Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:04 AM Jun 2012

If I can't have a pension and decent benefits why should they?

I wonder how much of the vote in Wisconsin came down to that? It's what they were selling. And in California as well.

So depressing.

I want to add something here, thus the edit:

Republicans have been carefully nurturing an inter class war for some time, and Wisconsin is the poisoned fruit.

72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If I can't have a pension and decent benefits why should they? (Original Post) cali Jun 2012 OP
I think that is basically true... kentuck Jun 2012 #1
because if you work for 30 or 40 years, you should have a pension. cali Jun 2012 #2
Then we need to fight for decent pensions for everyone, drm604 Jun 2012 #3
The question is should you decide to fund someone else's pension instead of your own 401k. dkf Jun 2012 #4
Unions are the backbone of the Democratic Party. drm604 Jun 2012 #5
Don't public worker benefits come out of your taxes? dkf Jun 2012 #7
baloney. how about raising the cap on SS? Now the numbers sure as hell work. cali Jun 2012 #16
Public worker benefits do come from taxes but the burden on an individual taxpayer is miniscule. Cestode Jun 2012 #17
Good point. Also, there are the private Wall Streeters like AIG who have loss underwritten by suffragette Jun 2012 #34
Thank you libtodeath Jun 2012 #11
It still comes down to higher taxes to pay union benefits means less money for my family badtoworse Jun 2012 #18
See Reply #17 above. drm604 Jun 2012 #35
What do you consider miniscule? badtoworse Jun 2012 #37
What is Wisconsin's defense budget? joeglow3 Jun 2012 #41
I think CA is a much bigger issue that WI WinniSkipper Jun 2012 #54
Pension issues in San Diego were not the fault of the union... haele Jun 2012 #63
I didn't say it was the fault of the union WinniSkipper Jun 2012 #64
I know you weren't, but all the push for that proposition was blaming the unions. haele Jun 2012 #70
lots of good info here.. frylock Jun 2012 #65
Public workers earned their benefits, including pensions, in lieu of higher salaries. Gidney N Cloyd Jun 2012 #56
Higher prices on food, fuel, health care, etc., mean less money for my family KansDem Jun 2012 #58
I've had union benefits. I've had "employer provided benefits" haele Jun 2012 #62
i don't have kids. why should i pay for the tax breaks you receive for breeding? frylock Jun 2012 #66
It's not like they shrunk themselvees dkf - TBF Jun 2012 #9
No but they spend their money on politics instead of organizing. dkf Jun 2012 #20
politics=organizing TBF Jun 2012 #24
Not if they are fighting for self-preservation against Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #27
Yes they spend alot of money on politics standingtall Jun 2012 #43
Just great libtodeath Jun 2012 #12
Just trying to be reality based. dkf Jun 2012 #22
How about addressing the facts then libtodeath Jun 2012 #29
Ironically, that's the exact justification the GOP is using to blow up SS/MediCare Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #15
Well our job is to figure out how to make it work. dkf Jun 2012 #25
So by that logic, why not drop all pensions for government employees? Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #26
Do you expect to get public services such as roads, high quality education, police, etc. for free? spooky3 Jun 2012 #33
+1 We the people are the government Harmony Blue Jun 2012 #38
this person will be sure to correct if i'm wrong, but i think you're arguing with a trust funder frylock Jun 2012 #69
So he/she buys private police, fire, emergency and other services, and never uses public roads? spooky3 Jun 2012 #71
It may be abstract, but it's not altruism or self sacrifice. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #36
Said it better than I could Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #44
perfectly stated, Jeff dana_b Jun 2012 #51
Funny thing is Dokkie Jun 2012 #55
Or, "If they have pensions, why can't I?" SharonAnn Jun 2012 #61
Because you can have a pension standingtall Jun 2012 #30
So you don't have to step over us marinating on the sidewalk on your way to work? Starry Messenger Jun 2012 #39
I was being facetious, Starry Messenger... kentuck Jun 2012 #67
Sorry, I was in a bad mood last night. Starry Messenger Jun 2012 #72
That's what I thought too loyalsister Jun 2012 #6
We were offered a Pension or 403B HockeyMom Jun 2012 #8
the man giving the presentation got mad? dana_b Jun 2012 #52
Excellent post, nailed it. nt TBF Jun 2012 #10
Union Envy limpyhobbler Jun 2012 #13
wow - it's all right there in one cartoon dana_b Jun 2012 #53
I wrote the following a couple years ago and was lambasted. Maybe now you are ready to hear... magical thyme Jun 2012 #14
This battle in Wisconsin was not all about unions! AllyCat Jun 2012 #31
my misunderstanding, then. I thought Walker's public union busting triggered the recall effort magical thyme Jun 2012 #42
Its really about pitting private workers against public workers. JoePhilly Jun 2012 #49
"An eye for an eye makes the world blind." --Gandhi. nt raccoon Jun 2012 #19
Nail on the head..... a kennedy Jun 2012 #21
Texas has already been there for a good while. ananda Jun 2012 #23
That's what it always comes down to Prophet 451 Jun 2012 #28
Could be. lonestarnot Jun 2012 #32
You raise a good point suffragette Jun 2012 #40
IMO, thats it in a nutshell. HooptieWagon Jun 2012 #45
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, Viking12 Jun 2012 #46
The right-to-workers in Indiana who made your Subaru don't get a pension... Romulox Jun 2012 #47
The problem is that union members only make up sufrommich Jun 2012 #48
I can only tell you this Cali. Puglover Jun 2012 #50
Yes, it's all about the Republicans using ENVY to divide us flamingdem Jun 2012 #57
I think that's it. Also, ecstatic Jun 2012 #59
"They" get them because they negotiated for them and traded off higher salaries. Gidney N Cloyd Jun 2012 #60
The corollary to that is... Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2012 #68

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
1. I think that is basically true...
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:07 AM
Jun 2012

Why should public workers have any pension at all when we sit nervously watching our 401K's go up and down like a yo-yo, if we have one at all.

drm604

(16,230 posts)
3. Then we need to fight for decent pensions for everyone,
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:11 AM
Jun 2012

not take it away from those few who still have it. Doing that is just petty.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
4. The question is should you decide to fund someone else's pension instead of your own 401k.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:36 AM
Jun 2012

In this case it just may be a zero sum game where voting to keep public worker pensions and benefits above your own means higher taxes to you and less ability to fund your own 401k.

I can see where those who are tied to unions may think it is to their benefit to keep unions strong, but for those who have no ties, it is purely altruistic and self sacrificing. That may be too much to expect.

Unions have got to expand their ranks to give more people incentive to support them. They have shrank too much to influence worker benefits.

drm604

(16,230 posts)
5. Unions are the backbone of the Democratic Party.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:45 AM
Jun 2012

That in itself is enough reason to support them.

You might want to believe that the question is "should you decide to fund someone else's pension instead of your own 401k", but that's a false dilemma. Destroying Union's bargaining rights isn't going to lower your taxes. What it will do is weaken the fight for workers' rights and weaken the Democratic Party. Doing that will not help your own retirement. What it will do is empower Republicans to dismantle things like Social Security and Medicare, which will hurt your retirement.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
7. Don't public worker benefits come out of your taxes?
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 08:13 AM
Jun 2012

I don't see how they can be disconnected.

I also don't think Democrats can save SS and Medicare as is. The numbers don't work.

Cestode

(32 posts)
17. Public worker benefits do come from taxes but the burden on an individual taxpayer is miniscule.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 08:47 AM
Jun 2012

People always cry about their tax dollars paying public salaries, benefits, pensions etc...
As a government employee I hear this ranting all the time.
But if you calculate the financial cost of public benefits and pensions on an individual taxpayer, it's absolutely miniscule.
So miniscule that it will absolutely not impact an individuals ability to save for their retirement.

If we want to talk about tax dollars hindering ones ability to make retirement contributions, lets talk about defense spending.

suffragette

(12,232 posts)
34. Good point. Also, there are the private Wall Streeters like AIG who have loss underwritten by
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:09 AM
Jun 2012

the public, receive enormous tax breaks and keep their profits. Those are some of the loudest voices for austerity.

And they don't provide the public service that public workers do.

Welcome to DU

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
18. It still comes down to higher taxes to pay union benefits means less money for my family
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 08:49 AM
Jun 2012

There are a lot of people struggling to keep their homes and put food on the table. Do you honestly believe they would vote to have their taxes raised so that unionized employees don't have to pay more for their benefits? A lot of the benefits enjoyed by public employees disappeared from the private sector years or decades ago. Private sector workers generally pay a lot for health insurance and have a 401k (if those benefits are even available). How do you think they view having their taxes raised so that public sector employees can continue to have health insurance and a defined benefit pension at little or no cost?

The voters in Wisconsin made a statement about those things. I'm amazed that so many here don't get that.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
37. What do you consider miniscule?
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:26 AM
Jun 2012

I haven't seen any actual numbers. If what you are saying were true, I would expect that it would have been highlighted by the unions in this fight and in other similar fights.

 

WinniSkipper

(363 posts)
54. I think CA is a much bigger issue that WI
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:49 PM
Jun 2012

There are so many factors at work in WI - money, the overall issue of a recall election, etc.

What happened in CA dwarfs what happened in WI. SD and SJ are now the benchmarks on what a the populace (and a generally Democratic populace) will deem acceptable. The differences in pension payments (the overall payments) as both a percentage of general fund, and overall numbers, was the breaking point when held up against reductions in services and workers.

I do not know why SD and SJ had such dramatic increases in pension payments over the last decade - I am sure one of the members here does and can shed some light.

The Republicans roadmap for both November and beyond was defined right here in CA. Who would have thought.

haele

(12,581 posts)
63. Pension issues in San Diego were not the fault of the union...
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 02:18 PM
Jun 2012

What San Diego did with their pension issues was based on much of the political shenanigans between City Management, the Developers, and some high level City Union members that surrounded around the first major downtown re-development and the Republican National convention in the 1996. The Republican Mayor at the time (and subsequent Republican Mayors) leveraged funding the pension (along with other union benefits) to balance the city budget and pay for popular city initiatives during the late 1990's, claiming that these initiatives that tended to favor the developers and business owners - the Ballpark, Qualcomm Stadium, the Convention Center, etc... - would be able to pay back the funding shortfalls in the budget. Which of course, never happened - the city became on the hook for Charger tickets that did not sell, tourism never really took off, various economic bubbles that supported good-paying jobs in the city burst (especially the tech bubble...), Reganomics and austerity initiatives dried up the tax base, immigration issues and serious private sector wage stagnation and/or reduction across a wider population than was seeing benefits. San Diego's city bond rating plummeted, causing even more shortfalls as no one wanted to invest in a failing city. The wealthy were taking their money and leaving, as wealthy people tend to do.
The other issue was that there was a "voter approved" measure that allowed the San Diego City Employee's Pension Fund to shift their funds from dividend-paying bonds with a 25% cap on stocks to however the Fund managers felt was the best - primarily stocks and funds that did not have to pay dividends that would be rolled back into the fund.
Because of course, the voters knew better - stock prices would always soar up and up and up, and you didn't need to invest conservatively anymore - everyone's going to be a winner at the Wall Street Casino...

And of course, there is always the issue of "those at the top got outrageous pensions" - because in the 1990's, the Firefighters and Police Union members of the city's Pension board allowed for a second payments above the normal pension payment from individual workers that were to be matched by the City so that a person could potentially retire on as much or even a bit more for the first decade or so afterwards because they could afford to pay more into their pension over the last five to ten years of their employment with the city. If you were making $80K - $120K a year in San Diego - usually a senior position - you could pretty much afford to put at least $40K - $50K a year into your pension on the expectation that you would get $80K - $100K a year in retirement from the City- while most people (including most of the City workforce) - were looking at retiring on $35K - $45K a year pension, plus social security and whatever other retirement IRAs or annuities they might have been able to invest in. And if you had a working spouse, you could put even more in and still live pretty well.

So, you had increased benefits - the ability to put more money in, which favored the few high-earning City Employees over the average jane and joe manning the desks, fixing potholes and running environmental safety tests - and decreased funding in a shaky pension vehicle.

From 2005 - 2008, the City Attorney tried to fix the problem and still keep the pension system intact for the workers, but the developers and business interests who didn't want to pay for all the benefits they reaped off the backs of the city workers got rid of him the next election. And now, 2.1 Billion dollars in deficit and 8.1 million dollars in legal costs later, voters are "punishing" those evil low level city workers by forcing them into an increasingly unstable 401K system that will ensure they're going to have to depend on Social Security when they retire, rather than punish the people who really caused the process and allow the workers who do their job feel like it's good to be loyal because one will be able live with some form of dignity after one retires.

The city will never recover that money, nor will it's workers ever recover their trust in their employer. Business interests - especially the developers - have made sure that they will never be liable for the multi-million dollar scam they pulled over on the city, the city employees, and the voters.

Haele

 

WinniSkipper

(363 posts)
64. I didn't say it was the fault of the union
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 03:26 PM
Jun 2012

Just want to call that out

This is an excellent explanation of how SD is in their current position. So basically the increase in payments to the fund from 45-ish to 230-ish is paying back the liability for the bad business decisions?

haele

(12,581 posts)
70. I know you weren't, but all the push for that proposition was blaming the unions.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 04:13 PM
Jun 2012

I suspect that the Fund operators pushing to allow additional payments into the pension fund was a way to hide the fact that they were underfunding the pension to the SEC; according to the articles I was reading, it took a whistle-blower in 2004 to call attention to the fact the additional inputs to the pension fund weren't reflecting in the balance of the fund. Especially after a few high-level employees who had "retired" early to pursue other employment, were apparently able to continue contributing to their City pension through this additional input rule even after they left - which allowed them not only to accrue seniority points, but to also collect the matching payments from the City once they applied to begin receiving it.
In 2007, this allowed the one-time head City Librarian (which has a salary of around $130K a year, from what I understand - decent for a job that requires a PhD) to be able to begin to collect close to $110K in pension a good 10 years after he retired from the city after 25 years with a bumped up vesting of 35 years (increasing the city matching), including with all the tax deductions and benefits in place, instead of the "paltry" $70K he would have gotten under a normal pension plan - which was the basis for the talking point that San Diego City pensions are a rip-off to taxpayers and should be abolished for a 401K system.

Former City Attorney Mike Aguirre (Dem-Progressive) tried very hard to roll back this pension boondoggle to return the pension system to a standard pension model that invested strictly in bonds and conservative funds, but he was stymied and called "crazy" and voted out of office to be replaced by one of Doug Manchester and Dick Murphy's political hack buddies.

It's quite a story, especially if you are interested in what happens when pensions get replaced by 401Ks, or disappear because the funds are raided to balance a budget spreadsheet.

Haele

Gidney N Cloyd

(19,781 posts)
56. Public workers earned their benefits, including pensions, in lieu of higher salaries.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:58 PM
Jun 2012

It's a falsehood to suggest that the benefits and pensions are on top of the compensation package.

KansDem

(28,498 posts)
58. Higher prices on food, fuel, health care, etc., mean less money for my family
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:59 PM
Jun 2012

Why should I subsidize the CEOs from Wall Street and the banks who reap huge multi-million-dollar salaries and bonuses? Why should I pay to bail them out when their ponzi schemes fail?

Just heard this morning on Alternative Radio that the price of oil is kept artificially high by lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industry. Why should I pay more for gasoline so oil companies can make obscene profits? Why should I subsidize them?

Pharmaceutical companies jack the price of prescriptions up to reap greater profits. Why should I pay more for my prescriptions so they can make more money?

Why am I paying for a bloated defense budget? Why am I paying to kill children in the mid-East? Why am I paying the bloated salaries of MIC contractors?

Why should I pay a higher tax rate than billionaires? Why should I pay more so that others can pay less?

Why?

Your argument about paying higher taxes for union benefits is bogus. The current system is making us pay more so the 1% can reap more wealth, and I'm getting tired of it.

haele

(12,581 posts)
62. I've had union benefits. I've had "employer provided benefits"
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 01:24 PM
Jun 2012

In my experience as a "professional" worker in a middle class "grey collar" (blue/white collar - engineering/technical/management skills)job, the Employer-provided benefits are far more of a burden on the take-home pay than Union benefit/fees.
True, Employer-provided benefits can be "voluntary", so that an employee can make the gawd-awful decision not to provide his or her family with health care and contribute to the roller-coaster ride of a company 401K that might result in a retirement supplement to Social Security so that they can keep a roof over the head and food on the table as their wages stagnate or hours get cut willy-nilly for some corporate stooge's bottom line - a decision that that probably would not have had to happen if there had been a Union to bargain for them.
The fact is that the large employers that make their money on other people's money rather than create a product or provide a service - the ones that really fight against unions because the majority of the "management" level usually never had to do physical labor or worry at the end of a pay period if the bills were going to be paid - are the ones that are making the investment to demonize unions and cut the "cost" of a workforce to maximize profits.

Public Sector Employees are the last refuge of an independent working middle class. That's why there's so much money and propaganda being expended to destroy it. After they are gone, the middle class will be defined by patronage, and everyone else relegated to, frankly, "independent contractors" aka sharecroppers or a migrant workforce.

And then, we'll see what real poverty is again. 25 to 30 million and increasing dis-enfranchised citizens with no credit, no permanent housing, no chance for quality or upper level education, no time to care for or provide a healthy example for their children - who will have little future, in poor health and in competition for whatever few crumbs of opportunity are dropped down to raise them out of debt-slavery into some independent standard of living. What little wages they get, they must pay the majority of the taxes to support the infrastructure and regulatory support that those with enough money (and the ability to buy loopholes can avoid paying taxes)use on a daily basis.
All social safety nets out of reach unless one is deemed "worthy" enough. If one does not make enough money to buy a "citizen franchise", one is basically disposable.
As to whatever might be left over to this pretty much permanent underclass with nowhere to go, the churches of Mammon, the Gangs and Mobs, and and all the other con-artists and social predators will be able to prey on with impunity, all under the cover of a Calvinistic, Dominionist judge mental process - after all, "the poor must have done something wrong, so they deserve to be poor until they shape up" and "God rewards the Righteous with money and power".

Haele

TBF

(31,922 posts)
9. It's not like they shrunk themselvees dkf -
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 08:20 AM
Jun 2012

there is a lot of 1% money behind the union-bashing.

Who does it benefit? Not the workers. Not the so-called "middle" class.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
20. No but they spend their money on politics instead of organizing.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:01 AM
Jun 2012

Aren't they focused on the wrong thing?



Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
27. Not if they are fighting for self-preservation against
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:24 AM
Jun 2012

a politician who would legislate them out of existence...

Besides, I damn well promise you that their opponents are spending freely on politics...

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
43. Yes they spend alot of money on politics
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:54 AM
Jun 2012

And it's understanding to see why. Seeing as the opposition party of lawmakers are hell bent on destroying their bargaining rights, and making harder if not impossible to organize through legislation. They give money to dems to protect them from these assaults in a 2 party political system, and hopefully legislation that would help them. The Democrats have done a dismal job of defending unions. Obama proposed the employee free choice act. Obama was elected. The dems had the President,Senate, and the congress, and it never even came to a vote. The term card check is propaganda from the likes of the US Chamber of commerce. Card check is what we have now. Say you want organize your work place? You contact a union, and they will give you union authorization cards that say you would like to represented by the union. Lets say you got 10 employees, and 9 out ten sign the card that says they want to join a union. You would then turn those cards over to the union. Who will send them to the NLRB. After that there will be 45 days for a election. Here are some of the dirty tricks company will play. They will likely call in a consulting firm that specializes in union busting tactics. They will call in employees for mandatory meetings. For them to watch propaganda videos. Saying unions are violent thugs, and associated with the mafia. There will be illegal firings. And some comes might even temporarily restore benefits they've taken away, but after the election is over if the company wins you better believe those benefits will be gone soon after.

I wont lie I am quite bitter about what happened in Wisconsin last night. I am starting to think all labor unions should never give another dime to the democratic party, and look for some 3rd party to support.

libtodeath

(2,888 posts)
29. How about addressing the facts then
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:42 AM
Jun 2012

huge money spent thanks to a corrupt RW Supreme Court,lies spread by the RW media about organized labor,all the hate spewed by RW radio and more instead of repeating talking points about how unfair unions are to non union workers.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
25. Well our job is to figure out how to make it work.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:13 AM
Jun 2012

Drawing a line in the sand and insisting it stay as is in perpetuity is no solution.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
26. So by that logic, why not drop all pensions for government employees?
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:22 AM
Jun 2012

across the board on the state, local and federal level? From the local parks supervisor to the state troopers to the five-star generals to the president??

Why do they get to decide (under the guise of wannabe "fiscal responsibility&quot that Group A gets their pension blown up and have to sit there and take it while Group B doesn't get a mention? Why do state legislators get to constantly vote for their own pay raises and perks with no complaint??

spooky3

(34,303 posts)
33. Do you expect to get public services such as roads, high quality education, police, etc. for free?
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:04 AM
Jun 2012

THAT is what "the question is."

Look at the TOTAL compensation packages for these workers. They generally are lower than those for comparable jobs in the private sector. There are a few abuses that have gotten TONS of media attention, completely out of line relative to their incidence.

Obviously you are going to have to take something out of your paycheck that can then not go into your 401k, because this is what it means to pay for these services.

Pensions are simply part of the package and, where they were especially good, helped municipalities etc. keep salaries and other benefits lower than what they otherwise would have been.

Many people, and perhaps you are one of them, turned down their noses at entering a career in public service because the pay and benefits were TOO LOW.

The other appropriate question is one of extent--are you in an area where public sector workers are being paid far above what they are worth relative to the product and labor market competitors? Are you willing to settle for a lower level of quality that may be associated with hiring less qualified workers at lower rates of pay? If you have evidence of that, then how much do future increases need to be cut to bring them in line?

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
38. +1 We the people are the government
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:27 AM
Jun 2012

and the greater good of the public is paramount for a healthy government and democracy.

spooky3

(34,303 posts)
71. So he/she buys private police, fire, emergency and other services, and never uses public roads?
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 04:17 PM
Jun 2012

S/he's got his/her own air traffic controllers, military, weather forecasters, etc.

And, to add insult to injury, people with trust funds pay even lower rates of income taxes than do people with the same level of ordinary income.

I have no problem with people's inheriting money or having trust funds. But when they want to renege on compensation deals made for services that they benefit from, or believe that there is a free lunch, that I have an issue.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
36. It may be abstract, but it's not altruism or self sacrifice.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:24 AM
Jun 2012

The fate of all labor is connected. The guy who has it worst? He's your future. The guy who has a pension? Making his situation worse doesn't make yours better, it in fact makes yours worse.

Union labor is the only way to arrest this fall.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
44. Said it better than I could
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:12 AM
Jun 2012

What happens to the least of us will happen to all of us...Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but it will happen...

dana_b

(11,546 posts)
51. perfectly stated, Jeff
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:41 PM
Jun 2012

"The fate of all labor is connected. The guy who has it worst? He's your future". And the sooner that people get it through their heads, the better off we will ALL be.

 

Dokkie

(1,688 posts)
55. Funny thing is
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:55 PM
Jun 2012

this is the same argument RW use to sell tax cuts for the rich. Just cut taxes for the job creators and they just might hire you with that money. Yes taking away the pensions from the guy who has it isn't guaranteed(money saved doesn't always go back to tax payers) to make your better but leaving it as it is decades now hasn't shown to be bearing any fruits.

It all comes down to whether people still believe that good treatment of union member still has a trickle down efffect on non union member.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
39. So you don't have to step over us marinating on the sidewalk on your way to work?
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:27 AM
Jun 2012

No one benefits from the impoverishment of any sector of working or retired society.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
67. I was being facetious, Starry Messenger...
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 03:39 PM
Jun 2012

I think the public pensions are a small price to pay for the job that is performed by teachers and public employees.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
72. Sorry, I was in a bad mood last night.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 04:45 PM
Jun 2012

My irony meter needs a whack on the side. I should have known better.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
6. That's what I thought too
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:53 AM
Jun 2012

Attitudes of outsiders towards union often lean towards sympathetic support and jealous resentment.

It is the same divisive techniques used to turn middle class against poor people.

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
8. We were offered a Pension or 403B
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 08:18 AM
Jun 2012

It was either or. In talking with coworkers, not one person choose the 403B. They to used constantly have all these people come in to talk with us about the "benefits" of the 403B. At the end of the presentation, everyone walked out. One time the man gotten very mad and yelled, "What is wrong with you people?"

All these people who want to end public pensions are just plain jealous. Given a choice, which do you think they themselves would choose?

dana_b

(11,546 posts)
52. the man giving the presentation got mad?
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:44 PM
Jun 2012

Too bad!! The people are not stupid. They know that a pension is usually more secure.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
14. I wrote the following a couple years ago and was lambasted. Maybe now you are ready to hear...
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 08:35 AM
Jun 2012

First, let me say that I wanted Barrett to win as much as the rest of you. I support unions, always have, even though I have never belonged to one.

I never had the opportunity to be in a union. I have been without benefits most of my adult life, and frankly I ended up better off without them. Even now, given my current situation, if I were to get seriously ill and lose everything, I would consider myself better off without them. But that is me, and I realize that most of you want the benefits and what they bring. That is fine.

But -- and this is the crux of the matter -- throughout most of my working life I have been treated badly by individual union members. Even worse, in many cases there was an opportunity for them to help me with just a simple lead or contact info, but instead I got contempt. This is a simple fact.

Back in the 80s, when unions came looking for support, I supported their candidates and was vocal about it. Every time. I bought American too, for as long as I could. I didn't even enter a Walmarts until I'd been unemployed for over 2 years. I admit I did buy a foreign car (Honda) in the 90s, but I simply couldn't afford the American cars at that point. I blamed management for bad decisions, though, not unions. 16 years, 44mpg and 215,000 miles later, that car is still running and is my lifeline. Not your fault, but America didn't catch up on cars until after I replaced my falling apart, unreliable 70,000 mile chevy subcompact.

When I said there were no unions to join where I was, the "nicer" union members told me to start one myself, but not one person gave me a tip or a lead on how to go about doing that. I won't write what the less friendly union members said, although it was mostly their tone.

When high tech started going through its downturn in the 80s, when I asked union-members for help, I was told in no uncertain terms it was our own fault for not unionizing. Again, with contempt and without any leads or suggestions on how to go about forming a union.

When I relocated and had a building project, the wife of a union member sabotaged the deal that I had set up for the building project and then weasled her husband into it. This was not a big business deal, but a small backyard project I was seeking help on originally from (no longer) friends. But he acted like the stereotype of a union worker. In the end, I think he realized his mistake and he only charged a small amount of money, but the project ended up taking many weeks longer than it should have and I ended up wrecking both my elbows due to tricks played by his wife and brother. But his wife acted like they had done me a huge favor and that I somehow screwed them over when I told them to charge whatever because I was so grateful for their help and then paid them in full on the spot. So after having sabotaged me from the beginning and throughout, she libeled me extensively (and I found out later was still libeling me 7 years later) in a forum where I had been cultivating relationships with free consulting in hope of eventually establishing a small, sideline business.

I still support unionization. I do think the roots of the problem are at least partially due to the way some union members have treated non-union members, at least in the past. The GOP exploited that.

When individual members were rude to non-members, blaming them for not being in unions, it left people with a bad taste in their mouth. It created an opening for the GOP, and they ran with it.

I honestly don't know how you go forward from here, because now I imagine that many non-union members have had experiences similar to mine and are pitted against the unions. The blanket of advertising just reminds people of that; that they are "outsiders" who are not welcomed by unions.

From my perspective, when the unions are taking a hit, they come begging for help. But when non-unions are hit, they don't offer any help.



AllyCat

(16,036 posts)
31. This battle in Wisconsin was not all about unions!
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:51 AM
Jun 2012

We were there fighting for the rights of ALL Wisconsinites, union and non-union. I'm sorry you had a bad run with some bad people who happened to be union, but it is not unions that did this to you.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
42. my misunderstanding, then. I thought Walker's public union busting triggered the recall effort
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:45 AM
Jun 2012

and I thought this thread was about anti-union people with 401Ks etc. voting for Walker.

Guess I've been reading too much this morning, and forget where I am...

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
49. Its really about pitting private workers against public workers.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:27 PM
Jun 2012

And the way you do that is to take away collective bargaining rights, and other benefits that public employees get. And the arguement you use to do this is to tell workers in the private sector that public workers are over-paid and get more benefits than the private workers get.

And then you foster this argument ... "If I don't get those benefits, neither should public workers." rather than "Private companies should pay their employers more, provide better benefits to their workers".

Basically you get the middle class to fight among itself such that in the end, everyone is paid less and gets no benefits at all ... and the money saved goes to the executives at the top.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
28. That's what it always comes down to
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:25 AM
Jun 2012

I'm afraid that I have come to the conclusion that almost all of politics can be understood as resentment, class prejudice and spite.

suffragette

(12,232 posts)
40. You raise a good point
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:36 AM
Jun 2012

It's the same thought process I've noted in discussions about single payer when people say why should they pay for a smoker, or someone who is overweight or anyone with any habit of which the person disapproves to receive health care.

It's also the same thought process going on when people eye the purchases of someone using food stamps or cards to single out the item(s) that is "extravagant" in their mind to argue against such welfare benefits.

Reagan and his crew used it in promulgating his false "welfare queen" stereotype in order to lay groundwork for decimating social services.

Koch and crew (their crew including the politicians they've bought) are using it just as you note.


I think it has to be countered head on and the comparison should be drawn blatantly to the actual services the public servants provide (and which the super wealthy funding this shit also benefit from to make all the money they're spending on this) and the lack of public good and damage done by the wealthy backers of this. Also, needs to be countered directly by defining us together as "we."

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
45. IMO, thats it in a nutshell.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:59 AM
Jun 2012

The election was framed as a referendom on unions, and the RW noise machine hammered out the meme that union employees had high-paying cushy jobs at the publics expense. Similar to the "war on welfare", they were painted as being undeserving. And when conservatives look for undeserving people, they dont look up at CEOs and hedge fund managers who are far removed from their frame of reference, they look to their neighbors who have a new car or a better pension and benefits. IOWs, in the class war between the haves and have nots, RW media successfully has framed the haves not as the 1% but as your peer thats just a little better off.

Viking12

(6,012 posts)
46. "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed,
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:03 PM
Jun 2012

and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

Malcom X

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
48. The problem is that union members only make up
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:19 PM
Jun 2012

12% of the general population now. If union membership doesn't go up in the future, I expect more of the same.

Puglover

(16,380 posts)
50. I can only tell you this Cali.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:39 PM
Jun 2012

We were in Mexico in Feb and the other couple that shared our pool were from WI. Fiftyish, white, like us. Anyway I asked what they thought of the recall and they both smugly said Walker would have no problem keeping his seat. So we got into a spirited discussion. Basically it came down to EXACTLY what your OP is about. "THEY" have something we don't have. "WE" have to pay for our health insurance. At the same time they bragged about their business and how whenever they flew they flew in Business Class. Obviously they were not stupid or wanting for money.

What they were, was mean spirited selfish greedy assholes. Combine that with clueless incurious people and you have a Scott Walker win.

flamingdem

(39,304 posts)
57. Yes, it's all about the Republicans using ENVY to divide us
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:59 PM
Jun 2012

Even people who are centrists get caught up in stories of abuse of the system that allows a worker to have a luxurious retirement or benefits. The repukes appeal to the animal mind

ecstatic

(32,567 posts)
59. I think that's it. Also,
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 01:05 PM
Jun 2012

besides jealousy, there's another meme which is that unions make it harder for businesses. I know a guy whose dad has worked with Chrysler for 20+ years and yet he still thinks that unions caused the downfall of the Big 3. My take is, it shouldn't matter whether or not you agree with unions or any other issues on the democratic platform--all of us under this big tent should support each other in order to keep our numbers strong. The problem is, we don't have much loyalty on our side.

Gidney N Cloyd

(19,781 posts)
60. "They" get them because they negotiated for them and traded off higher salaries.
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 01:08 PM
Jun 2012

Public workers accept health care benefits and pensions in lieu of higher salaries. Nobody is giving them anything and it's not their fault that the politicians didn't fund their end of the bargain. Taxpayers and government thought the total compensation packages (salary + bennies) that they agreed to was a good deal but they kicked the funding can down the road.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
68. The corollary to that is...
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 03:39 PM
Jun 2012

Hearing some older people who benefit from Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid now supporting candidates that want to gut these programs because...well...they got theirs! Fuck the younger generations! They don't deserve it!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If I can't have a pension...