Posted on 12/31/2010 8:18:33 AM PST by Texas Peartree
2010 might be remembered as the year that the edifice of public sector unions began to crumble. Before the 1960s, government workers were generally not allowed to unionize. After all, they work for a monopoly that has no profit margin and thus no reason to oppose their ever expanding benefits at the People's expense. In fact, as Democrats have found, they are much better off giving these unions everything they want in return for lockstep support for the Democrats in money, volunteers and votes.
What changed in 2010?
First, it became clear that those states that were pro-public union were the ones near bankruptcy. New York, Illinois and California lead the list. In fact, 80-cents of every dollar that California collects goes to government workers’ wages, retirement or benefits. Only 20-cents goes for everything else the People want, such as roads, schools and hospitals. Who works for whom?
Second, the glorious Tea Party and the 2010 election of a Republican-controlled House mean that these states will not likely see federal bailouts without significant union concessions. Did I mention that all three state Congressional delegations are overwhelmingly Democrat?
Third, the culture has turned against government unions. Examples such as the movie Waiting for “Superman” and the recent anger in New York over a union slowdown during a blizzard (a slowdown that cost lives), have awakened the populace to the fact that these thugs have too much control and too much money.
President Acorn will continue to suck up to the public sector unions. In light of the economic realities of California, perhaps iconoclastic former public-sector union lapdog and Governor Jerry Brown will begin to pair back the tremendous and undeserved power and wealth of the least-productive workers in America. Industrial unions MAY make sense, but...
(Excerpt) Read more at corybirenbaum.blogspot.com ...
Totally Agree !
Though I expect this to happen right along with defunding the EPA - Never.
Public Sector Unions present a GLARING conflict of interest.
They must be banned. NO need for them at all. The government employer is much more generous to its employees than the private employer, since the government employer simply plunders the taxpayers by threat of force, while the private employer must make a profit in the face of competition.
One can only hope. However, it will take a lot to dislodge these parasites from the public teat. When I was young I fought against unionizing public works but to no avail. I, and others with vision, could see what was coming if they organized into Unions.
Judges would never allow it. Same with stopping funding or getting rid of the EPA/FCC. Judges rule the game.
·Executive Order, JFK Public Unions.
·Teddies Immigration Reform
·Fifty Years and Finally their goal of Socialized Medicine...
Any other Gems?
Collective bargaining and unions are a form of price fixing, something I thought was illegal.
If the commie'RAT thugs in the "unions" want to control the public servants, THEY should pay these people! If the commie'RAT piggies in the "unions" do not want to pay the wages to the public servants, they need to stay the hell away from the public sector employees.
There is NO REASON in any federal or state government to have an employees union. That includes teachers unions where the more we spend the worse education gets. All the unions do is create issues and complicate daily operations. LET THEM GO to sink or swim without taxpayer money.
Unions have been a curse wherever they have formed. Look at Europe and the Soviet Union.
Happy New Year
Ping for later....
1. They are not "public sector." They are taxpayer-supported voting blocks for Democrats (and some RINOs). Whatever so-called "benefits" dollars they extort on behalf of taxpayer-supported government employees are dollars that are coercively taken from every other American citizen who pays taxes.
2. So-called "public sector employees" are not paid from "government money." There is no such thing as "government" money, for government creates no wealth and has no money except that which it takes from citizens.
3. When union leaders amass power and combine it with that of partisan leaders in government, then tyranny is increased and liberty for citizens is diminished. The Founders warned against such combinations of power. Read especially George Washington's Farewell Address.
4. There is a vast difference between unions for employees in the private sector and unions for "government workers." In the private sector, private citizens (consumers) have a choice of products and services. When quality declines, consumers may choose another provider. In the case of so-called "public" (government) services, such as government schools, for instance, poor service may be rewarded just as largely as excellent service. In the case of a teachers' strike, students and parents cannot simply stop paying for their lack of service and go to another provider. They must continue to pay, although they are not receiving a service.
5. There is no market mechanism which acts upon the wages and benefits paid to workers whose paychecks are derived from taxpayers, many of whom must struggle to make ends meet, while their counterparts who work for the government take home huge pay checks, have no worries about their health care, and look forward to excessive retirement pay at the expense of their hardworking neighbors in the wealth-producing part of the economy.
These are only a few of the points which must be made to the general public in order to stop the combination of union leadership power and government power which threatens to drown the economy and destroy the liberty this Republic has enjoyed for over 200 years.
The points are not very well made here, but with thought and careful re-writing, these and more could be part of a national media educational effort to disjoin the Obama (Community Organizer) vote-getting scheme which ignores the Constitution's restraints on power and puts out the light of liberty for Americans and for the world for generations to come.
While we need to addresse the public union problem, don’t forget that far too often we taxpayers have had to pony up the money to bail out private unions. The GM/Chrysler bailout was actually political payback by gov’t politicians to private unions with our tax dollars.
Either that or remove their ability to vote. Seems only fair.
It is like we the citizens who don’t work for the government have become the Eloi and government workers the Morlocks.
Instead, the heavy hand of government, combined with that of Andy Stern and the unions who had elected the politicians superimposed their combined power on "We, the People," instead of the other way around. Again, George Washington warned of the dangers of such combinations of power to threaten liberty of citizens.
Hey, cute/paste this to you list, which is excellent. Just keep adding to it.......... maybe when done, it can be sent to people who matter.
Listening to Steyn yesterday, eh? Great analogy, BTW.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/the_case_against_public_employ.html
^The American Thinker also weighs in on this very important subject too.
Makes sense. Public employee unions are not for the public, only for extracting ever increasing pay, benefits and pensions from taxpayers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.