Unions versus the city and state?

[Steve]

In light of recent tensions between public employee unions and City Hall, voters' dismissal of union opposition to MAPS 3, teacher union effort to get more funding through SQ 744, and legislation underway at the Capitol, could Oklahoma be the next Wisconsin? And if so, how will average Oklahomans react?

[OKCTalker]

Steve, everybody here is an average Oklahoman (didn't you know that?) including me, so I'll start...

The Wisconsin issue is very simple: Government workers are being asked to pay more for their benefits and retirement packages, and the state seeks to limit the power of unions. The average state employees is paid more than $48,000 per year (source: Economic Policy Institute), and is being asked to pay 6% of their pension costs and 12% of their health care premiums. In response, hundreds of teachers have called in sick and classes are canceled in dozens of schools across the state. There is a YouTube video of NJ Governor Chris Christie talking about unaffordable teacher benefits & pensions here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904 It's relevant and to-the-point in Wisconsin, Oklahoma and 47 other states.

[Kerry]

I say bring it on. It is about time we had this 'discussion' in the United States.

[BoulderSooner]

In light of recent tensions between public employee unions and City Hall, voters' dismissal of union opposition to MAPS 3, teacher union effort to get more funding through SQ 744, and legislation underway at the Capitol, could Oklahoma be the next Wisconsin? And if so, how will average Oklahomans react?

this would be great for oklahoma and every other state ...

the key part is that most unions are to look out for the "public" ie the average worker against money making corporations ... however state and federal worker unions look out for private interests the union over the public (state) welfare.

[MIKELS129]

I don't disagree with bringing on the discussion, but... the hypocrisy in Wisconsin is that the firemen and police supported Gov. Walker in his succesful election bid and they are being excluded from being asked to pay portions of their pension and health benefits cost. I say don't play politics ... keep it fair.

[bornhere]

Wisconsin has been a center of progressivism since the Depression, and has only recently started shifting to the right. Oklahoma, on the other hand, has been archly conservative since the sixties. I doubt that public employee unions could muster the kind of broad support here that they have in Wisconsin.

[Joe Daddy]

Steve, everybody here is an average Oklahoman (didn't you know that?) including me, so I'll start...

The Wisconsin issue is very simple: Government workers are being asked to pay more for their benefits and retirement packages, and the state seeks to limit the power of unions. The average state employees is paid more than $48,000 per year (source: Economic Policy Institute), and is being asked to pay 6% of their pension costs and 12% of their health care premiums. In response, hundreds of teachers have called in sick and classes are canceled in dozens of schools across the state. There is a YouTube video of NJ Governor Chris Christie talking about unaffordable teacher benefits & pensions here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904 It's relevant and to-the-point in Wisconsin, Oklahoma and 47 other states.

This is inaccurate. The union in Wisconsin agreed to the wage and benefit concessions. At issue is the right to collectively bargain. The Wisconsin governor wants to remove the right to unionize. The concessions by the union are not enough for the Republicans; they want the union dissolved.

[Kerry]

This is inaccurate. The union in Wisconsin agreed to the wage and benefit concessions. At issue is the right to collectively bargain. The Wisconsin governor wants to remove the right to unionize. The concessions by the union are not enough for the Republicans; they want the union dissolved.

The isn't correct either Joe Daddy. Unions could still represent government employees in Wisconsin. They just couldn't negotiate benefits, wage increase above the CPI, or force people to pay dues. They are still free to negotiate working conditions and contribute to Democarts.

[tehvipir]

Some unions are bad and some are good. Growing up as a son of a mining union member i remember being at the lake and my dad was talking to a guy he worked with if he was going to strike. The guy said yes that he would like a month long summer. Well the strike went through and i saw my parents really struggle in the money. The next time the same place (FMC) wanted to strike my father was a salary supervisor. They passed the strike and my father was stuck at the mine for over a month and not allowed to return home. Not only that but all of our neighbors were union and didnt associate with us at all during that strike and some parents wouldnt let their kids come over to our house.

With that being said i do believe that some unions have the best interest in the parties they represent. I dont agree however that Their collective bargining rights should be taken away. As OCFD and union 15 7 member i look at our contract and see what we have gotten from the collective bargining agreement and also see what the city would like us to do if we agreed on their terms, much of wich would be possibly endangering our lives.

We in OK could be facing the same problems with the state trying to take our CBA away. Also With them messing with our state pensions. OUr lives are affected on this job due to waking up many times in the middle of the night, see things that normal people wouldnt see, being exposed to products that normal people arent exposed too. While yes we knew what we were getting into it is also a calling for most, it is what makes them happy doing. I myself would love to go to PA school and if i do that i will not quit the fd, instead i will work part time PA, WHY. Because I couldnt see myself NOT doing this job. The pensions to us is very dear. While pay raises are nice they arent the big issue. There is places to promote here and make more money and i feel grateful that i am in this job. But when my body says its time to quit i dont want to be struggling to live on my pension alone.

I know i heard some legs say that we should concentrate on the roads and pension reform will help with that. Why do people think that more and more money will improve roads. I did asphalt in wyoming and yes the roadas are horrible here but you have to look at the SOIL, not the asphalt or concrete being put in. There is a huge difference. All the money in the would cant change the geoplogical area we live in. get used to bad roads.

[bombermwc]

I'm a fencer on the union thing. When i see a union like GM had, all I can do is say "we're better off without it" because that crap was just ridiculous and the union bargained themselves right into bankruptcy. On the other hand, something like a miner's union is still very valid because even in 2011, they're still treating poorly.

I do believe Right-To-Work in important though. I would never accept a job where I was forced to pay dues to a union whether I want to or not. It's the union's job to convince me that I SHOULD pay to help. But when something like a union isn't forced to "recruit" and they get it by default, then they aren't going to do as good of a job listening to what you want. Why should they?

On one hand you can see how it's great to have some weight on benefits negotiation, but on the other hand....why should a unionized group get a better deal than the rest of us? Why should your job be guaranteed while no one else's is? Why should you not have to contribute more to your pension plan (that no one else gets)? That kind of crap is what makes me anti-union. A non-public employee goes to work and could be fired at any time, we only get things like 401K's, and our insurance premiums rise each year as we get shafted....why does working for state/govt mean that you should be exempt from those issues? Instead, those employees should be facing the same issues as the rest of us and start saving us some tax dollars by being fair. Yeah it's great for the employee, but the rest of us get screwed over paying for it.

Trouble is, much like a corporation, someone high up hands down the new plan and you either take it or leave it...those are your only options. Group PPO's aren't that much better than individual coverage these days either. Not to mention if you're a Blue Cross Blue Shield in a state, you're offered even fewer options on that monopoly.

As for the roads, I don't buy it. You can compare roads built in different decades and see exactlly how crappy construction vs. good construction can make a difference in how long a road lasts. Heck, even in town you can take a drive on roads that were built 30 years ago and they're still fine....but you only have to look at it for 10 seconds to see how it's built differently than the crappy one down the road. Take a look at 235 for a perfect example. Concrete vs Asphalt in the same few mile stretch. They were built at the same time (now part of it has obviously been redone), and you can see the huge difference. Now also compare the asphalt there to I-40 on the east side. Crap. Asphalt on a highway in town has proven as a bad idea here...it gets torn up too much by the weather with the high traffic volume. That's why they're pushing everything back to concrete. yes it costs more upfront, but it last a a LOT longer. You can also shave it later with the technique developed here in OKC to make it last even longer 30 yaers later (see 35, 44, broadway ext, etc).

[Joe Daddy]

I'm a fencer on the union thing. When i see a union like GM had, all I can do is say "we're better off without it" because that crap was just ridiculous and the union bargained themselves right into bankruptcy. On the other hand, something like a miner's union is still very valid because even in 2011, they're still treating poorly.

Agree with the miners union example, but one question on the GM example. How did Ford, same union, same agreement manage to make a profit?

[Joe Daddy]

I do believe Right-To-Work in important though. I would never accept a job where I was forced to pay dues to a union whether I want to or not. It's the union's job to convince me that I SHOULD pay to help. But when something like a union isn't forced to "recruit" and they get it by default, then they aren't going to do as good of a job listening to what you want. Why should they?

No worries. Oklahoma is a right to work state. Even if you work for a unionized company, you get all the benefits and never have to pay dues if you don't want to. Wish granted.

On one hand you can see how it's great to have some weight on benefits negotiation, but on the other hand....why should a unionized group get a better deal than the rest of us?

Instead of taking this attitude, why not ask "How can I get as good a deal as the union guys?" Why wish to tear another middle class worker down? Why not wish to bring everyone's pay and benefits up?

Why should your job be guaranteed while no one else's is?

I don't know of any guaranteed jobs......

Why should you not have to contribute more to your pension plan (that no one else gets)?

Most pensions are gone. Private companies one after another file bankruptcy and reorganize to eliminate their pension responsiblity. You pretty much are granted this wish too.

That kind of crap is what makes me anti-union. A non-public employee goes to work and could be fired at any time, we only get things like 401K's, and our insurance premiums rise each year as we get shafted....why does working for state/govt mean that you should be exempt from those issues?

Most union shops have gone to the 401k long ago. Even the federal government shifted to the FERS system and a 401k for their retirement. Look for FERS to disappear soon too. You're getting your wishes one by one. Everyone will be paid a lot less a lot sooner than you think.

Instead, those employees should be facing the same issues as the rest of us and start saving us some tax dollars by being fair. Yeah it's great for the employee, but the rest of us get screwed over paying for it.

Does wishing misery on "everyone" to be "fair" make anyones life better? The United States has the weakest labor laws of any industrilaized nation, and they are getting weaker every day, because the middle class here eats its own. Misery does indeed love company.

Trouble is, much like a corporation, someone high up hands down the new plan and you either take it or leave it...those are your only options. Group PPO's aren't that much better than individual coverage these days either. Not to mention if you're a Blue Cross Blue Shield in a state, you're offered even fewer options on that monopoly.

Get ready for more of the same. When the unions are finally eliminated, nothing stands between the corporations, and the medical/insurance/industrial complex and our federal legislature. They will lobby for the elimination of the remaining labor laws we take for granted like overtime pay and minimum wage.

Your wish is the corporate lobbies command. Happy days are here again!

[OKCMallen]

The labor union created the large middle class on which this country thrives. It makes me nervous to completely disable workers from unionizing, and I'm generally anti-labor union.

[Bunty]

I do believe Right-To-Work in important though. I would never accept a job where I was forced to pay dues to a union whether I want to or not. It's the union's job to convince me that I SHOULD pay to help. But when something like a union isn't forced to "recruit" and they get it by default, then they aren't going to do as good of a job listening to what you want. Why should they?

So as not to betray your principles, you would have no choice but to go to work for a lower paying non-unionized company, because at a higher paying unionized company in a state without right to work the union could take money out of your paychecks without you being an actual union member? Not me, because I would feel like an idiot working for less at a non-unionized company when I could be making more money at a unionized one.

[Bunty]

Steve, everybody here is an average Oklahoman (didn't you know that?) including me, so I'll start...

The Wisconsin issue is very simple: Government workers are being asked to pay more for their benefits and retirement packages, and the state seeks to limit the power of unions. The average state employees is paid more than $48,000 per year (source: Economic Policy Institute), and is being asked to pay 6% of their pension costs and 12% of their health care premiums. In response, hundreds of teachers have called in sick and classes are canceled in dozens of schools across the state. There is a YouTube video of NJ Governor Chris Christie talking about unaffordable teacher benefits & pensions here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904 It's relevant and to-the-point in Wisconsin, Oklahoma and 47 other states.

However, key to understanding what's going on is whether government employees in a unionized work place in Wisconsin are required to pay dues to the union, whether a union member or not. If so, no wonder what motivates the controversy by Republicans. $48,000 is decent pay to me, certainly if one has kids to raise. So I am definately with the government workers. I bet many small businesses are too, since they rely on people who still have money to spend after paying for the staples of life.

[mattjank]

Here's my problem with government employee unions having collective bargaining. There is an inherent conflict of interest in that they are in general one of the largest contributors to the campaigns of the very people they negotiate with. How exactly are negotiations supposed to be fair in that situation? Too much of a you pat my back, I'll pat yours situation to me.

[Spartan]

Wow the gub'ment wurkor unions are causing problems. SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!

[Midtowner]

When unions venture outside of their core business--representing labor in contract disputes, they are going to be confronted with a whole new set of consequences. If they really want to get involved in municipal elections, you can bet that the folks who are accustomed to running that show will take note and take aim.

Even now, there's at least one union-busting measure being heard in the legislature which would eliminate the rights of public employees to engage in collective bargaining. The Chamber of Commerce is largely in charge, and if you stand in their path, if your existence depends upon the hubris of the state government, you'd better watch out.

[Bunty]

Why should working people be against collective bargaining? Is it because workers who can engage in collective bargaining may very will end up with better pay and benefits than the workers who can't get collective bargaining in their work place, and that is just NOT FAIR! But it's simple to do something about. If you don't like your pay and benefits in a non-unionized work place than go to work for a unionized work place that has a better deal for workers. But those bitterly opposed to unions stand for not giving workers that choice.

[Midtowner]

Why should people be against collective bargaining? Is it because workers who can engage in collective bargaining may very will end up with better pay and benefits than the workers who can't get collective bargaining in their work place, and that is just NOT FAIR!

I'm not against collective bargaining. I think it's great and I think it should be protected.

Where we part company is that I believe that if a union chooses to wade into something outside of its traditional sphere, e.g., municipal elections where millions of dollars are at stake, they'd better be ready for the consequences.

[Bunty]

Here's my problem with government employee unions having collective bargaining. There is an inherent conflict of interest in that they are in general one of the largest contributors to the campaigns of the very people they negotiate with. How exactly are negotiations supposed to be fair in that situation? Too much of a you pat my back, I'll pat yours situation to me.

But in cities, it's the city manager and further down in management, who negotiate contracts, not someone elected like the mayor. And a lot of city workers will be afraid to speak out against the city manager's policies out of fear of being fired, whether union member or not.

[Bunty]

I'm not against collective bargaining. I think it's great and I think it should be protected.

Where we part company is that I believe that if a union chooses to wade into something outside of its traditional sphere, e.g., municipal elections where millions of dollars are at stake, they'd better be ready for the consequences.

So labor unions, like the FOB, would be better off not contributing to the campaigns of city office seekers or give them endorsements?

[BDP]

The isn't correct either Joe Daddy. Unions could still represent government employees in Wisconsin. They just couldn't negotiate benefits, wage increase above the CPI, or force people to pay dues. They are still free to negotiate working conditions and contribute to Democarts.

LOL. That's hilarious.

"You are 'free' to negotiate, but we'll dictate how you can negotiate".

I don't see how anyone could say that's freedom with a straight face.

Basically, Americans have the right to organize and collectively bargain in this country, until special interests close to elected representation don't like the results of the negotiations. Then those rights will be removed by those elected officials. Basically, the government made bad deals, so they want to outlaw your right to negotiate with the government.

This is just another example of government eliminating rights in the name of freedom and it shows how democracy is no guarantee that your rights will be protected. I am not a union member and I think unions often work against themselves and are self destructive, but eliminating people's rights because they made bad deals is just bad policy and can not be reconciled with any sincere concept of liberty.

[Midtowner]

So labor unions, like the FOB, would be better off not contributing to the campaigns of city office seekers or give them endorsements?

I wouldn't go that far, but actively making themselves targets of the powers that be?

Absolutely, they shouldn't be doing that if they care about their long-term survival.

[barnold]

When unions venture outside of their core business--representing labor in contract disputes, they are going to be confronted with a whole new set of consequences. If they really want to get involved in municipal elections, you can bet that the folks who are accustomed to running that show will take note and take aim.

Even now, there's at least one union-busting measure being heard in the legislature which would eliminate the rights of public employees to engage in collective bargaining. The Chamber of Commerce is largely in charge, and if you stand in their path, if your existence depends upon the hubris of the state government, you'd better watch out.

Mid- then how do you feel about the Chamber being the driving force and main money contributor to city council seat elections? Do you not see a conflict of interest with Taxpayers funds being used to endorse and support candidates? They are doing this right now as the Committee for OKC Momentum. But I'm sure you'll never see it on the news or in print since the Media is synonymous with the Chamber.