Just saw this today on CNN/Money........The rich really ARE getting richer, but the middle class isn't, apparently.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news...dex.htm?hpt=C1
Printable View
Just saw this today on CNN/Money........The rich really ARE getting richer, but the middle class isn't, apparently.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news...dex.htm?hpt=C1
I wonder what the Republican governor of Wisconsin thinks about the decline of unions as being given as one of the causes for the decline of the middle class. He is trying to eliminate all public unions.
He isn’t proposing to eliminate public employee unions, but he does want to limit collective bargaining to the base pay rate, and set benefits by law. He’s further proposing to limit increases to the CPI unless approved by a referendum. Contracts will be limited to one year and wages will be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units will have to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers will be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units will not be required to pay dues.
What’s bringing out the crowds in Madison is his proposal that employees pay half the cost of their pension (about 5.8% of pay for most) and pay 12% of their health insurance premium. Those represented by police and fire unions are exempt. Needless to say, this has made him wildly unpopular with the public employees. At least from what I’m seeing, however, they aren’t getting much sympathy from the general public.
As a public employee myself (unrepresented), I’m going to feel the sting. But if it saves us from going the way of California or Illinois it may be worth it in the long run.
LDAHL, I spoke with my sister, a public EE in WI who was at the capitol yesterday.
You might actually seek interviews with people for whom you wish to tell others what they think.
You are making a fool of yourself.
One question would you have the benefits you have without the union. The argument unions make for closed shop is that all employees receive the benefits negotiated by the union. Now if the benefits would only go to union employees that would be another thing and issue.
I managed a union workforce for almost 30 years. On many occasions I heard anti-union remarks from not only management but also union members. I can tell that were it not for union contracts in most legacy companies most, if not all, of present employees would be replace with contract workers.
The days of corporations considering their employees as their most valuable asset are over - it is all about quarterly profits. Employees are expendable and the labor laws are their only protection for the most part.
Many people forget that most small business provides sub-par or no benefits for their employees.
Peace
I'm not a union member, but you raise a legitimate question. Stipulating that we benefit from the activities of a given group, to what extent should the law force us to belong or contribute? What should our relationship be with the local volunteer fire department, the neighborhood,watch, the Marine Corps or the health insurance risk pool?
I'm inclined to weigh individual freedom more heavily than the collective welfare, although I think either view can be taken to a ridiculous extreme.
That's a good question. Personally, I believe it's important to raise/pay taxes to support these - and to vote for levies as appropriate. (Neighborhood watch around here is just concerned and/or nosy neighbors, lol. No cost involved.) I agree with closed shops, overall. If you don't want to pay union dues, you have the right to work elsewhere. Why, if you (not you in particular!) are anti-union, would you want to work in a union shop? And just for disclosure - I am a public employee, although we aren't unionized.Quote:
What should our relationship be with the local volunteer fire department, the neighborhood,watch, the Marine Corps or the health insurance risk pool?