Interesting. Also interesting to note that 4 of the 5 sitting Indiana Supreme Court Judges were appointed by Republicans, although the nominating process is nominally non-partisan.
Three of those were appointed by Gov. Daniels when he was in office and he's the one that signed Indiana's RTW law.
The appeal should be fun - no wagering please. :-)
That ruling will be over ruled. RTW has been a Federal Law since 1947 and never ruled Unconstitutional. Sounds like a judge wanting to get in the news. If anything should be unconstitutional, it should be closed shops. Maybe the judge is wanting it to go to the Supreme Court where Closed shop states would all become RTW. That would level the playing field.
The Taft–Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop. The union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire, is also illegal. Under the law, it is illegal for any employer to force an employee to join a union.
Section 14(b) of the Taft–Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work for a willing employer, regardless of whether or not he is a member or financial contributor to the union.
Well, what will be interesting is to see is if unions can be compelled to represent non members free of charge-the reason it was ruled unconstitutional.
If you force a prostitute to perform a service free of charge, it's still called rape.
I have two friends that work for Uncle Sam both fully represented by the Union. Neither have ever joined. That is Federal law and the Right to Work in 30+ states. Makes the Unions earn your trust. Not be forced to join. I joined the CWA in 1962 voluntarily after about a year with Pacific Telephone.
That's a registration link but the subhead says it all:
"Majority of VW Factory's Tennessee Workers Have Signaled Support for Union"
"If VW chooses not to recognize the UAW, the union could still seek certification by the National Labor Relations Board, Mr. King said, because UAW organizers believe they have collected signed union cards from more than half of the Chattanooga plant's production workers.
"The only true way to find out where the [workers] lie is a secret ballot," said Don Jackson, a former executive at the plant who lives in the Chattanooga area and remains in contact with management and workers at the plant. "I see them in the community, at church, and people tell me all the time they don't want the union," he said."
I can see a distinct split in the workforce coming. First off Obama promised the Unions Card Check which would eliminate the secret ballot election. That has not happened and likely will not happen. If it is a close election and nearly half decide not to become members under the RTW laws in TN, it will be a real problem for the UAW? VW may have opened a real can of worms by their generous offer to stay out of the election. The workers are crazy to certify the UAW when they are making as much as the UAW workers in the upper Midwest.
If worker A is paying his $20 a month in dues and worker B is getting all the same Benefits without paying the $20 a month. Something will happen. Either worker A goes berserk on B or decides to quit paying his dues. I have tried to find out how many UAW workers in Michigan have opted out since RTW was passed.
I don't see it happening either. People are joiners but the union dues will scare a lot of them off, especially if they don't see that there's any value to belonging to the club.
It's pretty amazing that it's gotten this far though, and I doubt that it would have happened with Nissan or Toyota. VW has a "good" relationship with their unions around the world it seems, so maybe they don't think the world will end if Chattanooga goes UAW.
If I were organizing, I'd emphasize the worker's council idea. You know how people on the line know how to run the company but feel like the managers are too far removed from the trenches to have a clue? Giving the workers more of a voice gets them more connected to the company and the feedback helps explain the financial or political reasons shifts get set up like they are.
Nothing changes but at least the stakeholders know why it's the way it is. :-)
Didn't D3 sort of try this partnering stuff awhile back like a lot of other companies? Some, like Chrysler I believe, actually put the union on the board of directors. The result - as soon as things started to get better the unions tended to go back to their old self. The UAW is really just a selfish and confrontational organization. I doubt they give a rat's [non-permissible content removed] about the company so long as the dues keep rolling in. I think UAW workers see themselves as brothers, not employees. Besides, under our current administration decisions will always be made in the union's favor just like the disregard of BK laws and precedence during the GM settlement. So why would the UAW be willing to compromise unless the company is teetering on the edge? Just suck more out of the investors, creditors and white collar employees.
though, the UAW is as powerful as the Hyundai/Kia union in South Korea. They (the Hhyundai/Kia union) even negotiated a payment to workers who's kids aren't going to college of several thousand dollars. Now that union is powerful and they bring the parent Company to it's knees if they strike. And I am not fully up on Hyundai backorders but Kia is going so strong now that they can't keep up with demand. That only plays in to the power of their union, then.
If I were organizing, I'd emphasize the worker's council idea. You know how people on the line know how to run the company but feel like the managers are too far removed from the trenches to have a clue? Giving the workers more of a voice gets them more connected to the company and the feedback helps explain the financial or political reasons shifts get set up like they are.
I think that is a great idea. Just not with the UAW. RCA Alascom set up a suggestion program that paid a percentage of the savings. I got several checks for ideas that were over $1000 and a couple real nice ones that saved the company lots of money. The Teamsters were not involved in any way. The Union would have mucked it up wanting to divide it with all the workers or some such ignorance.
The UAW is really just a selfish and confrontational
I don't know how you can see them any other way. They had no problem with holding tough in the face of Bankruptcy. It was the Largesse of the tax payers they still exist. :sick: Reuther was a bully, thug and Communist that did not believe in working with a company. Only against them.
The politics of Unions in the USA is so restrictive it would be hard for the workers at VW to form their own Union. Which could work with the company for the betterment of all concerned. Maybe if the company would send a few of the workers to meet with the German Union leadership, they may be able to avoid a big mess with the UAW.
>The UAW is really just a selfish and confrontational
The UAW worked to push out any benefits to IUE workers at the Moraine (Dayton) Oh plant which was being closed. All the good stuff went only to the UAW. I haven't followed all the recent developments but I expect they were instrumental in denying retirement fund plump up for the Delphi salaried workers we well.
The UAW is more of an arm of the Democrat party than they are anything beneficial to the majority of the workers in the UAW. The best thing that could have happened was for the UAW to become weakened to where their responsibility was to help the companies improve and sell more product which in the end helps the union. That is not the case.
your average UAW worker is HARDLY a liberal. I don't see how you could make such an assertion, given say the general reaction of blue collar workers in America to war, death penalty, welfare, immigrants, etc.
People vote in their own interests (well, some Americans don't, but not let's go there). So the UAW may vote for pro-labor candidates but that's hardly an embrace of an entire political platform.
If anything a UAW is much more likely to savage his own elected officials rather than the other party's.
I disagree. The union hall is the center for many democrat rallies and candidates. I can't recall having seen a rally for a conservative or a Republican candidate reported on at the local UAW hall.
And, the workers, at least those you don't think are "hardly liberal" provide lots of boots on the ground for door-to-door canvassing and for literature work. They did in 2008. They did in 2010 and 2012. In addition, the union(s) serve to funnel the monies they collect for PAC work and bodies to certain candidates and do things that the candidates' own machines might not be able to spend money for.
While I am sure that not every UAW worker is liberal, I doubt they are going to bite the hand that feeds them and now the hand the gives them their comfy pension funding as well as a continued high labor and benefits rate if they're not one of the new, low rate hires. I have been wondering how the lower hire rate workers will be after the old guard of highly paid, overpaid, high seniority UAW workers have gone to the great pension fund payout in the sky. Will they be as dedicated to "the cause"?
Is the rejection of subsidy from ObamaCare for the healthcare costs of the big unions going to cause a riff between big labor and The Party?
I disagree. The union hall is the center for many democrat rallies and candidates. I can't recall having seen a rally for a conservative or a Republican candidate reported on at the local UAW hall.
You have to remember shifty is surrounded by real hard core Marxist liberals. Most would consider Bernie Sanders a right winger in that part of CA. The Public employee Unions in CA make the UAW seem almost like no union at all. The Public employee unions in CA would have NEVER accepted the two tier wage and benefit package dumped on the UAW in the phony GM/C BK. They would send their employers (CA Tax Payers) to the poor house before giving in.
Is the rejection of subsidy from ObamaCare for the healthcare costs of the big unions going to cause a riff between big labor and The Party?
That is a huge riff already. Obama lied and the Union sheep believed him. Will they revolt in the 2014 election? Let's hope so. We have had enough lies about hope and change.
A White House official said the Treasury Department has determined that the healthcare plans used by many union members — known as multi-employer or Taft-Hartley plans — cannot be made eligible for subsidies that are intended to help uninsured people afford coverage.
I couldn't disagree more. If anything, American Labor is the most right wing labor movement in the entire Western World. If you gave the average UAW worker ten social issues to vote on, about 8 of them would be resoundingly conservative, if not downright reactionary.
Problem is, since the actual "left" disappeared in America about 20 years ago, nobody knows what one is anymore.
The so-called right has also disappeared, or really,morphed into a caricature of itself. The right and left in the USA are virtually identical on the scale used by other first world nations. At the end of the day, they both answer to the same people and have the same puppeteers. It's been said many times that if Obama was around 30 years ago, he'd be considered a moderate republican. That might not bode well.
These other nations also have more unions and often have better human development indices than many if not most parts of the US, FWIW.
These other nations also have more unions and often have better human development indices than many if not most parts of the US, FWIW.
They also have less personal freedom than the USA. For example, in Germany you can be tossed in jail for home schooling your own children. To me that would be enough reason to start a revolution. In Canada and most of the Western World there is no 1st amendment protection of free speech. The Liberals are doing their best to destroy our first amendment rights. along with several other rights.
I don't see the UAW or ANY Union as the least bit conservative. Greedy, liberal, thugs would describe the most of them. Our Union backed Nixon second term and Reagan second term. In my 37 years in that local NO other GOP politicians were backed. They backed some real LIBERAL Losers in a state that is more GOP than Democrat. Many times directly hurting the workers in the state. Fortunately the voters are not as blind & ignorant in Alaska as they are in CA.
Germany has a load of legal issues - heck, it still lists Jehovas Witnesses as a cult, but still has a better primary school system than the US, and less social ills for its children. Homeschooling wars by persecuted (in their minds) Christians seems like a distraction. It's been illegal there for ages. Those who want it need to change the laws - the same thing law and order types here will squeal if unjust laws are questioned.
How much freedom of speech do you really have, more than the average Canuckistanian or European? Politicians don't have it. What are you doing with your freedom of speech? There's an old lyric about freedom being just another word for nothing left to lose. Might be appropriate in the racing to the bottom 21st century reality. Do something with those rights and others, if you have real fears. But I don't imagine the revolution will get started anytime soon.
Seems like more than a few greedy conservative thugs have helped put a hole in the ship, too. Fortunately, much of the nation is not as dopey as CA, and fortunately, Americans still have the freedom to move away from dopey areas if they choose - vote with your feet
Germany has a load of legal issues - heck, it still lists Jehovas Witnesses as a cult
They are, same as the Mormons. Neither one are Christians. They are both man made religious cults with no real history over 200 years.
Better primary education is subjective. What are they learning? If it is just the basics I would agree. If it is a bunch of Multicultural diversity BS, then I would NOT want my children subjected to it. I know many home schooled children that have had NO trouble finding good jobs and getting into college. A better start than MOST public schools offer with their Union teachers that will strike on a whim.
Fortunately, much of the nation is not as dopey as CA
Don't be too smug Washington is just a breath behind CA on Liberal dogma. Liberalism is a religion unto itself.
I think you've got to separate the union members from the union when it comes to politics. The members may well think and vote more to the right, but the leadership runs the union and skims the money to the Dems. But then the republicans have their special interest donors too. Working slobs - you ain't got the mullah to have much influence in either party and they both think you're dumb and they're pulling the wool over your eyes.
Personally, I see the tea party extremist right faction doing the same kind of damage to the Republicans that I saw the extreme left faction do to the Democrats decades back while I was in college. I guess it's the old "what goes around, comes around" thing.
I think we need some new parties to open up the competition better and term limits.
California is god's grandest experiment. And it's been divided into north and south, to see which philosophy works the best. I think I know already.
If Liberalism is a religion, then most of our Founding Fathers were devout. If you had a time machine and sent Republicans back to 1776, they'd be fighting for the King.
Big Labor will come roaring back as the split between rich and poor widens to margins not seen in this country for 100 years.
Fintail brings up a good point. Anyone in Europe is just as "free", if not "freer" than we are. it' just another one of our mythologies with no basis in fact.
What IS different here is the fluidity of our society and how quickly you can move up and down inside of it--in that sense we are 'freer'. But not in basic freedoms.
It's all just a cult to people who don't get caught up in it. Again, homeschooling has been banned in Germany for ages. If those who want it want to do it, they need to change the laws. But this is a shallow distraction from the main point. Want to homeschool and can't do it where you live? Change the law or move. In reality, you have no more freedom than your European counterpart, and your children probably have less socio-economic freedom or mobility than theirs.
Public school in the US is entirely dependent on location. I don't know of it being so bad elsewhere. Germany does a fine job producing engineers and industrial workers, skilled trades, etc not running for mcjob style high school education like so much of Murica- maybe because it includes endless options for vocational training and is not addicted to the college game. Homeschooling is dependent on the parents, many of whom in my experience are barely qualified to reproduce in the first place. But again, this is a trivial distraction from the failings of the reverse-socialist modern American system. The fact remains, the US gets its butt kicked in terms of human development by places with more unions.
Still seems to be a net influx into my area, with a relatively healthy economy. Not perfect, but I'd take it over la-la-land and environs. And if it turned to crap, I'd find a way to lessen my annoyance, or I'd move.
Big Labor will come roaring back as the split between rich and poor widens to margins not seen in this country for 100 years.
Is totally neutered by Public Employee Unions. People don't know or understand the difference. They just know they are the ones caught in the middle and don't know how to extradite themselves from the mess. When they see over paid teachers and BART workers striking when they are making far more than the median income in CA, they get upset and believe ALL Unions are to blame. When it is only the Public Employee Unions that should be BANNED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Nothing more evil than public employee Unions. Even Liberals like FDR knew that and did not allow it to happen on his watch.
I think we need some new parties to open up the competition better and term limits.
Completely agree. I know a large portion of our Teamster Union voted GOP. Even though the PAC supported losers in the Democrat party. We had some hellacious debates at those meetings. It is something inbred into Union leaders. They met their match when they organized a bunch of telephone Technicians that could read and think for themselves. There was NOTHING good the Democrats ever did for the state of Alaska. They would have blocked all oil development and took our major source of revenue. Yet the Unions backed them because they had the anti corporate rhetoric the not so bright truck drivers wanted to hear.
>since the actual "left" disappeared in America about 20 years ago
It's all in perspective that there's no Left. If I listened to the compliant mainstream media for my information about all sides and if I let them define what is good and bad, I guess I would believe there is no left: that only a bad right survives.
I recall many years ago an NPR talk person in Columbus on what was OSU (go Bucks) public radio at that time who was far left. He was getting much criticism from the callers and probably complaints to the station. He explained that he was "middle-of-the-road" because he looked at the main stream media sources then and he was midway among those, he felt. Therefore he was not liberal. LOL.
> I know a large portion of our Teamster Union voted GOP.
Wonder how the SEIU folks vote? My sense is that it's far from GOP.
Now if you were to tell me that part of the IUE folks here in Metro Dayton voted GOP, I might believe that. That's why the UAW wanted them out of building GM cars when they had the chance to screw them in 2009 with Administration's help. When I did a tour of that plant a couple years before that I saw workers always on task and certainly not having any dead time as the skillets bearing cars-to-be along the line moved past their stations. They were for the most part happy to have the job. So they may have been a higher level of voter as far as gathering their own information than what we suffer today as the low information voter.
Nah, there is no Left left in American mainstream media, and certainly no "left" in American politics or in American labor. It is totally and completely extinct. What is deemed "left" now is merely some centrist, slightly teensy lefty mush with zero passion and conviction. "I want a pension" is not a "leftist" position. It's merely a slender slice of self-interest.
The ideal combination is, of course, fiscal conservatism and social progressivism--but we are all so locked into extremes of dogmatism that this is no longer possible---hence we have a broken government and broken unions and a fragmented society.
There's really no hard left or right in the US. The American left, in terms of the donkeys anyway, is corporatist-centrist relative to the rest of the developed world. The right is right of the donkeys, but not by much - mostly only in its hawkish support of the military-law enforcement-industrial cabal. The bleeding heart eco-weenieness of the left in other places, or the nationalistic rabble of the right in other places, are much greater than in the US.
Regarding union voting, if one observes from the outside, they would ask why any union would support the GOP? At least the donkeys pretend to care about the worker, even if their actions often don't make that a reality. Where the GOP wants no rights no controls just blind trust in the plutocracy - and constantly preaches a union busting line, even if law enforcement is always excluded, and excessive public sector benefits in some lines of work go unchallenged. I don't want the greater American socio-economic picture to resemble Dickensian England, or even Florida.
I think you may be forgetting the religious right and Tea party. It's ironic that the republicans have drawn to them to get votes, yet ultimately they are probably losing more votes than what they gain by disenfranchising more and more female and minority voters. The days of "whites" dominating the population are not going to last that much longer, while females now outnumber males in recent college graduates and are gaining in highly paid technical and professional fields. Meanwhile, religion hasn't really been in the forefront of America for several decades now.
Unions - people make a mistake in thinking their party choices are politically inspired. The union leadership supports who will take care of them, no different than say the AMA supporting the republicans. It's about cash and influence. Doesn't necessarily reflect personal political beliefs. America runs on the dollar which isn't necessarily good or bad, just how it works.
gagrice in msg 19863 Neither one are Christians. They are both man made religious cults
Huh? WTH did he just say? Are you trying to say that there are any religions that are NOT man made?
berri in msg 19874 the religious right and Tea party. It's ironic that the republicans have drawn to them to get votes, yet ultimately they are probably losing more votes than what they gain by disenfranchising more and more female and minority voters.
A lot of political pundits, people who truly study politics, elections, and government, were saying after the last election that the change in demographics will doom the Republican party if they don't move away from these positions (religious right, Tea Party).
America runs on the dollar which isn't necessarily good or bad, just how it works.
I don't know much about state and local gov, but have to wonder if the issues are really union or political patronage. Maybe both? I can't see how the federal employee unions have any influence, as Reagan demonstrated - they can't strike or take job actions. I guess I'd think that federal pay and benefits are like the military in that they seem linked to the overall job market. When the private sector is going great guns, the fed has to pay more and vice versa. I also have to wonder if this thing about contracting out and private sector superiority isn't more political talk than fact. When I was in college, and not a Podunk diploma mill, I think you had to pass a fairly tough test and be in the upper result range to get a job there, although that may have changed I suppose. I've known a few federal employees and they all seemed fairly intelligent and went to Big 10, PAC 10, etc. universities just like in business. So I'm thinking they essentially have the same education and intellect on both sides. Gov is primarily a white collar job. Contracting out would seem to make sense for specialized talents that aren't recurring needs, but long term I don't see how comparable employees would be that much cheaper. A company has to make a profit which is going to add at least 10% to the price, not to mention G&A, etc. So you either get a bunch of short term buy-ins or a loser. Neither a good long term prospect. Both political parties expressed a lot of concerns and regrets about the contracting out efforts after 911. I did read somewhere after 911 that the military was short ammo and that a contractor operating an ammo plant had to shell out a lot of upfront money to offset this problem until the gov got their ducks in order. But I wonder, was that the fed workers, or Congressional bureaucracy and incompetence? I think it gets back more to all the excessive gov rules and the like. Remember, the gov is full of lawyers. It's funny how some pundits jump on this Congress for not getting many laws passed. But maybe too many laws and regulations is a big part of the problem?
I can't see how the federal employee unions have any influence, as Reagan demonstrated - they can't strike or take job actions.
Federal Employees Unions are not as visible as National Unions like the NEA & SEIU. It is mostly public employee Unions at the state, county and city level that are the problem. They are probably worse in CA than most of the states. They have a strangle hold on the tax payers for their huge salaries and benefit packages. We have over 14,000 people retired in CA in the $100,000 club. Some making over $500k per year. And the tax payers are obligated to maintain CALPers the State pension fund which is way underfunded. They need to be BANISHED From the earth.
Back in 2005, some 1,841 retirees pulled down more than $100,000 a year in pension checks from the California Public Employees Retirement System.
By 2009, this so-called "$100K club" had more than tripled, to 6,133 members.
And by the end of 2012, membership more than doubled yet again, to 14,763, according to data from CalPERS.
But maybe too many laws and regulations is a big part of the problem?
It is the major reason for lack of job creation. CA is the worst state in the Union to start a business and the USA is one of the worst countries in the World to start a business. High corporate taxes and crazy regulations top the list of negatives.
Does America now run on the dollar, or does it run on coddling a few who have been able to amass more dollars than most (and most of whom will run away when you asked where the money came from), with the defective and dishonest idea that it will trickle down, "job creators" will actually resemble their title, and that a rising tide lifts all yachts? It seems we've been fed a pack of lies for about 30 years now, all about the dollars, but it is obvious where things are really going.
And losing any idea of organized workers will surely make things better.
What is the ROI for retirement income for these federal workers vs private sector workers? Or healthcare benefits in retirement? If they are all truly white collar skilled, they should have to put their nest egg in the same 401K and IRA casino as the rest of us. And I won't even get started on more localized governments. Many of these groups are untouchable to the union busters, especially when it comes to overpaid law enforcement or military officer types.
It might be the same intellect, maybe not the same accountability.
>ROI for retirement income for these federal workers vs private sector workers?
I would like to know the ROI for us on Soc Security. I recall 10-12 years ago a data point was put out that the average retiree in SS was withdrawing all they had put in during 2 or 3 years. And in 5 to 7 they had withdrawn all the retiree and employer had put in along with interest at a nominal rate appropriate for an insurance policy.
When we add in the medical care through Medicare at a $1200 per year rate, the social security system/Medicare looks like the best deal out there short of being a Senator/aide with ObamaCare subsidizing your gold plated healthcare plan.
Anybody have statistics on the payin/payout for those of us over 65?
What is the ROI for retirement income for these federal workers vs private sector workers?
The funds all invest in the same equities etc. So the ROI would be comparable. The problem with Pension funds like CA has is they based the amount put in for the public employees with 8% ROI. So after several years of 1-2% the fund starts getting drained with 1000s of retirees sucking it dry. And they get what is called Tri-Care health benefits. Most have little or no out of pocket. And the state has tried to address it and the Unions fight any changes by picking candidates that will continue the downward spiral. They must think it will all fix itself. They raised our taxes and that has not helped. They are still way underfunded. With three large cities BK, they will not likely pay the $Billions they owe the pension plan. Time to make them pay their own HC and have a 401K.
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System returned 1% on its investments in the fiscal year ending June 30, a substantial miss for the largest U.S. pension fund.
CALPERS, which had assets of $233 billion as of June 30, has an annual investment return target of 7.5%, which it had lowered from 7.75% recently.
I don't know if individual contribution vs return for SS recipients matches the return + healthcare for contributor and SO given in the public sector. What's the average monthly payout for SS recipients 65+?
It'll be more amusing to see the payin/payout for those of us under 40.
I mean ROI for the individual, not of the fund. A lot of these people seem to put in very little, and get gold plated returns that people in the real world simply are unable to obtain. Not to mention the healthcare for worker + spouse. Then it becomes underfunded - that says something is broken.
I look at a friend of mine's parents as an example. Both are older boomers, in their mid 60s. One was a grade school teacher for 25-30 years, other was military for 10, then a park ranger for 25. Their collective retirement benefits are huge, and I doubt a normal worker would be able to receive so much indefinitely with the same investment. It's kind of irksome.
I doubt a normal worker would be able to receive so much indefinitely with the same investment. It's kind of irksome
Retirements for public employees in CA are insane. My sister in law's dad retired from the fire dept after 34 years with $107k per year and full HC including dental. His retirement is more than he made as a fireman. He has been retired 10 years so it was under $100k when he retired.
So the $100K club is expanding, and will continue to expand. It's simple math: Every year, whoever is at 99,000 or $99,500 will get a 2-percent cost-of-living adjustment, and will then be at $100,000 or $101,000. So even if there were no new retirees, the number of $100K-plus pensioners would keep growing, Fong said.
While the upper tiers of the $100K club are stocked with these executive managers, the lower tiers are stocked with rank-and-file law enforcement types, who have the most generous benefits of all public employees (3 percent of salary for each year worked, starting at age 50), Fong said.
"If they had 30 years in and were a pretty good employee who got pretty good promotions, a cop or a CHP officer or a sheriff's deputy will be making $100,000. You and I can agree it's a generous formula that can result in them retiring with 90 percent of their pay."
And the CalPERS $100K club is small: just 3 percent of the total number of retirees in a system of about a half-million people (484,004 as of December, to be exact).
"Using a 3 percent real rate of return for secure personal investments in the golden years, it's worth $1.4 million in present value at age 65 and $1.8 million at age 55 when many police and firefighters retire – far more than any private sector or nonprofit association worker can ever possibly accumulate over a 30-year career by saving for themselves the federal maximum in their 401(k) or 403(b) account. So these pension benefits are fair game for critics."
It'll be more amusing to see the payin/payout for those of us under 40.
Of course there's the *projected* payout -- but nobody knows for sure what it will really be.
The general pattern of problems here is that the unions were "promised" certain benefits far into the future - 20,30,40 more years. For anybody to think that a promise can be made that far ahead is just stupid. Which is why guarantees of certain benefits, etc., are worth about as much as the paper they're written on.
That's exactly the kind of crap I am thinking about, and it goes much deeper than law enforcement. It's a crime. Like what you pasted says, there's literally no way I could create such a retirement fund. Criminal. 30 years in a position where after 5-10 you are unfireable anyway, you can retire at 90%, often 90% of an income padded with needless OT to fudge the numbers. Why don't the rest of us have those options? This is much more of a problem to the national bottom line than any private sector union shenanigans. But nobody is really fighting it, as it is some kind of taboo.
Comments
Three of those were appointed by Gov. Daniels when he was in office and he's the one that signed Indiana's RTW law.
The appeal should be fun - no wagering please. :-)
The Taft–Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop. The union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire, is also illegal. Under the law, it is illegal for any employer to force an employee to join a union.
Section 14(b) of the Taft–Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work for a willing employer, regardless of whether or not he is a member or financial contributor to the union.
If you force a prostitute to perform a service free of charge, it's still called rape.
That's a registration link but the subhead says it all:
"Majority of VW Factory's Tennessee Workers Have Signaled Support for Union"
"If VW chooses not to recognize the UAW, the union could still seek certification by the National Labor Relations Board, Mr. King said, because UAW organizers believe they have collected signed union cards from more than half of the Chattanooga plant's production workers.
"The only true way to find out where the [workers] lie is a secret ballot," said Don Jackson, a former executive at the plant who lives in the Chattanooga area and remains in contact with management and workers at the plant. "I see them in the community, at church, and people tell me all the time they don't want the union," he said."
If worker A is paying his $20 a month in dues and worker B is getting all the same Benefits without paying the $20 a month. Something will happen. Either worker A goes berserk on B or decides to quit paying his dues. I have tried to find out how many UAW workers in Michigan have opted out since RTW was passed.
It's pretty amazing that it's gotten this far though, and I doubt that it would have happened with Nissan or Toyota. VW has a "good" relationship with their unions around the world it seems, so maybe they don't think the world will end if Chattanooga goes UAW.
If I were organizing, I'd emphasize the worker's council idea. You know how people on the line know how to run the company but feel like the managers are too far removed from the trenches to have a clue? Giving the workers more of a voice gets them more connected to the company and the feedback helps explain the financial or political reasons shifts get set up like they are.
Nothing changes but at least the stakeholders know why it's the way it is. :-)
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Workers are getting a good deal and Hyundai/Kia averts a strike with it.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I think that is a great idea. Just not with the UAW. RCA Alascom set up a suggestion program that paid a percentage of the savings. I got several checks for ideas that were over $1000 and a couple real nice ones that saved the company lots of money. The Teamsters were not involved in any way. The Union would have mucked it up wanting to divide it with all the workers or some such ignorance.
The UAW is really just a selfish and confrontational
I don't know how you can see them any other way. They had no problem with holding tough in the face of Bankruptcy. It was the Largesse of the tax payers they still exist. :sick: Reuther was a bully, thug and Communist that did not believe in working with a company. Only against them.
The politics of Unions in the USA is so restrictive it would be hard for the workers at VW to form their own Union. Which could work with the company for the betterment of all concerned. Maybe if the company would send a few of the workers to meet with the German Union leadership, they may be able to avoid a big mess with the UAW.
The UAW worked to push out any benefits to IUE workers at the Moraine (Dayton) Oh plant which was being closed. All the good stuff went only to the UAW. I haven't followed all the recent developments but I expect they were instrumental in denying retirement fund plump up for the Delphi salaried workers we well.
The UAW is more of an arm of the Democrat party than they are anything beneficial to the majority of the workers in the UAW. The best thing that could have happened was for the UAW to become weakened to where their responsibility was to help the companies improve and sell more product which in the end helps the union. That is not the case.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
People vote in their own interests (well, some Americans don't, but not let's go there). So the UAW may vote for pro-labor candidates but that's hardly an embrace of an entire political platform.
If anything a UAW is much more likely to savage his own elected officials rather than the other party's.
I disagree. The union hall is the center for many democrat rallies and candidates. I can't recall having seen a rally for a conservative or a Republican candidate reported on at the local UAW hall.
And, the workers, at least those you don't think are "hardly liberal" provide lots of boots on the ground for door-to-door canvassing and for literature work. They did in 2008. They did in 2010 and 2012. In addition, the union(s) serve to funnel the monies they collect for PAC work and bodies to certain candidates and do things that the candidates' own machines might not be able to spend money for.
While I am sure that not every UAW worker is liberal, I doubt they are going to bite the hand that feeds them and now the hand the gives them their comfy pension funding as well as a continued high labor and benefits rate if they're not one of the new, low rate hires. I have been wondering how the lower hire rate workers will be after the old guard of highly paid, overpaid, high seniority UAW workers have gone to the great pension fund payout in the sky. Will they be as dedicated to "the cause"?
Is the rejection of subsidy from ObamaCare for the healthcare costs of the big unions going to cause a riff between big labor and The Party?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You have to remember shifty is surrounded by real hard core Marxist liberals. Most would consider Bernie Sanders a right winger in that part of CA. The Public employee Unions in CA make the UAW seem almost like no union at all. The Public employee unions in CA would have NEVER accepted the two tier wage and benefit package dumped on the UAW in the phony GM/C BK. They would send their employers (CA Tax Payers) to the poor house before giving in.
Is the rejection of subsidy from ObamaCare for the healthcare costs of the big unions going to cause a riff between big labor and The Party?
That is a huge riff already. Obama lied and the Union sheep believed him. Will they revolt in the 2014 election? Let's hope so. We have had enough lies about hope and change.
A White House official said the Treasury Department has determined that the healthcare plans used by many union members — known as multi-employer or Taft-Hartley plans — cannot be made eligible for subsidies that are intended to help uninsured people afford coverage.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/322251-adminis- - tration-tells-unions-they-cant-have-obamacare-subsidies
Problem is, since the actual "left" disappeared in America about 20 years ago, nobody knows what one is anymore.
These other nations also have more unions and often have better human development indices than many if not most parts of the US, FWIW.
They also have less personal freedom than the USA. For example, in Germany you can be tossed in jail for home schooling your own children. To me that would be enough reason to start a revolution. In Canada and most of the Western World there is no 1st amendment protection of free speech. The Liberals are doing their best to destroy our first amendment rights. along with several other rights.
I don't see the UAW or ANY Union as the least bit conservative. Greedy, liberal, thugs would describe the most of them. Our Union backed Nixon second term and Reagan second term. In my 37 years in that local NO other GOP politicians were backed. They backed some real LIBERAL Losers in a state that is more GOP than Democrat. Many times directly hurting the workers in the state. Fortunately the voters are not as blind & ignorant in Alaska as they are in CA.
How much freedom of speech do you really have, more than the average Canuckistanian or European? Politicians don't have it. What are you doing with your freedom of speech? There's an old lyric about freedom being just another word for nothing left to lose. Might be appropriate in the racing to the bottom 21st century reality. Do something with those rights and others, if you have real fears. But I don't imagine the revolution will get started anytime soon.
Seems like more than a few greedy conservative thugs have helped put a hole in the ship, too. Fortunately, much of the nation is not as dopey as CA, and fortunately, Americans still have the freedom to move away from dopey areas if they choose - vote with your feet
They are, same as the Mormons. Neither one are Christians. They are both man made religious cults with no real history over 200 years.
Better primary education is subjective. What are they learning? If it is just the basics I would agree. If it is a bunch of Multicultural diversity BS, then I would NOT want my children subjected to it. I know many home schooled children that have had NO trouble finding good jobs and getting into college. A better start than MOST public schools offer with their Union teachers that will strike on a whim.
Fortunately, much of the nation is not as dopey as CA
Don't be too smug Washington is just a breath behind CA on Liberal dogma. Liberalism is a religion unto itself.
Personally, I see the tea party extremist right faction doing the same kind of damage to the Republicans that I saw the extreme left faction do to the Democrats decades back while I was in college. I guess it's the old "what goes around, comes around" thing.
I think we need some new parties to open up the competition better and term limits.
If Liberalism is a religion, then most of our Founding Fathers were devout. If you had a time machine and sent Republicans back to 1776, they'd be fighting for the King.
Big Labor will come roaring back as the split between rich and poor widens to margins not seen in this country for 100 years.
Fintail brings up a good point. Anyone in Europe is just as "free", if not "freer" than we are. it' just another one of our mythologies with no basis in fact.
What IS different here is the fluidity of our society and how quickly you can move up and down inside of it--in that sense we are 'freer'. But not in basic freedoms.
Public school in the US is entirely dependent on location. I don't know of it being so bad elsewhere. Germany does a fine job producing engineers and industrial workers, skilled trades, etc not running for mcjob style high school education like so much of Murica- maybe because it includes endless options for vocational training and is not addicted to the college game. Homeschooling is dependent on the parents, many of whom in my experience are barely qualified to reproduce in the first place. But again, this is a trivial distraction from the failings of the reverse-socialist modern American system. The fact remains, the US gets its butt kicked in terms of human development by places with more unions.
Still seems to be a net influx into my area, with a relatively healthy economy. Not perfect, but I'd take it over la-la-land and environs. And if it turned to crap, I'd find a way to lessen my annoyance, or I'd move.
Is totally neutered by Public Employee Unions. People don't know or understand the difference. They just know they are the ones caught in the middle and don't know how to extradite themselves from the mess. When they see over paid teachers and BART workers striking when they are making far more than the median income in CA, they get upset and believe ALL Unions are to blame. When it is only the Public Employee Unions that should be BANNED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Nothing more evil than public employee Unions. Even Liberals like FDR knew that and did not allow it to happen on his watch.
Completely agree. I know a large portion of our Teamster Union voted GOP. Even though the PAC supported losers in the Democrat party. We had some hellacious debates at those meetings. It is something inbred into Union leaders. They met their match when they organized a bunch of telephone Technicians that could read and think for themselves. There was NOTHING good the Democrats ever did for the state of Alaska. They would have blocked all oil development and took our major source of revenue. Yet the Unions backed them because they had the anti corporate rhetoric the not so bright truck drivers wanted to hear.
It's all in perspective that there's no Left. If I listened to the compliant mainstream media for my information about all sides and if I let them define what is good and bad, I guess I would believe there is no left: that only a bad right survives.
I recall many years ago an NPR talk person in Columbus on what was OSU (go Bucks) public radio at that time who was far left. He was getting much criticism from the callers and probably complaints to the station. He explained that he was "middle-of-the-road" because he looked at the main stream media sources then and he was midway among those, he felt. Therefore he was not liberal. LOL.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Wonder how the SEIU folks vote? My sense is that it's far from GOP.
Now if you were to tell me that part of the IUE folks here in Metro Dayton voted GOP, I might believe that. That's why the UAW wanted them out of building GM cars when they had the chance to screw them in 2009 with Administration's help. When I did a tour of that plant a couple years before that I saw workers always on task and certainly not having any dead time as the skillets bearing cars-to-be along the line moved past their stations. They were for the most part happy to have the job. So they may have been a higher level of voter as far as gathering their own information than what we suffer today as the low information voter.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The ideal combination is, of course, fiscal conservatism and social progressivism--but we are all so locked into extremes of dogmatism that this is no longer possible---hence we have a broken government and broken unions and a fragmented society.
Regarding union voting, if one observes from the outside, they would ask why any union would support the GOP? At least the donkeys pretend to care about the worker, even if their actions often don't make that a reality. Where the GOP wants no rights no controls just blind trust in the plutocracy - and constantly preaches a union busting line, even if law enforcement is always excluded, and excessive public sector benefits in some lines of work go unchallenged. I don't want the greater American socio-economic picture to resemble Dickensian England, or even Florida.
Unions - people make a mistake in thinking their party choices are politically inspired. The union leadership supports who will take care of them, no different than say the AMA supporting the republicans. It's about cash and influence. Doesn't necessarily reflect personal political beliefs. America runs on the dollar which isn't necessarily good or bad, just how it works.
Neither one are Christians. They are both man made religious cults
Huh? WTH did he just say? Are you trying to say that there are any religions that are NOT man made?
berri in msg 19874
the religious right and Tea party. It's ironic that the republicans have drawn to them to get votes, yet ultimately they are probably losing more votes than what they gain by disenfranchising more and more female and minority voters.
A lot of political pundits, people who truly study politics, elections, and government, were saying after the last election that the change in demographics will doom the Republican party if they don't move away from these positions (religious right, Tea Party).
America runs on the dollar which isn't necessarily good or bad, just how it works.
Amen, brother.
I don't know much about state and local gov, but have to wonder if the issues are really union or political patronage. Maybe both? I can't see how the federal employee unions have any influence, as Reagan demonstrated - they can't strike or take job actions. I guess I'd think that federal pay and benefits are like the military in that they seem linked to the overall job market. When the private sector is going great guns, the fed has to pay more and vice versa. I also have to wonder if this thing about contracting out and private sector superiority isn't more political talk than fact. When I was in college, and not a Podunk diploma mill, I think you had to pass a fairly tough test and be in the upper result range to get a job there, although that may have changed I suppose. I've known a few federal employees and they all seemed fairly intelligent and went to Big 10, PAC 10, etc. universities just like in business. So I'm thinking they essentially have the same education and intellect on both sides. Gov is primarily a white collar job. Contracting out would seem to make sense for specialized talents that aren't recurring needs, but long term I don't see how comparable employees would be that much cheaper. A company has to make a profit which is going to add at least 10% to the price, not to mention G&A, etc. So you either get a bunch of short term buy-ins or a loser. Neither a good long term prospect. Both political parties expressed a lot of concerns and regrets about the contracting out efforts after 911. I did read somewhere after 911 that the military was short ammo and that a contractor operating an ammo plant had to shell out a lot of upfront money to offset this problem until the gov got their ducks in order. But I wonder, was that the fed workers, or Congressional bureaucracy and incompetence? I think it gets back more to all the excessive gov rules and the like. Remember, the gov is full of lawyers. It's funny how some pundits jump on this Congress for not getting many laws passed. But maybe too many laws and regulations is a big part of the problem?
Federal Employees Unions are not as visible as National Unions like the NEA & SEIU. It is mostly public employee Unions at the state, county and city level that are the problem. They are probably worse in CA than most of the states. They have a strangle hold on the tax payers for their huge salaries and benefit packages. We have over 14,000 people retired in CA in the $100,000 club. Some making over $500k per year. And the tax payers are obligated to maintain CALPers the State pension fund which is way underfunded. They need to be BANISHED From the earth.
Back in 2005, some 1,841 retirees pulled down more than $100,000 a year in pension checks from the California Public Employees Retirement System.
By 2009, this so-called "$100K club" had more than tripled, to 6,133 members.
And by the end of 2012, membership more than doubled yet again, to 14,763, according to data from CalPERS.
http://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars/city-515888-100k-club.html
But maybe too many laws and regulations is a big part of the problem?
It is the major reason for lack of job creation. CA is the worst state in the Union to start a business and the USA is one of the worst countries in the World to start a business. High corporate taxes and crazy regulations top the list of negatives.
And losing any idea of organized workers will surely make things better.
It might be the same intellect, maybe not the same accountability.
I would like to know the ROI for us on Soc Security. I recall 10-12 years ago a data point was put out that the average retiree in SS was withdrawing all they had put in during 2 or 3 years. And in 5 to 7 they had withdrawn all the retiree and employer had put in along with interest at a nominal rate appropriate for an insurance policy.
When we add in the medical care through Medicare at a $1200 per year rate, the social security system/Medicare looks like the best deal out there short of being a Senator/aide with ObamaCare subsidizing your gold plated healthcare plan.
Anybody have statistics on the payin/payout for those of us over 65?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The funds all invest in the same equities etc. So the ROI would be comparable. The problem with Pension funds like CA has is they based the amount put in for the public employees with 8% ROI. So after several years of 1-2% the fund starts getting drained with 1000s of retirees sucking it dry. And they get what is called Tri-Care health benefits. Most have little or no out of pocket. And the state has tried to address it and the Unions fight any changes by picking candidates that will continue the downward spiral. They must think it will all fix itself. They raised our taxes and that has not helped. They are still way underfunded. With three large cities BK, they will not likely pay the $Billions they owe the pension plan. Time to make them pay their own HC and have a 401K.
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System returned 1% on its investments in the fiscal year ending June 30, a substantial miss for the largest U.S. pension fund.
CALPERS, which had assets of $233 billion as of June 30, has an annual investment return target of 7.5%, which it had lowered from 7.75% recently.
It'll be more amusing to see the payin/payout for those of us under 40.
I look at a friend of mine's parents as an example. Both are older boomers, in their mid 60s. One was a grade school teacher for 25-30 years, other was military for 10, then a park ranger for 25. Their collective retirement benefits are huge, and I doubt a normal worker would be able to receive so much indefinitely with the same investment. It's kind of irksome.
Retirements for public employees in CA are insane. My sister in law's dad retired from the fire dept after 34 years with $107k per year and full HC including dental. His retirement is more than he made as a fireman. He has been retired 10 years so it was under $100k when he retired.
So the $100K club is expanding, and will continue to expand. It's simple math: Every year, whoever is at 99,000 or $99,500 will get a 2-percent cost-of-living adjustment, and will then be at $100,000 or $101,000. So even if there were no new retirees, the number of $100K-plus pensioners would keep growing, Fong said.
While the upper tiers of the $100K club are stocked with these executive managers, the lower tiers are stocked with rank-and-file law enforcement types, who have the most generous benefits of all public employees (3 percent of salary for each year worked, starting at age 50), Fong said.
"If they had 30 years in and were a pretty good employee who got pretty good promotions, a cop or a CHP officer or a sheriff's deputy will be making $100,000. You and I can agree it's a generous formula that can result in them retiring with 90 percent of their pay."
And the CalPERS $100K club is small: just 3 percent of the total number of retirees in a system of about a half-million people (484,004 as of December, to be exact).
"Using a 3 percent real rate of return for secure personal investments in the golden years, it's worth $1.4 million in present value at age 65 and $1.8 million at age 55 when many police and firefighters retire – far more than any private sector or nonprofit association worker can ever possibly accumulate over a 30-year career by saving for themselves the federal maximum in their 401(k) or 403(b) account. So these pension benefits are fair game for critics."
Wow. That's better than SS and a 401k. Can I move to CA and collect?
Do these workers pay into SS and collect on it as well as the public retirement system?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Of course there's the *projected* payout -- but nobody knows for sure what it will really be.
The general pattern of problems here is that the unions were "promised" certain benefits far into the future - 20,30,40 more years. For anybody to think that a promise can be made that far ahead is just stupid. Which is why guarantees of certain benefits, etc., are worth about as much as the paper they're written on.
How much do the public employees pay into their retirement system? Compared to our 6.4% for SS?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,