Collective Bargaining 101

courtesy of my blog: http://cjferrara.blogspot.com

First of all, I'm sorry. One of my New Years resolutions was to blog LESS about politics and more about music and lifestyle. But just like in Superman II, after he gave up his powers to be with Lois, and then found out that Zod and the Gang had taken over the earth... I have to go back.

A Facebook friend posted this article from the Heritage Foundation. This group was obviously inspired by the Ministry of Truth from Orwell's 1984, because their business seems to be re-writing history to fit the current political agenda. Please click the link and read it before continuing with this entry.

All done? Good. Isn't that a load of Crap? Line by line, I will now refute every part of it:

First off... It's not a Legal Monopoly, it's called a contract. Paying everyone equally and fairly is called being fair. They assert that you have no choice but to be in the union. But the contract and terms of employment are between the Government and the union. Why would you not be in it? I've had my issues with specific chapters of NYSUT in my career, and have toyed with the idea of not joining the union. Then, after several firings, I realize that not joining the union means that NO ONE has your back. I have a career today because of the Teacher's Union. This blog, and my whole campaign this year will be me paying them back.

Private vs. Public sector.  Bullshit. There's no difference. It comes down to who your employer is. Public sector, it's the government. Private sector, it's your company's CEO. Union activity never comes down to profit sharing, or any of what's mentioned in the article. It comes down to a simple question: What will be considered fair treatment of your employees?

Risking Public Services. When unions strike, it's because the Government, or Government representative in charge of this branch is treating their employees unfairly. The ultimate turnaround in disputes like this is that the unfair employer says that the strike is denying people services; when it's the unfair action on the part of the employer that is doing it. Gov. Walker and the Governors of a few states are cutting back on their public funding. You don't think THAT will deny the public important services? This is a political tactic, not a legitimate concern. Besides, I've been involved in union job actions on several occasions, and a strike is ALWAYS a last resort. Most public unions begin with picketing on their own time, slow downs, or non-volunteerism before an all out strike.

History of collective Bargaining
Again, bullshit. If you produced quotes from the 1800s, you could probably cite opposition to many of the things unions have fought for over the years; such as a 40-hour week, overtime, benefits, safe workplaces, decent breaks, adequate time to complete a task, sick leave, family leave, and the list goes on. It's a list of things that no sane person would ever take a job without. And yet in the 1800s, none of them were even considered by most employers. Thus the Labor movement. And ever since, employers, including the government for public jobs, have been trying to get away with denying these things to their employees. Ever been asked to work extra hours without overtime? Denied pay for vacations or holidays? What's happening in Wisconsin and soon to be everywhere is an extension of that.

Consequence of Collective Bargaining
Leverage over Government: Yeah, it really sucks that you have to treat people fairly. People need to be paid a decent wage that they can actually survive on. If you need to raise taxes to afford that, then yeah. In the private sector, by the way, companies need to raise prices of goods to afford these wages. They also do it to grant themselves inflated salaries and benefits. As does the government.


Inflated Government Pay: If "the average government employee enjoys better health benefits, better pensions, better job security, and an earlier retirement than the average private-sector worker," then your private sector unions really must suck. This is their most insidious tactic in opposing unions. Waging the private sector against the public sector. You can bet that once busting the public unions sets the precedent, private sector jobs are next. Incidentally, these government employees also have higher education and training than average private sector jobs, which may account for the discrepancy of salaries and benefits. Teachers, by law, HAVE to have a Master's degree. And compared to other careers that require a Master's, we get paid like shit.

Forced Union Dues: Again, not forced, voluntary, but in your best interest. That's what unionizing is all about. Employers are not facing a few disgruntled employees, they're negotiating with the entire workforce. We stand together, or the union is pointless. (Probably their point.)

Politicized Civil Service. Yeah, and your point? If private employees buys stock in their company, they gain the same rights. AND no matter how much funding the union puts into supporting union supporter running for office, anti-union voters are still going to vote against them.
 
All of this is to set up the last section discussing Wisconsin. And of course, they tell you that Scott Walker is not trying to bust the union. He just wants to take away everything the union stands for... which is basically busting the union. They say, "Walker’s proposal restricts government unions to negotiating over wages only, and not benefits or work rules." So, one of the several things that unions have achieved will remain in place.
 
Bottom line... by law, thanks to the unions, the government CAN'T do the things it wants to, specifically, screw government employees out of their rights. So, Walker wants to change the law so that he can. If he succeeds, your state will be next. Once it's done on the public level, then it will set the precedent for the private sector. And it we'll go back to the 1800s work force.