But you see how this all works together? By relying on Standardized test, and calling schools failures based solely on their lowest performing sub-group, not on their highest or middle, just the lowest - then you can begin talking about what failures our schools are. Well then, who runs schools - essentially it is teachers. If are schools stink, then teachers must stink. I am telling you it has been a subtle conspiracy since the enactment of NCLB to schools privatized. When that happens schools will be more segregated, we will have more drop-outs and there will be a true Intellectual elite who will be the power makers in this country. Our democracy is sliding away, and it not being lost because of the actions of the left, it is more because of the actions of the right. Bust the unions, then give those who run the businesses more power, then working conditions deteriorate and so on, and so on. I could do a whole Glen Beck show on this.

 

Democracy occurs when there is a strong middle class - we have a very small middle class these days. It is ugly and I am frightened.

 

The fact is the private sector is nearly union free and working conditions haven't deteriorated one bit. But keep on with the sky is falling scare tatics and someone may actually buy it one day.

Democracy occurs when there is a strong middle class - we have a very small middle class these days. It is ugly and I am frightened.

What exactly are you qualifying as middle class?

The fact is the private sector is nearly union free and working conditions haven't deteriorated one bit. But keep on with the sky is falling scare tatics and someone may actually buy it one day.

 

Only when the black helicopters land and all those righties who are causing all the trouble pile out!

With all due respect, I think you have a revisionist view of history. The fact of the matter is, there has been a gradual decline of unions in the private sector since the 1980's, following the total collapse of the steel, auto, and airline industries, due almost entirely to the unsustainable demands made by labor unions. Union employees now account for only 6.9% of the private sector workforce. They are almost non-existent. Union workers in government is a much more recent phenomenon, and now account for more union employees (about 76 million) than there are in the private sector (71 million). The reason for this is explainable - in the private sector, the collapse of a company caused by unions throws workers out of jobs. Not as easy in government, where pro-union governments can (and have) simply taxed their way to sustainability. What you are seeing here is that now, even governments are collapsing and on the verge of bankruptcy, and you are absolutely correct, this is an assault on the last denizens of unions, in state government. Unions have caused the collapse of so much, you are seeing the death throes at the governmental level, and yes, it will probably take a while, because there are plenty of folks who share your view. However, you need only look at the trend in the private sector to know that you are in the minority.

 

Great post,

Really, private sector is doing great?? I thought we had huge unemployment and our bottom line driven capitalists were pushing all of working class jobs overseas where they can get people to work for pennies on the dollar. Working conditions have deteriorated because unions got the government to pass laws. Beck is already working on the child labor restrictions.

 

What is it that the private sector is doing so well again?

Unsustainable wage and benefit packages forced on companies by unions is what is causing the most plant closings and lost jobs sent overseas.. And when the private sector can no longer afford to pay the public sector all I can say to those folks is welcome to the recession..

Really, private sector is doing great?? I thought we had huge unemployment and our bottom line driven capitalists were pushing all of working class jobs overseas where they can get people to work for pennies on the dollar. Working conditions have deteriorated because unions got the government to pass laws. Beck is already working on the child labor restrictions.

 

What is it that the private sector is doing so well again?

:lol:

Your jumping around and bring talking points to the discussion that have nothing to do with the topic.

With all due respect, I think you have a revisionist view of history. The fact of the matter is, there has been a gradual decline of unions in the private sector since the 1980's, following the total collapse of the steel, auto, and airline industries, due almost entirely to the unsustainable demands made by labor unions. Union employees now account for only 6.9% of the private sector workforce. They are almost non-existent. Union workers in government is a much more recent phenomenon, and now account for more union employees (about 76 million) than there are in the private sector (71 million). The reason for this is explainable - in the private sector, the collapse of a company caused by unions throws workers out of jobs. Not as easy in government, where pro-union governments can (and have) simply taxed their way to sustainability. What you are seeing here is that now, even governments are collapsing and on the verge of bankruptcy, and you are absolutely correct, this is an assault on the last denizens of unions, in state government. Unions have caused the collapse of so much, you are seeing the death throes at the governmental level, and yes, it will probably take a while, because there are plenty of folks who share your view. However, you need only look at the trend in the private sector to know that you are in the minority.

 

While I’m not on record as being much of a union supporter, I think there are a few things missing that oversimplify the situation with unions. At the very least, I think there is another side to the debate worth entertaining.

 

There has been a gradual decline of union memberships as a percentage of the workforce since the 1950s, making the decline during and following the 1980s not terribly exceptional. Considering the economy and American companies had done quite well prior to the stagnation of the 1970s it’s hard to believe that collapsing unionized companies wholly explain declining union memberships. Furthermore, legislation making unionization more difficult, beginning with the Taft-Hartley Act, could be said to play a substantial role in declining union memberships. Reagan’s presidency also marked a new epoch in popular economic thinking, departing from the heavy regulation of the post-war years to a much more business favorable policy climate. Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford would likely be considered economic liberals by today’s standards. Both deregulation and business-interests marked the post-Carter economic policy environment (for instance, the number of business PACs quadrupled from 1976 to 1981). Additionally, I think Reagan’s firing of the striking air traffic controllers epitomized the hostility between the government and unions from then on. In short, the increased prevalence of business friendly policies can't be overlooked.

 

I also think the nature of the economy has shifted progressively since the 1950s - where increasingly more are graduating from college and taking jobs in sectors that were traditionally never unionized - which has helped lower the number of unionized members.

 

Countries, such as Germany, who have powerful unions and pro-labor governments do not appear to have been bled dry or destroyed. In Germany, union representatives are even required to have seats on corporate boards, thus having a significant say in corporate decision making and the Germans still sport a robust manufacturing sector (outpacing the US in per capita manufacturing output). This leads me to believe that unions and business are not a zero-sum game and that the inevitable result of unionized workers is not economic collapse.

 

With all of that said, I reiterate that I’m ambivalent toward unions. In fact, I clash with union interests in almost every political situation I can think of, particularly regarding free trade and education. I also don’t disagree with Scott Walker’s attempt to increase worker contributions to pensions and benefits. But, I’m not certain the complete evaporation of unions would be a valuable thing nor do I see it as necessary, as many here do. In sum, though I rarely find myself on the pro-union side I’m not sure that we would benefit in their absence, particularly considering the working conditions prior to their creation, nor do I find their ultimate destruction necessary.

Really, private sector is doing great?? I thought we had huge unemployment and our bottom line driven capitalists were pushing all of working class jobs overseas where they can get people to work for pennies on the dollar. Working conditions have deteriorated because unions got the government to pass laws. Beck is already working on the child labor restrictions.

 

What is it that the private sector is doing so well again?

I'd still like to know what exactly you're qualifying as middle class?

While I’m not on record as being much of a union supporter, I think there are a few things missing that oversimplify the situation with unions. At the very least, I think there is another side to the debate worth entertaining.

 

There has been a gradual decline of union memberships as a percentage of the workforce since the 1950s, making the decline during and following the 1980s not terribly exceptional. Considering the economy and American companies had done quite well prior to the stagnation of the 1970s it’s hard to believe that collapsing unionized companies wholly explain declining union memberships. Furthermore, legislation making unionization more difficult, beginning with the Taft-Hartley Act, could be said to play a substantial role in declining union memberships. Reagan’s presidency also marked a new epoch in popular economic thinking, departing from the heavy regulation of the post-war years to a much more business favorable policy climate. Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford would likely be considered economic liberals by today’s standards. Both deregulation and business-interests marked the post-Carter economic policy environment (for instance, the number of business PACs quadrupled from 1976 to 1981). Additionally, I think Reagan’s firing of the striking air traffic controllers epitomized the hostility between the government and unions from then on. In short, the increased prevalence of business friendly policies can't be overlooked.

 

I also think the nature of the economy has shifted progressively since the 1950s - where increasingly more are graduating from college and taking jobs in sectors that were traditionally never unionized - which has helped lower the number of unionized members.

 

Countries, such as Germany, who have powerful unions and pro-labor governments do not appear to have been bled dry or destroyed. In Germany, union representatives are even required to have seats on corporate boards, thus having a significant say in corporate decision making and the Germans still sport a robust manufacturing sector (outpacing the US in per capita manufacturing output). This leads me to believe that unions and business are not a zero-sum game and that the inevitable result of unionized workers is not economic collapse.

 

With all of that said, I reiterate that I’m ambivalent toward unions. In fact, I clash with union interests in almost every political situation I can think of, particularly regarding free trade and education. I also don’t disagree with Scott Walker’s attempt to increase worker contributions to pensions and benefits. But, I’m not certain the complete evaporation of unions would be a valuable thing nor do I see it as necessary, as many here do. In sum, though I rarely find myself on the pro-union side I’m not sure that we would benefit in their absence, particularly considering the working conditions prior to their creation, nor do I find their ultimate destruction necessary.

 

Some good points.

 

As for working conditions, I think it's ironic that Congress' passage of many laws and regs concerning work place safety, workers' rights and working conditions over the last several decades has taken away or certainly diminished the importance of one of the many reasons workers valued and needed unions. Just stop and think how many workplace issues that used to be dealt with as a result of negotiations between a union and the employer, are now governed by ADA, FLMA, OSHA, OWBPA, ERISA, PDA, FLSA, EEOC, etc (here's a link to some more: http://www.dol.gov/elaws/elg/).

Hey union supporters!! If the unions do such an indispensable job of making sure workers have a safe environment how about we just eliminate all of the aforementioned government departments & bureaucracies? But wait weren't most of those departments created AFTER the rise of unions? If the unions are so good at insurine worker safety why do we need those departments?

Hey union supporters!! If the unions do such an indispensable job of making sure workers have a safe environment how about we just eliminate all of the aforementioned government departments & bureaucracies? But wait weren't most of those departments created AFTER the rise of unions? If the unions are so good at insurine worker safety why do we need those departments?

 

I assume this is rhetorical, you are much smarter than that question. I've seen you post before.

While I’m not on record as being much of a union supporter, I think there are a few things missing that oversimplify the situation with unions. At the very least, I think there is another side to the debate worth entertaining.

 

There has been a gradual decline of union memberships as a percentage of the workforce since the 1950s, making the decline during and following the 1980s not terribly exceptional. Considering the economy and American companies had done quite well prior to the stagnation of the 1970s it’s hard to believe that collapsing unionized companies wholly explain declining union memberships. Furthermore, legislation making unionization more difficult, beginning with the Taft-Hartley Act, could be said to play a substantial role in declining union memberships. Reagan’s presidency also marked a new epoch in popular economic thinking, departing from the heavy regulation of the post-war years to a much more business favorable policy climate. Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford would likely be considered economic liberals by today’s standards. Both deregulation and business-interests marked the post-Carter economic policy environment (for instance, the number of business PACs quadrupled from 1976 to 1981). Additionally, I think Reagan’s firing of the striking air traffic controllers epitomized the hostility between the government and unions from then on. In short, the increased prevalence of business friendly policies can't be overlooked.

 

I also think the nature of the economy has shifted progressively since the 1950s - where increasingly more are graduating from college and taking jobs in sectors that were traditionally never unionized - which has helped lower the number of unionized members.

 

Countries, such as Germany, who have powerful unions and pro-labor governments do not appear to have been bled dry or destroyed. In Germany, union representatives are even required to have seats on corporate boards, thus having a significant say in corporate decision making and the Germans still sport a robust manufacturing sector (outpacing the US in per capita manufacturing output). This leads me to believe that unions and business are not a zero-sum game and that the inevitable result of unionized workers is not economic collapse.

 

With all of that said, I reiterate that I’m ambivalent toward unions. In fact, I clash with union interests in almost every political situation I can think of, particularly regarding free trade and education. I also don’t disagree with Scott Walker’s attempt to increase worker contributions to pensions and benefits. But, I’m not certain the complete evaporation of unions would be a valuable thing nor do I see it as necessary, as many here do. In sum, though I rarely find myself on the pro-union side I’m not sure that we would benefit in their absence, particularly considering the working conditions prior to their creation, nor do I find their ultimate destruction necessary.

 

Those are all good points, with the exception of the comparison to Germany. Germany's economy, until the repeal of certain workplace laws very recently, was on the brink of disaster. It is on the brink of disaster right now in places like Italy and Belgium, due almost entirely to the incredible weight placed upon employers by "employee guarantees." In fact, I would point to the EU as a broad example of exactly why America needs to move away from guaranteed employee benefits.

I’m not certain the complete evaporation of unions would be a valuable thing.

 

Looks like you've decided to join Trinity Alum in the "Exaggeration Dept." (see below)

 

 

 

 

The death of organized labor would mean open season on American workers.

"Unfunded Liability" - get used to that word.

 

I saw in the paper this morning that the bill in the Kentucky legislature to force Fayette Co. to enhance its coverage of police and firefighters pension was tabled and it will be addressed more locally. Fayette has the a separate pension plan from rest of state for police and firefighters.

 

What caught my eye was the amount of the unfunded liability records - $225 Million. Given that Fayette County has between 200 and 300 total residents the quick math says that the unfunded liability is a little less than $1,000 a person. Or for a family of 5 - maybe $4,000.

 

Every time you see the words "unfunded liability" remember it is a deficit. It is committed payouts with no funding. If you look hard most government pension are running some level of 'unfunded liability'. As the example above shows, just one layer of that can show that a family may owe thousands of dollars per layer. If funding for the liability does not come from structural changes then it has only one source - taxes.

 

They make a big deal of each family owing $19,000 or so to the federal deficient. I bet we owe an amount equal to that and more for the government employee pension plans.