Michigan signs Right to Work Bills

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]Sorry, I must have missed the post about Long Island Power. Where is it?[/quote]

Dig it up yourself. Google is your friend.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter]So, you’re saying that a company has problems when its primary customer contracts spending. And how, exactly, does that relate to unions destroying the company?[/quote]

Simple. Cost.[/quote]

Only cost? How about lack of demand? Does the lack of, or sudden drop in, demand not have anything to do with the failure of companies?

Seems to me that MANY (if not most companies) have failed for this reason…not because of unions.

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=flu][quote=CA renter]So, you’re saying that a company has problems when its primary customer contracts spending. And how, exactly, does that relate to unions destroying the company?[/quote]

Simple. Cost.[/quote]

Only cost? How about lack of demand? Does the lack of, or sudden drop in, demand not have anything to do with the failure of companies?

Seems to me that MANY (if not most companies) have failed for this reason…not because of unions.[/quote]

Demand can be there if goods is offered at a reasonable price. Why else would another company that offers the identical offering suddenly get a big contract while another fails miserably?

The problem isn’t always lack of demand for a good or service. Some companies simply can’t compete because others can do it faster and cheaper (ideally without sacrificing quality…some of which isn’t true these days, but then again, most things these days aren’t missile systems or mission critical medical devices such that they need to be perfect anyway…..I seriously doubt if there is a bug in Angry Birds, anyone is gonna die from it…
)

[Coronita]

CAR, you know.. I’m all for workers rights. But you cannot possibly ignore that some unions have gotten to the point of being extortionists. It’s well above simple workers rights at this point in a lot of cases.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=flu][quote=CA renter]So, you’re saying that a company has problems when its primary customer contracts spending. And how, exactly, does that relate to unions destroying the company?[/quote]

Simple. Cost.[/quote]

Only cost? How about lack of demand? Does the lack of, or sudden drop in, demand not have anything to do with the failure of companies?

Seems to me that MANY (if not most companies) have failed for this reason…not because of unions.[/quote]

Demand can be there if goods is offered at a reasonable price. Why else would another company that offers the identical offering suddenly get a big contract while another fails miserably?

The problem isn’t always lack of demand for a good or service. Some companies simply can’t compete because others can do it faster and cheaper (ideally without sacrificing quality…some of which isn’t true these days, but then again, most things these days aren’t missile systems or mission critical medical devices such that they need to be perfect anyway…..I seriously doubt if there is a bug in Angry Birds, anyone is gonna die from it…
)[/quote]

In the case of defense companies, the only thing they can do is downsize when the government pulls back on spending. It is not about unions or costs, but **lack of demand** that causes the greatest problems in the defense industry.

As to which company gets the contract with the govt, it is just as much about connections (and other details) as it is about price.

[CA renter]

Flu,

I have said on multiple occasions — and never wavered on this — that I was opposed to certain things the unions have done or gotten over the years. The problem I have with the anti-union rhetoric is that it does not originate from well-intentioned people who are looking out for Joe Sixpack, the taxpayer. I know, beyond any doubt, WHY the organizations and people who are behind this are pushing this anti-union agenda.

Unfortunately, no matter how many times I’ve pointed this out, the same, uninformed lies and myths keep being bandied about on this and other blogs, etc. I’m fighting against the lies and propaganda, not trying to justify everything every union has ever done.

I’ve posted this in many place on this blog, but have never gotten any responses or other realistic, informed suggestions or solutions from anyone else. Note that I include unions in the groups that have to take losses.

[quote=CA renter]Once again, I’ve repeatedly challenged all the anti-union types to come up with actual solutions to our problems, but nobody has stepped up to the plate. As stated before, even if we change every public employee over to a 401k-style account, it will not solve our budget problems.

Public employees aren’t any more repsonsible for the economic crisis (and the resulting “pension crisis”) than anyone else here. They should not be expected to bear the entire burden for everyone else.

Here is my proposed solution…what is yours?

…………………

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 (going forward) for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. There is NO excuse for making taxpayers subsidize landlords via cheap/under-market property taxes.

Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.

http://piggington.com/ot_what039s_the_de…%5B/quote%5D

I would also point out that the unions have already given on pay and benefits over the past few years. Governor Brown’s pension reforms largely address the issues I’ve stated above. They have reduced benefit formulas, increased retirement ages, increased employee pension contributions (by a lot..and this was the #1 most workable solution to the pension problem), etc. At what point do we stop bashing unions — who did not cause the economic crisis — and address all the other changes that need to happen in order to correct the problems? The unions did not cause the crisis, and they should not be the only ones to shoulder the burden.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
I would also point out that the unions have already given on pay and benefits over the past few years. Governor Brown’s pension reforms largely address the issues I’ve stated above. They have reduced benefit formulas, increased retirement ages, increased employee pension contributions (by a lot..and this was the #1 most workable solution to the pension problem), etc. At what point do we stop bashing unions — who did not cause the economic crisis — and address all the other changes that need to happen in order to correct the problems? The unions did not cause the crisis, and they should not be the only ones to shoulder the burden.[/quote]

Public sector unions will probably be bashed until they’re gone. They screwed up big time in the pr war back in 2009-2011 by being hard line. It’s going to take years before they earn back the public’s trust. The best move for the public unions would be to stay out of the spotlight as much as possible. The it’s not fair, woe is me attitude just reinforces people’s negative view of public sector unions.

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
I would also point out that the unions have already given on pay and benefits over the past few years. Governor Brown’s pension reforms largely address the issues I’ve stated above. They have reduced benefit formulas, increased retirement ages, increased employee pension contributions (by a lot..and this was the #1 most workable solution to the pension problem), etc. At what point do we stop bashing unions — who did not cause the economic crisis — and address all the other changes that need to happen in order to correct the problems? The unions did not cause the crisis, and they should not be the only ones to shoulder the burden.[/quote]

Public sector unions will probably be bashed until they’re gone. They screwed up big time in the pr war back in 2009-2011 by being hard line. It’s going to take years before they earn back the public’s trust. The best move for the public unions would be to stay out of the spotlight as much as possible. The it’s not fair, woe is me attitude just reinforces people’s negative view of public sector unions.[/quote]

This is the part that ticks me off most about the whole anti-union/pro-privatization movement. The unions WERE making concessions throughout this entire period. Many unions even offered to make concessions without being asked, simply because they understood the difficult situation that their employers were in. The media just didn’t report on it because it didn’t fit the agenda of those who want to abolish unions.

This is the same thing as having news outlets go on tirades about the distant outliers, like a single police chief or prison psychiatrist making an absurd amount of money (usually due to incredible amounts of overtime…OR fraud, in which case they are being investigated), while not saying anything about the many union concessions over the years, or explaining how hard Gov. Brown’s reforms are going to hit public employees. The news bias has been very, very one-sided.

BTW, I’ve never heard a “woe is me,” or “it’s not fair” argument coming from the union side. What they have been saying is that they have unfairly used as scapegoats for the economic crisis that was caused by WALL STREET. This totally manufactured crisis has been used by billionaires and big business to push their privatization agenda because the unions are the only obstacle left for them to take out and they knew that this crisis would affect the finances of government entities. They’ve managed to pit Joe Sixpack against the unions (worker against worker) in an effort to divert attention away from themselves and the mess that they created.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
This is the part that ticks me off most about the whole anti-union/pro-privatization movement. The unions WERE making concessions throughout this entire period. Many unions even offered to make concessions without being asked, simply because they understood the difficult situation that their employers were in. The media just didn’t report on it because it didn’t fit the agenda of those who want to abolish unions.

This is the same thing as having news outlets go on tirades about the distant outliers, like a single police chief or prison psychiatrist making an absurd amount of money (usually due to incredible amounts of overtime…OR fraud, in which case they are being investigated), while not saying anything about the many union concessions over the years, or explaining how hard Gov. Brown’s reforms are going to hit public employees. The news bias has been very, very one-sided.

BTW, I’ve never heard a “woe is me,” or “it’s not fair” argument coming from the union side. What they have been saying is that they have unfairly used as scapegoats for the economic crisis that was caused by WALL STREET. This totally manufactured crisis has been used by billionaires and big business to push their privatization agenda because the unions are the only obstacle left for them to take out and they knew that this crisis would affect the finances of government entities. They’ve managed to pit Joe Sixpack against the unions (worker against worker) in an effort to divert attention away from themselves and the mess that they created.[/quote]

Really. While some public sector unions did offer concessions it was the various teachers unions across the country that acted hard line and gave all public sector unions a bad name. Did you watch what happened with the SD teachers union over the past year. I suppose you can fault the media for focusing on teacher’s union negotiations but they certainly weren’t offering up major concessions until the last moment.

I personally think people in the public sector for the most part work hard. I think they do a good job in general. I think the defined benefit package is too rich and too risky for the tax payer in general. If the public sector union wants to manage a defined benefit contribution plan where the employees chose to make up the short fall or reduce the benefit I’m fine with that. A defined benefit plan where you can spike your pension payout, where you can retire at 55 and possibly live another 40 years, where you’re protected from inflation via adjustments, is just too good and too risky for the benefit providers. The reality is the current promised pensions likely won’t be paid in full. Maybe in San Diego they will, if all the rich people across the world move here, but many local and state governments will have to violate those promises. The money isn’t there and the citizens aren’t going to accept no services because all the money has to go to services previously rendered.

Deferred compensation is a stupid arrangement. If you can’t pay enough right now to attract qualified people to the position then we can live without the service.

[no_such_reality]

Union thinking on concessions:

Hey, I know, new hires will not get the same pension plan. Yeah, that’s it, we’ll concede that we all keep our pension plan and new hires which won’t retire for 40 years, will get a different one.

Oh such a great sacrifice they are making. It’s an incredible victory for Governor Brown. The Unions have conceded on pensions.

The union concessions were smoke and mirrors.

Much like the prison guards claiming the employee pays 8% and buries another provision in another part of the contract that obligates the State to pay the employee portion.

That way the Union can claim the employees pay 8%!

Yea! another great Union concession!

[davelj]

[quote=livinincali]
Deferred compensation is a stupid arrangement. If you can’t pay enough right now to attract qualified people to the position then we can live without the service.[/quote]

Agreed. This is the root of much financial evil.

The average human is undisciplined and procrastinates. So s/he will not sufficiently save for retirement. It’s basic human nature.

So, under a fixed pension scheme, we take monies from folks who can’t and don’t save sufficiently for themselves and… add ANOTHER layer of procrastination in the form of a… a pension board that oversees the pension. This board is typically largely comprised of politicians and union reps for whom “kicking the can down the road” is the expedient course of action.

So, we double-down, in effect, on the procrastination element in these fixed pension schemes… and here we are – WAY underfunded.

If you look at it through the lens of human nature, it all makes sense. The trick, of course, is to not set these schemes up to fail in the first place… by not guaranteeing retirement benefits in the first place.

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
This is the part that ticks me off most about the whole anti-union/pro-privatization movement. The unions WERE making concessions throughout this entire period. Many unions even offered to make concessions without being asked, simply because they understood the difficult situation that their employers were in. The media just didn’t report on it because it didn’t fit the agenda of those who want to abolish unions.

This is the same thing as having news outlets go on tirades about the distant outliers, like a single police chief or prison psychiatrist making an absurd amount of money (usually due to incredible amounts of overtime…OR fraud, in which case they are being investigated), while not saying anything about the many union concessions over the years, or explaining how hard Gov. Brown’s reforms are going to hit public employees. The news bias has been very, very one-sided.

BTW, I’ve never heard a “woe is me,” or “it’s not fair” argument coming from the union side. What they have been saying is that they have unfairly used as scapegoats for the economic crisis that was caused by WALL STREET. This totally manufactured crisis has been used by billionaires and big business to push their privatization agenda because the unions are the only obstacle left for them to take out and they knew that this crisis would affect the finances of government entities. They’ve managed to pit Joe Sixpack against the unions (worker against worker) in an effort to divert attention away from themselves and the mess that they created.[/quote]

Really. While some public sector unions did offer concessions it was the various teachers unions across the country that acted hard line and gave all public sector unions a bad name. Did you watch what happened with the SD teachers union over the past year. I suppose you can fault the media for focusing on teacher’s union negotiations but they certainly weren’t offering up major concessions until the last moment.

I personally think people in the public sector for the most part work hard. I think they do a good job in general. I think the defined benefit package is too rich and too risky for the tax payer in general. If the public sector union wants to manage a defined benefit contribution plan where the employees chose to make up the short fall or reduce the benefit I’m fine with that. A defined benefit plan where you can spike your pension payout, where you can retire at 55 and possibly live another 40 years, where you’re protected from inflation via adjustments, is just too good and too risky for the benefit providers. The reality is the current promised pensions likely won’t be paid in full. Maybe in San Diego they will, if all the rich people across the world move here, but many local and state governments will have to violate those promises. The money isn’t there and the citizens aren’t going to accept no services because all the money has to go to services previously rendered.

Deferred compensation is a stupid arrangement. If you can’t pay enough right now to attract qualified people to the position then we can live without the service.[/quote]

Governor Brown’s pension reforms banned pension spiking, increased retirement ages *for current employees,* and increased the employee contributions to 50% of the total costs (from ~0%-9% of a person’s pay to 50% of the total costs is HUGE).

Even before this was happening, many unions had already taken 5-15% pay cuts (a few took much larger cuts), reduced medical benefits, cut positions/taken on more work per person, and many employers placed new hires on a two-tier hybrid pension system that is part defined-benefit, and part defined contribution, etc. One of the biggest losses for unions was the loss of retiree healthcare which was largely phased out in the mid-90s. This was all **before** the reforms.

Funny how it was never really reported on, isn’t it?

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=livinincali]
Deferred compensation is a stupid arrangement. If you can’t pay enough right now to attract qualified people to the position then we can live without the service.[/quote]

Agreed. This is the root of much financial evil.

The average human is undisciplined and procrastinates. So s/he will not sufficiently save for retirement. It’s basic human nature.

So, under a fixed pension scheme, we take monies from folks who can’t and don’t save sufficiently for themselves and… add ANOTHER layer of procrastination in the form of a… a pension board that oversees the pension. This board is typically largely comprised of politicians and union reps for whom “kicking the can down the road” is the expedient course of action.

So, we double-down, in effect, on the procrastination element in these fixed pension schemes… and here we are – WAY underfunded.

If you look at it through the lens of human nature, it all makes sense. The trick, of course, is to not set these schemes up to fail in the first place… by not guaranteeing retirement benefits in the first place.[/quote]

Great. Let’s start with those who can most afford to lose their DB pensions and retiree healthcare benefits: executives.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=livinincali]
Deferred compensation is a stupid arrangement. If you can’t pay enough right now to attract qualified people to the position then we can live without the service.[/quote]

Agreed. This is the root of much financial evil.

The average human is undisciplined and procrastinates. So s/he will not sufficiently save for retirement. It’s basic human nature.

So, under a fixed pension scheme, we take monies from folks who can’t and don’t save sufficiently for themselves and… add ANOTHER layer of procrastination in the form of a… a pension board that oversees the pension. This board is typically largely comprised of politicians and union reps for whom “kicking the can down the road” is the expedient course of action.

So, we double-down, in effect, on the procrastination element in these fixed pension schemes… and here we are – WAY underfunded.

If you look at it through the lens of human nature, it all makes sense. The trick, of course, is to not set these schemes up to fail in the first place… by not guaranteeing retirement benefits in the first place.[/quote]

Great. Let’s start with those who can most afford to lose their DB pensions and retiree healthcare benefits: executives.[/quote]

For solvent pension plans executive retiree benefits are irrelevant – everyone’s getting paid. The problem is with insolvent plans, in which executives (and everyone else) are limited to $60K annually by the PBGC, and public plans, in which there’s no distinction made between executives and everyone else. So, since we have a limit on insolvent plans of $60K/year, I’d be happy to apply that to public plans as well, since they’re mostly insolvent as well (although on one wants to cry Uncle just yet).

So, if you want to define “executive” as anyone due more than $60K annually in either a public or an insolvent private plan, I’m in total agreement.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=livinincali]
Deferred compensation is a stupid arrangement. If you can’t pay enough right now to attract qualified people to the position then we can live without the service.[/quote]

Agreed. This is the root of much financial evil.

The average human is undisciplined and procrastinates. So s/he will not sufficiently save for retirement. It’s basic human nature.

So, under a fixed pension scheme, we take monies from folks who can’t and don’t save sufficiently for themselves and… add ANOTHER layer of procrastination in the form of a… a pension board that oversees the pension. This board is typically largely comprised of politicians and union reps for whom “kicking the can down the road” is the expedient course of action.

So, we double-down, in effect, on the procrastination element in these fixed pension schemes… and here we are – WAY underfunded.

If you look at it through the lens of human nature, it all makes sense. The trick, of course, is to not set these schemes up to fail in the first place… by not guaranteeing retirement benefits in the first place.[/quote]

Great. Let’s start with those who can most afford to lose their DB pensions and retiree healthcare benefits: executives.[/quote]

For solvent pension plans executive retiree benefits are irrelevant – everyone’s getting paid. The problem is with insolvent plans, in which executives (and everyone else) are limited to $60K annually by the PBGC, and public plans, in which there’s no distinction made between executives and everyone else. So, since we have a limit on insolvent plans of $60K/year, I’d be happy to apply that to public plans as well, since they’re mostly insolvent as well (although on one wants to cry Uncle just yet).

So, if you want to define “executive” as anyone due more than $60K annually in either a public or an insolvent private plan, I’m in total agreement.[/quote]

Right, but since the executives are the ones who hold the purse strings, they tend to make sure they are taken care of first, including their pensions. Even if that means that wage-earners have to take a hit in order to fund the executives’ pensions, so be it.

Executives are “special,” and they are entitled to pension benefits that are higher than those of the mere plebs on the shop floor, even in bankruptcy. See this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/11/gm-pensions-idUSN1118638920110511

———

One more note. I’m not sure people understand how most public pension funds work, or how they are “guaranteed.” The pensions are NOT funded directly by tax dollars. Their funding comes from employee and employer contributions — and investment returns, which fund the majority of the benefits — and the pension contributions are based on a formula using **current employees’** pay.

So, if there are unfunded liabilities, the actuaries can see this in advance, and they increase the contribution levels of employers (and now, employees)* based on the pay of current employees. The existing retirees are NOT paid directly by the employer or by any taxpayer funds. The employer contributes a percentage of their **existing** employees’ pay to the fund, and the contribution amounts are based on what the actuaries come up with for the year (I believe they are using 3-year averages for return rates and expenses, but would have to look into the specifics again since this can vary).

*With Governor Brown’s reforms, by shifting 50% of the cost onto employees, he significantly reduced the “taxpayer” guarantee for these funds — by about half, in many cases. This is what I’m talking about when I say that the media did not explain this at all to the public. Most people don’t even understand that “taxpayers” do not directly fund pension benefits.

[Author]

Posts