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 (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-house-panel-approves-bill-to-change-negotiation-process-for-cities-unions/article/3541585?custom_click=pod_headline_politics), could Oklahoma be the next Wisconsin? (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116355379.html) And if so, how will average Oklahomans react?

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.

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

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 (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-house-panel-approves-bill-to-change-negotiation-process-for-cities-unions/article/3541585?custom_click=pod_headline_politics), could Oklahoma be the next Wisconsin? (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116355379.html) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's pretty out in the open, really.

The fact is though, while right now, you may have a little bit of grassroots power, don't underestimate the power of the Chamber, who does hold real power in this state to push through just about any legislation it wants, to decimate your power structure and organization.

Unions ought to be smarter about picking fights they can't win. You may win the city council, but the legislature is owned lock stock and barrel by the Chamber.

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?

Better MANAGEMENT! (which are non-union)

I think the three local unions (FOP, AFSCME and IAFF) would have more power/imput/say so, if they were self supporting. If they are that valuable to it's members, why must they rely/expect the Citizens of OKC to pay the salaries of the Union President and some support staff.

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.

Isn't that selling your soul for a little more money, much of which goes to pay union dues. Then, much of your union dues goes to political causes and payng union cronies you may have no desire to support or pay? To me, that is betraying principles

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.

In OKC the mayor and council meet in long executive sessions and give city staff instructions on their goals in negotiations.

Better MANAGEMENT! (which are non-union)

So you're saying the MANAGEMENT at GM and Chrysler were UNION? Wow Junkie, who'da thunk it! Good point!
Your world is so much more interesting than reality.

Mid- It may be out in the open but it smacks of bordering on being illegal with the exception of the IE loopholes. I don't believe most people in OKC understand that their tax dollars are going to fund council people's political races.

As far as the Chamber, I disagree. I believe that they control the Council much more than the legislature. I see the tilt at the Legislative level more due to a Republican influence with an agenda to try and break up labor organizations. Their hand was really shown in Wisconsin with their Nutjob governor today when he got pranked. He even admitted that he's been in talks with the other new Rep. Governors to try and set the stage.

Guys, this is the same crap we all discussed with the UAW and GM. Don't pretend for one minute that a union today has any similarity to the unions that were set up in the early 1900's to protect LIFE. Most unions today are pissing and moaning for little things...that's NOT why they were created. You find me a state goverment employee that is violating child labor laws (which unions got created), working in conditions that jeopardize their life every day (unions worked to make the workplace safer), or someone that works 100 hours a week regularly...without overtime (unions worked to correct that as well).

So forgive me if I feel no sympathy for people pissing about a higher insurance premium (which the rest of us in the corporate world already pay), and not getting a raise (yup, we got screwed over on that one too). I'm not saying it's not a great ride for those that are under the union umbrella, but that doesn't mean it's fair. GM fought that crap until the union finally caused them to go bankrupt. And guess what, all those overly inflated benefits are gone now...and instantly GM was able to come back to profitability. Mangement was totally screwed up there as well, so I'll give you that. But Unions had PLENTY to do with it based on their contracts. You were wondering about the guranteed job? Apparently you didn't see all the contracts that involved how/when a union employee could be fired at GM (oh and by the way, the white collar folks lost out on a TON of beneit opportunities because they had to give them up to help pay for the blue collar folks. Makes sense huh...let the college degree person make less than the person screwing the seat to the frame with barely a GED). Salaries aren't the comparison there, it's the overall compensataion, where white collar lost out BAD. And you find me someone at a govt. job that gets fired...those numbers are so much smaller than those in the private world. In my short stent at the FAA at the MMAC, i knew of people that got caught looking at porn several times and no one could even talk to them...there's an employee union there. They have plenty folks that do a great job, but they also can't seem to get rid of the bad apples because of the union's ability to cause loss through litigation. That's totally fair.....so your tax dollars pay for someone to screw around all day rather than work..and you can't get rid of them either.

1 - You can't expect to not contribute to a fund if you want money out of it later.
2 - You can't ride on a cadillac health plan and expect it to not have repercussions to your company later...especially a PPO.
3 - Pay has to be reflective of the market in your area, not compared to a national average. Guess what, we make less in OK....it also costs less to live here.

Better MANAGEMENT! (which are non-union)

Same union. Same contract. So you are saying GM's problems were incompetent managemant? We agree then.

Wow! Old conservo-bots CAN admit when they are wrong.

Mid- It may be out in the open but it smacks of bordering on being illegal with the exception of the IE loopholes. I don't believe most people in OKC understand that their tax dollars are going to fund council people's political races.

As far as the Chamber, I disagree. I believe that they control the Council much more than the legislature. I see the tilt at the Legislative level more due to a Republican influence with an agenda to try and break up labor organizations. Their hand was really shown in Wisconsin with their Nutjob governor today when he got pranked. He even admitted that he's been in talks with the other new Rep. Governors to try and set the stage.

tax dollars are not going to fund a council persons race .. private business dollars are

Boulder- that's a Bold Bald Face Lie. Funds that go to the chamber are tax payers funds. How in H%#L would they not be?

So you're saying the MANAGEMENT at GM and Chrysler were UNION? Wow Junkie, who'da thunk it! Good point!
Your world is so much more interesting than reality.

Never said they were, does the Fire Union offer reading and retention classes.

Same union. Same contract. So you are saying GM's problems were incompetent managemant? We agree then.

Wow! Old conservo-bots CAN admit when they are wrong.

Did you and barnold go to the same school !!

Same union. Same contract. So you are saying GM's problems were incompetent managemant? We agree then.

Wow! Old conservo-bots CAN admit when they are wrong.

Management problems were defiantely a part of GM's problems, not nearly as as detrimental as overpaid and over benefitted Union Workers, but a part.

OMG!!! RC just admitted that management could actually be wrong and a part of the problem. Did Hell just freeze over? Are there pigs flying? And with his long history of being a manager of lawnmowers and weed whackers......miracles will never cease.

OMG!!! RC just admitted that management could actually be wrong and a part of the problem. Did Hell just freeze over? Are there pigs flying? And with his long history of being a manager of lawnmowers and weed whackers......miracles will never cease.

I've always said and felt management had problems and could do better, unlike you, I see the whole picture. Show me one post where youv'e admitted the Union could have done better or improvements are needed within the rank and file, you can't or won't, you always have on your Union issued sun glasses..

PS. grease your hands before going down the pole.

Management problems were defiantely a part of GM's problems, not nearly as as detrimental as overpaid and over benefitted Union Workers, but a part.

Overpaid and overbenefitted union workers? Some of your conservative counterparts would say you fit that description to a tee. I bet 99% of them didn't start drawing a government pension at age 46 like you did.

This is what amazes me about middle class conservatives. They look out there across the country and they see blue collar workers earning a living wage, sending their children to college, having healthcare, taking annual vacations. But instead of feeling a sense of pride in America and working to obtain similar pay and benefits for themselves, they look at these fellow middle class Americans with disdain. Then they support conservative politicians who want to lower their standard of living because their election funds are paid for by industry, and industry wants to pay everyone less so they can profit more, and concentrate more and more wealth and power into the hands of the few.

And finally, most amazing of all, is how middle class conservatives stand up for and defend the top 1% who pays less as a percentage of their of income in taxes than the average middle class worker. And the corporations that move their manufacturing plants overseas? That's just fine wouth the conservative middle class too. For some reason, they feel that the wealthiest among us should not have to suffer and sacrifice along with the middle class and the poor.

Think about that tonight while you all are watching "Dancing With the Stars" or whichever entertainment media you choose to entertain yourselves with. Let the millionaires of the world entertain you as you envy and plot against your own middleclass friends neighbors and family.

What Joe Daddy said.

I'll agree that the top % needs to start paying their part. But I'm also not going to give the union folks a free ride.

Let me remind you of the interview with an OKC GM employee before the closure. He dropped out of high school to work at GM...never got a GED. He was a line worker...nothing skilled. He earned a 30somethingK salary with all the 20K worth of benefits that went along with their contract. Oh and he was in his 30's at the time of the interview. Now, you look at that and tell me why I, as a college gradute of the middle class, should be happy with the fact that someone that dropped out of high school can get that salary and benefits by screwing a chair to a frame. THAT is the kind of crap that pissed me off. It has nothing to do with the class battles, it has to do with over-valuing the worker while someone else (the white collar employees at GM) were being undervalued. It's about telling someone that dropped out of high school, that it's fine because you can go to GM and get protected by the Union and make twice what you should.

Hey that's great for the employee, but it's not sustainable...and why should they be compensated like that? Hello bankruptcy for the company....hmmm, didnt that happen.

Now, you look at that and tell me why I, as a college gradute of the middle class, should be happy with the fact that someone that dropped out of high school can get that salary and benefits by screwing a chair to a frame.

You should be happy because the UAW got out there and busted its butt for its members instead of thinking, 'Gee, if I kiss enough executive a** I'll be welcomed into the ranks of the ruling elite someday.'

You talk about overvaluing workers, but as is usual with conservatives, you think no one has any value except yourself.

I'll agree that the top % needs to start paying their part. But I'm also not going to give the union folks a free ride.

Unions are not getting this mythical free ride you speak of. Remember, they only make up 10% of the workforce today. It is fiscally impossible for unions to be the cause of all the problems right wing entertainment media blame them for.


Let me remind you of the interview with an OKC GM employee before the closure. He dropped out of high school to work at GM...never got a GED. He was a line worker...nothing skilled. He earned a 30somethingK salary with all the 20K worth of benefits that went along with their contract. Oh and he was in his 30's at the time of the interview.

Looking down upon a blue collar worker serves only to divide an already shrinking middle class. Truly, you should be happy for this man. He will buy a home, car consumer commodities and stimulate the economy with his earnings. And let me suggest that perhaps you should have worked on the assembly line for 30 years and feel the wear and tear on your body from the daily repetitive motion and see if you felt overpaid.


Now, you look at that and tell me why I, as a college gradute of the middle class, should be happy with the fact that someone that dropped out of high school can get that salary and benefits by screwing a chair to a frame. THAT is the kind of crap that pissed me off.

Do you feel that getting a college degree places you ahead of blue collar workers in the social order? Does graduating college with a degree ensure managerial competence? We all know the answer to that. The plumbing company that comes to your house to unstop your toilet will charge you up to $100 per hour, no degree required.


It has nothing to do with the class battles, it has to do with over-valuing the worker while someone else (the white collar employees at GM) were being undervalued. It's about telling someone that dropped out of high school, that it's fine because you can go to GM and get protected by the Union and make twice what you should.

So how much should this young man have been paid? If this mans wages had been cut in half, do you think you were entitled to the other half simply because you graduated college? Class envy does indeed play into your attitude. Your statements both above and below says it all:


tell me why I, as a college gradute of the middle class, should be happy with the fact that someone that dropped out of high school can get that salary and benefits by screwing a chair to a frame

I'll tell you why. It is the same reason that the plumber can charge you $100 per hour for the high school dropout journeyman plumber to unstop your toilet or pump out your septic tank. Is it right that plumbing contractors make more than most BS, MS, PhD's or whatever degreed college graduates? Of course it is. You could have went to plumbing school and work in human urine and feces everyday, but you chose your degree path.

See, aren't you happy you're a white collar degree holder and not a turd chasing plumber?

The high school dropout assembly line worker applied for and got the job. The wages he was paid were negotiated between GM MANAGEMENT and the UAW. The UAW did not force GM to pay; it was the result of an agreed upon process.

What stopped you from working on the assembly line? Did you feel that type of work was beneath you?

Now, if it will make you feel any better, that high school dropout didn't have the options you had when the plant shut down. There was no free ride for this man. You can bet he probably wishes he had continued his education and saved a lot more money while working for GM. So, you're much better off than he is now most likely. You're feeling much better already I'd bet?


Hey that's great for the employee, but it's not sustainable...and why should they be compensated like that? Hello bankruptcy for the company....hmmm, didnt that happen.

You cannot justify this statement because GM went into government receviership. Chrysler survived, and Ford remained profitable with the same union and the same agreement. GM was mismanaged, simple as that. You cannot blame the union for management incompetence.

You cannot justify this statement because GM went into government receviership. Chrysler survived, and Ford remained profitable with the same union and the same agreement. GM was mismanaged, simple as that. You cannot blame the union for management incompetence.

Let's not re-write history.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123540074568747921.html

The UAW caved to major concessions at Ford.

Isn't that selling your soul for a little more money, much of which goes to pay union dues. Then, much of your union dues goes to political causes and payng union cronies you may have no desire to support or pay? To me, that is betraying principles

But you're wrong. Union dues don't go to political causes. Instead, they have special funds set up for that purpose for members to give to on a volunteer basis. And it wasn't about a little more money. When I joined a work place that had a union in it, my pay doubled over what I had been getting in a non unionized place.

They look out there across the country and they see blue collar workers earning a living wage, sending their children to college, having healthcare, taking annual vacations. But instead of feeling a sense of pride in America and working to obtain similar pay and benefits for themselves, they look at these fellow middle class Americans with disdain. Then they support conservative politicians who want to lower their standard of living because their election funds are paid for by industry, and industry wants to pay everyone less so they can profit more, and concentrate more and more wealth and power into the hands of the few.

And finally, most amazing of all, is how middle class conservatives stand up for and defend the top 1% who pays less as a percentage of their of income in taxes than the average middle class worker. And the corporations that move their manufacturing plants overseas? That's just fine wouth the conservative middle class too. For some reason, they feel that the wealthiest among us should not have to suffer and sacrifice along with the middle class and the poor.


But conservatives have really been voting for their best interests all along. It's because they put stopping the slaughter of babies in the wombs ahead of better working conditions for Americans. They feel the same way toward homosexuals and same sex marriage. They are against them. And they can only count on Republicans, not Democrats, to advance their moral issues. So it's not really amazing.

Let's not re-write history.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123540074568747921.html

The UAW caved to major concessions at Ford.

Have you ever considered reading these articles before you post them Kerry? You just made my point that GM management is incompetent.



Ford Motor (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=F) Co. and the United Auto Workers union agreed to change the way the company funds retiree health-care benefits, easing Ford's strained finances and putting pressure on General Motors (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=GM) Corp. and Chrysler LLC to secure similar concessions.


Same union. Same agreements Kerry. Furthermore, Ford decided to go ahead and do the right thing by its workers and negotiate, rather than waiting for GM to go bankrupt, which would have helped Ford get even more concessions from UAW:



Some restructuring experts also questioned the timing of the Ford-UAW deal, arguing that Ford might have been able to exact better terms if it had waited for one of its weaker rivals to go first, or go bust.

"In bankruptcy, the treatment of the union contracts would be much harder on the union and Ford could benefit from that, arguing they need the same concessions," said Jim Decker, who heads the restructuring unit at the New York investment banking firm Morgan Joseph & Co.

Still, the new agreement is seen as a victory for Ford, which hasn't sought federal bailout loans but seized a chance to improve its labor agreements on its own terms. Ford also would be free to seek additional concessions from the UAW if GM and Chrysler -- which must secure concessions to comply with terms of their government bailout loans -- get better deals or file for bankruptcy.


That was pretty stupid Kerry. You showed your ignorance yet again.

It's all about N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-I-O-N. It's a two-way street Kerry. The UAW and Ford worked together, and Ford demonstrated COMPETENT management, whereas GM did not.

Better luck next time.

If you think I am going to defend the stupid management at GM you're crazy. Those bad managers at GM are the same ones that approved the union contracts. Stupid is as stupid does.

If you think I am going to defend the stupid management at GM you're crazy. Those bad managers at GM are the same ones that approved the union contracts. Stupid is as stupid does.

Actually, YOU blamed the union, not GM management. Speaking of stupid, one more time: Same union, same agreement, Ford makes a profit. So are you trying to suggest Ford had incompetent management?

You just keep painting yourself into a corner.

Of course I blame the Unions. What do you think the Unions would have done if GM had rejected the contract?

FYI - it might be the same UAW but the contract with Ford is not the same contract they have with GM or Chrysler. The contracts are negotiated separately. Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant are in the same union and they play for the same team but their contracts are different.

Of course I blame the Unions. What do you think the Unions would have done if GM had rejected the contract?

FYI - it might be the same UAW but the contract with Ford is not the same contract they have with GM or Chrysler. The contracts are negotiated separately. Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant are in the same union and they play for the same team but their contracts are different.

OK smart guy. Outline the specific differences.

But you're wrong. Union dues don't go to political causes. Instead, they have special funds set up for that purpose for members to give to on a volunteer basis. And it wasn't about a little more money. When I joined a work place that had a union in it, my pay doubled over what I had been getting in a non unionized place.

Oh Bunty, you really don't believe this do you? All that money used to pay for commercials during the political elections, all that union money going directly to political candidates just appears out of thin air? Bunty, unions have played a significant part in the demise of American industry by attaining wage levels that have helped make their products non-competative in today's world. Poor management decisions have certainly played a huge part but that doubling of your pay is a prime example of how that may be good for your for a while but when faced with competition from India, China, Mexico, Korea, etc., it's a short-term benefit. Pay doesn't even include the excessive benefits many unions have been able to secure. If there is hope for America to compete in todays world, the compensation packages simply have to be adjusted. Unions still have a role to play but its no longer one that can afford to be political or adversarial. America will no longer dominate world economics. We have to be competative.

The example of Wisconsin is simply a small-scale Greece.

mug- are you really that ignorant? Oh course it doesn't appear out of thin air. It's amassed over years of "VOLUNTARY" contributions by members who are tired of being lied to and railroaded by city leaders. It's called prior proper planning. You don't think this thing just happened overnight do you? This sentiment has been brewing since Gary Marrs was fire chief. Now it would appear that the War Chest is being tapped for a small job and the Chamber is having to scramble to match funds. We didn't create this game, we've just learned how to play it by their rules. Live with it.

Does anyone remember when former labor commissioner Brenda Reneau issued the work place labor-law posters with the spot in the middle to tell employees they had the right to not pay the union for items unrelated to collective bargaining, such as donating to political causes, and then when that got shut down they left a blank spot for the employer to print and attach their own text? I still have one of those.

For many, it's voluntary as long as they know it's voluntary and take the steps to not be a volunteer.

Some history:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19971208/ai_n10113633/

mug- are you really that ignorant? Oh course it doesn't appear out of thin air. It's amassed over years of "VOLUNTARY" contributions by members who are tired of being lied to and railroaded by city leaders. It's called prior proper planning. You don't think this thing just happened overnight do you? This sentiment has been brewing since Gary Marrs was fire chief. Now it would appear that the War Chest is being tapped for a small job and the Chamber is having to scramble to match funds. We didn't create this game, we've just learned how to play it by their rules. Live with it.

Barnold, unions don't amass the hundreds of millions they spend on political campaigns on "voluntary" contributions by members - unles you call union dues "voluntary." You may be speaking of an isolated local issue. I'm talking union behavior in general. Live with what? I'm just making an observation - who asked you to get personal?

mug- are you really that ignorant? Oh course it doesn't appear out of thin air. It's amassed over years of "VOLUNTARY" contributions by members who are tired of being lied to and railroaded by city leaders. It's called prior proper planning. You don't think this thing just happened overnight do you? This sentiment has been brewing since Gary Marrs was fire chief. Now it would appear that the War Chest is being tapped for a small job and the Chamber is having to scramble to match funds. We didn't create this game, we've just learned how to play it by their rules. Live with it.

I've heard several times from friends and relatives on the Fire Department about these so called "VOLUNTARY" contributions, quite laughable.

Barnold, unions don't amass the hundreds of millions they spend on political campaigns on "voluntary" contributions by members - unles you call union dues "voluntary." You may be speaking of an isolated local issue. I'm talking union behavior in general. Live with what? I'm just making an observation - who asked you to get personal?

Mugs, all unions have separate PAC funds and hold drives to fund them. All union dues ARE NOT MANDATORY. How much money in dues do you think they actually collect? You're a financial guy - I bet you could figure it up really fast.

Only about 10% of the American labor force is unionized. According to BLS, there are 14.7 million workers represented by unions. All 14.7 million DO NOT pay union dues due to right to work laws, but they recieve the exact same pay and benefits.

The average annual dues in the United States is $377 per year. This figure includes professional athelete unions, actors unions and others, so this average number is somewhat skewed upward. Some dues go to strike funds, like UAW, and when the strike fund remains at $500,000,000, those union dues are rebated back to the members locals.

But for arguments sake, lets say all 14.7 million workers decided to pay dues, and there were zero rebates back to members and locals:

14,700,000 x $377 = $5,541,900,000.

Seems like a lot of money doesn't it? The dues money goes toward representing members through the collective bargaining process. The collective bargaining team wages, attorneys, arbitrator fees, court fees, utilities on union buildings, leases, support personnel wages, office equipment, strike funds, retirement funds, health insurance, etc. Same expenses as any business pays, excepting the strike funds.

Compare the union dues collected, again, ASSUMING 100% of workers actually paid dues (many did not) and that the unions of the mega millionaires like the like NBA, NFL, MLB, HNL, Actors Guild, etc. actually contribute to political causes, to just one American corporation:

Union dues $ 5.5 Billion total revenue collected.

Wal-Mart $14.7 BILLION PROFIT!

How about that Mugs? One single American corporation made $9.2 BILLION more in profit than all unions combined collected in dues before expenses and taxes.

Now folks, can we please put the myth to rest about all that "big labor" money being funnelled into politics?

Unions v. corporations = David v. Goliath, and this ain't a bible story; Goliath is killing David in reality.

Look it up for yourselves: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/snapshots/2255.html