t like it all of you are elitist!

I’ve tried to wrap my head around your argument… either it’s crazy or I have no damn idea what you’re even trying to say. Are the majority of the population and taxpayers elitist? The majority of the voters who elected the Governor are “let them eat cake”? the only true “people” here who aren’t elitists are the unions getting better benefits than everyone else and unwilling to suffer any pain when the rest of the economy suffers?

The majority suffers, the minority refuses to suffer, and it’s the majority with a “let them eat cake” moment? May I recommend a history book… really any history book at this point will do.

gekkobear on February 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM

I suspect, if you actually took the time to see how some of these companies are ACTUALLY doing, you’ll find they are clawing their way back to solvency, and are still facing inhospitable business environment due to excessive regulation and harsh tax codes, and are in fact, looking at an uphill fight due to losses of market share and outsourcing.

I guess what I’m trying to say is: get the facts straight before you blindly follow someone’s agenda.

KMC1 on February 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I asked ernie the same thing an hour and a half ago with no success. I guess he’s still waiting for his union talking points to come back.

Last time I checked, the most profitable US company in 2010, Microsoft, was not unionized. AFL-CIO has been trying to unionize them for years.

And the third most profitable company last year, Wal-Mart, is likewise non unionized.

Of course, Leftists like ernesto will tell us that Wal-Mart employees are the dregs of society and have low morale, without even addressing the morale of MS employees.

Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Who are you to insist that the plebs “maintain the privilege of negotiating their wages”??? What next? Let them eat cake?!

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Ernesto.

Are we, the taxpaying citizenry of the United States of America your new “Da Man”?

Last time I looked, all I did was pay my taxes. I don’t recall ever putting my flip flop on your neck.

You and your union friends’ playground tomfoolery behavior is really showint We The Taxpayers what it is we are funding. I was particularly offended by the way that you savages treated the State House in Wisconsin.

I, am completely and utterly appalled at you and yours.

Key West Reader on February 26, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Their bargaining rights is what got them into this mess in the first place.

Let’s take GM for example. Does any one really believe that they aren’t going to be back in a year or two at most, getting more federal bailouts???

What happened with GM is a disgrace. What’s happening with these PEUs is a bigger disgrace.

BigWyo on February 26, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Already happening; Government Motors has scored an ongoing subsidy, -further spending on Government Motors. Let’s hope a Republican president can end the give-aways: Rasmusen Presents The Lawlessness of the GM NOL Ruling

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Fat salaries and benefits of those that run WEA: Wisconsin’s Largest Teachers Union -An Extremely Profitable Insurance Business

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Would/will be interesting to see the following for WEA Trust:
Names/Qualifications of Board of Directors (former union leaders?)

Names/Qualifications of Board of Directors, Officers/General Managers (former union members?

Salaries of same

Which (if any) serve both on the WEA Trust Board and are officers/employees of the WI Teachers’ Union

Which (if any) get paid by both.

alwyr on February 26, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Y’know, just the term ‘collective bargaining’ is highly misunderstood … sounds fair and equitable, don’t it ??
Wouldn’t one think that means a worker has, IN GOOD FAITH, voluntarily ‘signed over’ his personal rights to their union leaders, so that their interests are seen to, meaning negotiated IN THEIR FAVOR ?
It just don’t happen that way, y’all !!
Workers are given NO chioce of forking over their ‘dues’, which are used against their will (as for candidates support) AND used to ‘negotiate’ some of the very HIGHEST premiums in the insurance business.
Some freaking fairness.
REFORM COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, if not destroy it altogether.
(see at least the link above..
slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM)
There are SOOO MANY more.

pambi on February 26, 2011 at 5:39 PM

krauthammer nails it

Here stand the Democrats, avatars of reactionary liberalism, desperately trying to hang onto the gains of their glory years — from unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62 to the massive promissory notes issued to government unions when state coffers were full and no one was looking.

Obama’s Democrats have become the party of no. Real cuts to the federal budget? No. Entitlement reform? No. Tax reform? No. Breaking the corrupt and fiscally unsustainable symbiosis between public-sector unions and state governments? Hell no.

Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2011 at 5:45 PM

You are right. The issue is, that Unions fund the dem prog parties.

So, as a taxpayer, regardless of your political affiliation, through your tax dollars, you are funding the demprog party.

This is why all States must immediately cease and descist withholding funds from state worker’s paychecks that are now in the form of “dues”.

Very simple, actually.

I’m a Libertarian. I don’t want to fund either party. But at this juncture, it appears that I am funding the demprog’s against my will. It’s no different than forcing me to fund some republican fund.

Key West Reader on February 26, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Exactly. It was a thought I had with the husband. So much of this would go away if they could not contribute to either party. Teachers unions would have to make their case to each individual city, town. It would really stop this shite.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Very simple, actually.

I’m a Libertarian. I don’t want to fund either party. But at this juncture, it appears that I am funding the demprog’s against my will. It’s no different than forcing me to fund some republican fund.

Key West Reader on February 26, 2011 at 4:34 PM

It is…I am a conservative. I don’t want to have any public sector union able to fund their party of choice. It is my tax money used for this. Also why should I pay for all the crap the liberals want and spend money on?

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM

alwyr…all 12 administrators of the trust are indicated in the slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM link above…each receiving compensation packages worth six figures per year.

scituate_tgr on February 26, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Now there’s useful fodder for the WI senators who remain at their posts. Float a new law on Monday that public unions(including the police and firemen)can no longer contribute to ANY politicians or political parties within that state. Don’t know about the legality, but it might bring the fleebaggers running back at top speed.

jeanie on February 26, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Speaking of unions, corruption, and insurance. In Madison, the president of MTI (Madison Teachers Inc.) is John Mathews. One of the dirty little secrets is that he was, and maybe still is, a board member of one of the states larger insurance providers, WPS. The teachers are given a choice of just two providers for their medical insurance. One is very good, and the other pretty crappy. Most opt for the better insurance. This clear conflict of interest has gone on for years. The union won’t allow any other providers.

chewmeister on February 26, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Good roundup of facts and links re public unions:
http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/02/public-employee-unions-facts-figures-history/

Worth a bookmark for refuting union disinformation

onlineanalyst on February 26, 2011 at 6:53 PM

krauthammer nails it

Here stand the Democrats, avatars of reactionary liberalism, desperately trying to hang onto the gains of their glory years — from unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62 to the massive promissory notes issued to government unions when state coffers were full and no one was looking.

Obama’s Democrats have become the party of no. Real cuts to the federal budget? No. Entitlement reform? No. Tax reform? No. Breaking the corrupt and fiscally unsustainable symbiosis between public-sector unions and state governments? Hell no.
Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2011 at 5:45 PM

wow you nailed that to the wall.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Now there’s useful fodder for the WI senators who remain at their posts. Float a new law on Monday that public unions(including the police and firemen)can no longer contribute to ANY politicians or political parties within that state. Don’t know about the legality, but it might bring the fleebaggers running back at top speed.

jeanie on February 26, 2011 at 6:30 PM

That’s exactly what the husband and i thought. No more. in either direction. Each fund their own deal.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 7:06 PM

There’s no way to stop them from contributing as individuals but since the teacher’s have recently strongly announced their greed, I’ll bet many of them won’t. We’ll be seeing thermometers with slowly climbing red linesthe United Fund. Key word here is slowly I hope you’ll agree.

jeanie on February 26, 2011 at 7:13 PM

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 7:06 PM

I hope you’ve e-mailed Walker with your suggestion. I’m sure he’s thought of it, but a little encouragment can do no harm. I’d also include your own Senator but I seem to recall you saying that he’s a fleebagger?

jeanie on February 26, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Now there’s useful fodder for the WI senators who remain at their posts. Float a new law on Monday that public unions(including the police and firemen)can no longer contribute to ANY politicians or political parties within that state. Don’t know about the legality, but it might bring the fleebaggers running back at top speed.

jeanie on February 26, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Yup, no one should benefit …. No one.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Speaking of unions, corruption, and insurance. In Madison, the president of MTI (Madison Teachers Inc.) is John Mathews. One of the dirty little secrets is that he was, and maybe still is, a board member of one of the states larger insurance providers, WPS. The teachers are given a choice of just two providers for their medical insurance. One is very good, and the other pretty crappy. Most opt for the better insurance. This clear conflict of interest has gone on for years. The union won’t allow any other providers.

chewmeister on February 26, 2011 at 6:45 PM

another conflict of interest. We are really finding out many things the average Joe does not know. Let’s shine light on the mold as someone said earlier. We need to see all the bad stuff.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM

I hope you’ve e-mailed Walker with your suggestion. I’m sure he’s thought of it, but a little encouragment can do no harm. I’d also include your own Senator but I seem to recall you saying that he’s a fleebagger?

jeanie on February 26, 2011 at 7:16 PM

I haven’t but will, I FB’ed it and will be scouraged I am sure. It seems fair to me.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM

I bet I will not get any comments on fb that think it is a good idea. I think I will be flayed like a nice big blue gill in June.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 7:40 PM

I am going to be shunned now, because I posted that. Isn’t that special. I am so sick of this crap,

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Where on FB did you post it?

jeanie on February 26, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Key West Reader on February 26, 2011 at 4:34 PM

What you call for, then, is de facto corporate governance.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Just spent a liitle time scanning new sites for the ‘large’ union protests here NH. About 25 lines were devoted to two of these events and the few pix there were did not seem to generate a lot of electricity. I think, on the whole, they must have been anti-climatic to put it kindly. However, there’s a Tea Party rally scheduled anon and I bet that brings out the folks. I may go myself this time.

jeanie on February 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM

What you call for, then, is de facto corporate governance.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 7:55 PM

so are you going to admit your were lying about the top 1%?

of course not, that would take integrity.

right4life on February 26, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Collective bargaining in the public sector consists of:

1) Voting for a representative,
2) Having said representatives meet to create a budget in which employees get paid,
3) Having a duly elected governor by the people who then administers said budget.

This is collective bargaining. We do this as a society and our representatives decide how much to pay those working in the public sector. Everyone gets a say in this via the representative system of government. You can address grievances to your representatives, that is a Constitutional guarantee.

The union is called the State.

The dues are called taxes.

States can cut payroll, cut benefits, cut out entire departments, privatize services and do a number of things if that is the will of the people via their representatives. Government is sovereign and cannot be held to promises to pay anything to anyone at any time outside of debt. A job is not debt. Pay is not debt. Benefits are not debt.

If you want a better job with better pay and benefits, then perhaps the public sector isn’t the right place to be for you.

When a minority feels entitled to jobs and benefits at public expense there is a term for those people: Aristocrats. They think they are a special class able to dictate their will upon all of the people. We had a little fight over that in the 1770′s… it didn’t turn out well for the Aristocrats. And as the Aristocratic class contained many functionaries with State jobs back then, there gets to be little difference between the old style paper-pushers and the new style ones, save for brandy-new titles and expected priveleges.

ajacksonian on February 26, 2011 at 9:04 PM

It is…I am a conservative. I don’t want to have any public sector union able to fund their party of choice. It is my tax money used for this. Also why should I pay for all the crap the liberals want and spend money on?

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM

I don’t mean to diminish your enthusiasm but I think you would run into 1st amendment problems. The problem with your argument is: “It is my tax money used for this.”
After it is payed to the employee it’s not your money anymore. Imagine your employer being a “lib”. One day he comes to you and tells you that he just found out you are conservative and that he doesn’t want you to donate “his” money to conservative causes anymore.
See what I mean?
The only way to end the unholy alliance is get rid of public sector unions, short of that I think Walker’s approach is the best we can hope for.

P. Monk on February 26, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2011 at 5:45 PM

wow you nailed that to the wall.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 6:56 PM

That was Charles Krauthammer actually-my original post got screwed up

Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2011 at 9:16 PM

The only way to end the unholy alliance is get rid of public sector unions, short of that I think Walker’s approach is the best we can hope for.

P. Monk on February 26, 2011 at 9:11 PM

So basically like I said, neither party should get money from the public sector unions. Banish the ability to donate to repubs or dems. If they are public employees, they should contribute with their own cash.

wi farmgirl on February 26, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Oh, there is a choice. The choice is between siding with hardworking people or siding with the super-rich. Profits are at record highs, and the top 1%’s share of national wealth is at gilded age levels. THEY HAVE OUR MONEY. They took it through bailouts and regulatory loopholes.

ernesto on February 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Ernesto: Let’s think about that for a minute. The top one percent is just that, the top one percent.

Now for the rest of us that are not part of a union or don’t care to be we are middle class too. The difference is that we have seen how corrupt the unions are and how they protect the slackers and bleed their members dry with dues. They have been the ruination of private enterprise in this country as the companies they work for ultimately have to pay the higher wages to cover these unrealistic expenses. This drives up there costs and leaves them uncompetitive, forcing them to close up shop or relocate to a place where reasonable labor costs can be found.

Now as to the Public Unions they should all be abolished completely. Why should taxpayer money go to paying government employee’s more money and benefit’s than the taxpayer gets in the private sector? It’s criminal and needs to stop. If we all worked for the government than there would be no one left to tax. Quit acting like a fool, it really get old.

While I don’t know anyone in the top ONE percent that you speak of I’ll bet you this, most of them have worked a lot longer, harder, and risked a lot more to be where they are than any union worker ever has or will, that is unless your talking about the top ONE percent of union bosses.

New Patriot on February 26, 2011 at 10:30 PM

The Teamsters showing civility today in Sacramento

mizflame98 on February 26, 2011 at 10:38 PM

The WEA, perhaps the most powerful union in the state, makes a fortune off of selling its insurance at inflated prices to districts around the state.

I am so glad someone finally wrote about this. I sent comments on it to Michelle and Rush last week…I thought it was never going to be covered. Along with this, bloggers should look into what the WEAT did a few years ago and the scam they tried to pull.

WHEN do they RICO investigations start?

91Veteran on February 26, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Hey Ernie: Go over the puffington post and rant about the rich one percent to Arianna. People who give a crap about that one percent probably don’t have a job or ever had one to begin with. I love the people with all the money because they are the ones who give people like me jobs when the government or leeches like you are not sucking as much as you can out of them. You are wasting your time trying to stir up bad feelings for people with money over here.

I for one don’t envy the rich or pity the poor.

jistincase on February 26, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3