# Got State Pension? NJ Just did the Unthinkable



## Big Smoothy (Jun 23, 2011)

I remember the constant mantra of my home state: "Your pension is garaunteed," if you work for the state.  I've been saying to some of my ol' friends that have worked for the state for many years that they may get a "love note" in the mail someday.  

New Jersey did what many thought was sacrosanct just a couple of years ago. Worker pensions and retirees pensions.

This is only the beginning......Honestly, in the last few years I have resented these public employees getting a pension while I was and am in the private sector.  You can call it "pension envy," which is a buzzword (and sad term) that began in the last few years.
---*
New Jersey Lawmakers Approve Benefits Rollback for Work Force*
By RICHARD P??REZ-PE??A Published: June 23, 2011

TRENTON — New Jersey lawmakers on Thursday* approved a broad rollback of benefits for 750,000 government workers and retirees, *the deepest cut in state and local costs in memory, in a major victory for Gov. Chris Christie and a once-unthinkable setback for the state’s powerful public employee unions.

The Assembly passed the bill 46 to 32, as Republicans and a few Democrats defied raucous protests by thousands of people whose chants, vowing electoral revenge, shook the State House. Leaders in the State Senate said their chamber, which had already passed a slightly different version of the bill, would approve the Assembly version on Monday. Mr. Christie, a Republican, was expected to sign the measure into law quickly.

In a statement released after the vote, Mr. Christie said, *“We are putting the people first and daring to touch the third rail of politics in order to bring reform to an unsustainable system.”*

The legislation *will sharply increase what state and local workers must contribute for their health insurance and pensions, suspend cost-of-living increases to retirees’ pension checks, raise retirement ages and curb the unions’ contract
bargaining rights.*

Entire: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/ny...s.html?_r=1&hp


----------



## Zaphod (Jun 24, 2011)

"unsustainable" is the new political buzzword going into the next elections.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Jun 24, 2011)




----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 24, 2011)

^^ I agree on the "unsustainable."  "Sorry, your f*cked."

And yes, ^ the sh*t IS hitting the fan, NOW.


----------



## AdmiralRichard (Jun 24, 2011)

Amen they Be getting them unions in line


----------



## Curt James (Jun 24, 2011)

Big Smoothy said:


> (snip) TRENTON ??? New Jersey lawmakers on Thursday* approved a broad rollback of benefits for 750,000 government workers and retirees, *the deepest cut in state and local costs in memory, in a major victory for Gov. Chris Christie and a once-unthinkable setback for the state???s powerful public employee unions. (snip)http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/ny...s.html?_r=1&hp



Always nice when they change the rules in the middle of the game.


----------



## Little Wing (Jun 24, 2011)

i think if the rules are absurd they should be changed. maybe more people will have their heart in their jobs and not just go thru the motions for the benefit package. a cow will only give so much milk, if you're milking one to death maybe easing up is wise. it depends how reasonable the cuts are and if the jobs are still worth it all considered. bet it sucks though on the receiving end.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 24, 2011)

Yes Curt, changing the rules in the middle - or at the end of the game is what really hits hard.  I remember when Reagan did that the the military in about 1984.  

Some more articles. I found this one today.
--
Study: $1400 Tax Hike Needed to Fund US Pensions
Published: Wednesday, 22 Jun 2011 | 2:47 PM ET
Text Size
By: Reuters

U.S. state and local governments will need to raise taxes by $1,398 per household every year for the next 30 years if they are to fully fund their pension systems, a study released on Wednesday said.


The study, co-authored by Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester, both of whom are finance professors, argues that states will have to cut services or raise taxes to make up funding gaps if promises made to municipal employees are to be honored. 

Entire: News Headlines

And this one is from January:
--
*States Warned of $2 Trillion Pensions Shortfall*
Published: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011

By: Nicole Bullock, Financial Times

US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500 billion that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

News Headlines


----------



## LAM (Jun 24, 2011)

AdmiralRichard said:


> Amen they Be getting them unions in line



lol it has nothing at all to do with unions, that's the old tired gop bs spin that they sell to the sheep...

The Impact of Pensions on State Borrowing Costs
http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/...ds/{D15B4A65-8157-4437-803F-B5ECED631E05}.PDF

THE IMPACT OF PENSIONS ON STATE BORROWING COSTS
http://crr.bc.edu/images/stories/Briefs/slp_14.pdf

The implemented the same thing in Ireland.  they had to pay out on bonds held by Goldman Sachs and others which made their debt problem even worst.
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/levy-to-take-500-a-year-from-pensions-153725.html


* let the austerity begin.....


----------



## Jeeper (Jun 25, 2011)

New Jersey truly did the unthinkable.....They pulled their head out of the sand and dealt with a problem that is not fixable by any other means.  Now only if everyone else would do the same.


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 25, 2011)

Jeeper said:


> New Jersey truly did the unthinkable.....They pulled their head out of the sand and dealt with a problem that is not fixable by any other means.  Now only if everyone else would do the same.



My Gov Scott Walker is standing firm against the union thugs and ungrateful public workers too!!!


----------



## AdmiralRichard (Jun 25, 2011)

Little Wing said:


> i think if the rules are absurd they should be changed. maybe more people will have their heart in their jobs and not just go thru the motions for the benefit package. a cow will only give so much milk, if you're milking one to death maybe easing up is wise. it depends how reasonable the cuts are and if the jobs are still worth it all considered. bet it sucks though on the receiving end.


 THIS


----------



## AdmiralRichard (Jun 25, 2011)

LAM said:


> lol it has nothing at all to do with unions, that's the old tired gop bs spin that they sell to the sheep...
> 
> The Impact of Pensions on State Borrowing Costs
> http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/...ds/{D15B4A65-8157-4437-803F-B5ECED631E05}.PDF
> ...


 Well when your kids are out of control you gatta lay the smack down..
they give way to much power to the union.note just look at the EU


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 25, 2011)

Jeeper said:


> New Jersey truly did the unthinkable.....They pulled their head out of the sand and dealt with a problem that is *not fixable by any other means*.  Now only if everyone else would do the same.



Exactly.

Americans will have to go through there own austerity measures at the municipal, state, and federal level. 

There will be more of this come.


----------



## Curt James (Jun 25, 2011)

Big Smoothy said:


> (snip) The study, co-authored by Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester, both of whom are finance professors, argues that states will have to *cut services or raise taxes to make up funding gaps if promises made to municipal employees are to be honored.* (snip)



Where was the _miscalculation _when these "promises" were made or when those employees signed their contract or were initially hired?

Did no one get out their calculator and say something like, "Hmm, for us to be able to pay a pension that delivers _X _amount we will have to..."?

_Someone _dropped the ball whether it was the school district approving the contract or the accountants who said the promises were realistic.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 26, 2011)

Curt James said:


> Where was the _miscalculation _when these "promises" were made or when those employees signed their contract or were initially hired?
> 
> Did no one get out their calculator and say something like, "Hmm, for us to be able to pay a pension that delivers _X _amount we will have to..."?
> 
> _Someone _dropped the ball whether it was the school district approving the contract or the accountants who said the promises were realistic.



I think (iircc) that the calculations were based on X amounts of revenue coming in (not considering the amount could be far less b/c of an economic downturn) and also unrealistic expectations on the X% amount investments would get in return year-after-year. 

So, I think bad planning, lack of foresight about possible change and - this is related to being unrealistic - unrealistic targets.

Perhaps the "pension is guaranteed" mentality also led to a lack of foresight.

Also, some of the number crunching in some states (and worse in municipalities) found that the pensions were promising to pay out money they would not even have - to me, that's fraud. 

Unfortunately, other states and many other cities will be following New Jersey.  For political reasons, many other states and cities will not be able to do it until the money literally is not there. 

For example, it's the law that pensions have to be paid.  But it means nothing if there is no money.  

One city (that I started a thread about) simply stopped paying retirees.  The checks stopped coming.  Yes, it was against the law.  But what difference does it make when you have $0.


----------



## LAM (Jun 26, 2011)

AdmiralRichard said:


> Well when your kids are out of control you gatta lay the smack down..
> they give way to much power to the union.note just look at the EU



it has nothing at all to do with unions, they cause no economic problems in the US the EPI of union and non-union workers is only like 3 points.  the gop has been keeping the anti-union and tax problem rehtoric alive for 30 years now,  yet this still hasn't made it true.

if you want to get technical the US has a very labor participation rate of less than 15% the lowest of all advanced OECD countries.   considering that the US is the epicenter for neo-liberal economic policies this shouldn't be a surprise. one of the fundamental neo-liberal economic policies is to squeeze all it can out of labor and to pay wages that border on poverty levels and to restrict movement of labor (such as tying up a persons wages in real-estate, etc.)

the low labor participation rate is exactly why almost half of the country is making 1980's wages, the CPI is flawed and slow to correct changes in costs and it also falls short below the rate that is needed. this is discussed thoroughly in all OECD reports, ILO wage reports and reports from the FRB all support these problems.  they even talk about how low wages to those at the bottom of the labor ladder with a tendency to spend all causes slower recovery's after each recession.

Global Wage Report 2008 / 09
Minimum wages and collective bargaining Towards policy coherence
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_100786.pdf

Global Wage Report 2010/11
Wage policies in times of crisis
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...m/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_145265.pdf

What Do We Really Know About Changes in Wage Inequality?
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/tlemieux/papers/CRIW Lemieux revised.pdf

the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency and used for oil and most other economic transactions with non-US trading partners further effects those on the bottom of the wage ladder.  the more money the FRB prints for use by other countries increases inflation (the reduction in purchasing power). inflation hurts those that make the least more while it's effects on those at the middle and top of the wage scale are invisible to it.

but in regards to the NJ pension funding problem it all started back in '92 with the Pension Revaluation Act of 1992.  that was the start of the mismanaging of the funds first by the dem governor that passed the legislation and then the republican governor that raided the fund (didn't make any contributions) and used the monies to pay for campaign promises, tax breaks, etc.  there was also some "legal" fudging of the numbers of the funding rates and return rates, etc.

in the mid 90's existing monies were transferred out of lower yield bonds and into the volatile stock market in the tech sector, etc.  some funds were given to hedge funds and some common stock was purchased 2weeks before Lehman brothers folded.  the funds have not gotten the returns needed and there were also substantial losses when the dot com bubble burst, etc. in 2000.  so it has been a failing game of catch-up since.  the decline of tax receipts at the state level exaggerates the problem of funding.

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org.../Trillion_Dollar_Gap_factsheets_NewJersey.pdf


on average state pension obligations only account for 3-4% of state spending.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Jun 26, 2011)

There's good reason why the majority of pro-union states are quickly losing population.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 26, 2011)

^ for the record,

*this has NOTHING do with unions.*

We need to look at the NUMBERS, the _math._ It's all about math.


----------



## LAM (Jun 26, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> There's good reason why the majority of pro-union states are quickly losing population.



you are wrong, pro-union states have lower unemployment rates and higher per capital incomes than non-union states.  unions help to bring up wages for everyone.  this has been discussed by economists all over the world for decades and there are hundreds of reports out there on the topic.


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> you are wrong, pro-union states have lower unemployment rates and higher per capital incomes than non-union states.  unions help to bring up wages for everyone.  this has been discussed by economists all over the world for decades and there are hundreds of reports out there on the topic.



union states also so far in debt they'll be asking for bailouts from right to work states soon.....the need for unions is no more.......Wisconsin is taking the right steps, So is Indiana, Ohio, NJ, Texas......seems like those states are the ones making progress now too......face it LAM....liberalism is a DISEASE with no cure......i feel bad for you


----------



## LAM (Jun 26, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> union states also so far in debt they'll be asking for bailouts from right to work states soon.....the need for unions is no more.......Wisconsin is taking the right steps, So is Indiana, Ohio, NJ, Texas......seems like those states are the ones making progress now too......face it LAM....liberalism is a DISEASE with no cure......i feel bad for you



keep drinking the GOP kool-aide.  by the way how much has your net worth and or income increased over the past 30 years once adjusted for inflation?

Wisconsin didn't need to do anything they have been funding their pension programs properly they were not mismanaged.  your gov is a lying POS, his intentions were to reduce union power so wages can be lowered.

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org.../Trillion_Dollar_Gap_factsheets_Wisconsin.pdf

Flint Hills Resources, LLC and The C. Reiss Coal Company are subsidiary's of Koch Industries and they have a pipeline running through your state...

you are a fool and believe anything the GOP feeds you...


The Trillion Dollar Gap - State Fact Sheets


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> keep drinking the GOP kool-aide.  by the way how much has your net worth and or income increased over the past 30 years once adjusted for inflation?
> 
> Wisconsin didn't need to do anything they have been funding their pension programs properly they were not mismanaged.  your gov is a lying POS, his intentions were to reduce union power so wages can be lowered.
> 
> ...



Koch's employ dozens of businesses and thousands of employees in Wisconsin......you can't say your George Soros does.....so who's drinking the "kool-aid?".....former Gov Jim Doyle and his spending and stealing from the transportation fund to cover (well attempt to cover) his spending put this state in a bad place....Gov Walker is doing what's necessary and it's no coincidence state after state after state is following his and NJ Gov Christie's leads.......i've recently decided that liberals can't be changed....hopefully they'll just die out eventually.....they have no credibility singing, playing bongo drums, naked bike protests, protesting in general (you'd assume they were unemployed since they protest so much....basically being nonproductive to society)......


----------



## LAM (Jun 26, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> Koch's employ dozens of businesses and thousands of employees in Wisconsin......you can't say your George Soros does.....so who's drinking the "kool-aid?".....former Gov Jim Doyle and his spending and stealing from the transportation fund to cover (well attempt to cover) his spending put this state in a bad place....Gov Walker is doing what's necessary and it's no coincidence state after state after state is following his and NJ Gov Christie's leads.......i've recently decided that liberals can't be changed....hopefully they'll just die out eventually.....they have no credibility singing, playing bongo drums, naked bike protests, protesting in general (you'd assume they were unemployed since they protest so much....basically being nonproductive to society)......



what does George Soros have to do with anything? and thank god for the conservative economic policies of past GOP presidents we wouldn't be 14T in the hole if not for them...

state deficits from reducing tax receipts from 2007 have caused problems with them being able to fund state pensions, if they were not mismanaged from the beginning the problem wouldn't have existed or greatly reduced.  this problem was escalated when the GOP would not allow the BOB program to be-renewed fueling the opportunity for them to once again attack the remaining unions left in this country.

you are a straight up idealogue while I'm not even a liberal but a free thinker, I was reading socrates via plato in elementary school.  I haven't been brainwashed from birth hearing political rhetoric from my parents or the government controlled tv like yourself, one of many sheep that have embraced neo-liberal economics in the us.  Your views on economics and union participation weren't even developed on their own, how sad.  I didn't start really watching tv until I got out of the military at age 26.

* the first IMF document tells developing countries to "not" model their labor standards after the US.
UNEMPLOYMENT AND LABOR MARKET INSTITUTIONS:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2003/01/pdf/chapter4.pdf

* the Summary Starts on Page 79 and it talks about how nations with low unionized labor participation rates have suffered because of this
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...m/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_145265.pdf


----------



## irish_2003 (Jun 26, 2011)

you libtards always bring up Koch's but never accept that George Soro's is the same "evil".......sheeple comes to mind when i try to describe dumbocrats or libtards

when the states' problems are fixed will you admit that you were wrong? or will you continue to make excuses and play the blame game that liberals do?


oh, and btw i became a conservative while active duty during the Clinton years and saw military families using food stamps.......


----------



## AdmiralRichard (Jun 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> it has nothing at all to do with unions, they cause no economic problems in the US the EPI of union and non-union workers is only like 3 points. the gop has been keeping the anti-union and tax problem rehtoric alive for 30 years now, yet this still hasn't made it true.
> 
> if you want to get technical the US has a very labor participation rate of less than 15% the lowest of all advanced OECD countries. considering that the US is the epicenter for neo-liberal economic policies this shouldn't be a surprise. one of the fundamental neo-liberal economic policies is to squeeze all it can out of labor and to pay wages that border on poverty levels and to restrict movement of labor (such as tying up a persons wages in real-estate, etc.)
> 
> ...


 
lets make this simple so you can understand.
lets say you are making 100 million a year ok and your union at your company says well we need more money and such they are already taking 35% of your profit for they're current pay andsuch. they want 40% now. this keeps going on every 5 year after the contract runs out how long does it take for you to go under or file chapter 11? And it does happen


----------



## LAM (Jun 26, 2011)

AdmiralRichard said:


> lets make this simple so you can understand.
> lets say you are making 100 million a year ok and your union at your company says well we need more money and such they are already taking 35% of your profit for they're current pay andsuch. they want 40% now. this keeps going on every 5 year after the contract runs out how long does it take for you to go under or file chapter 11? And it does happen



trust me I understand all aspects of economics, I've spent thousands of hours on research over decades on this topic.  I have worked for publicly traded company's with annual revenues of 5-10B a year down to privately owned company's scrambling to make payroll every week.  Because of this i have first had 1st hand experience being in the top income wages bracket all the way down the some of the lowest.

the problem you presented is one of the basic fundamental flaws of capitalism and is exaggerated even more so in company's that are publicly traded on exchanges.  the quest for ever increasing profits comes at the expense of wages paid out to those in labor, increased profits cause stock prices to increase.  higher stock prices give company's better credit and they have to use less cash for expansion, etc.  decreasing payroll and/or work fore reductions is the single easiest ways for any public traded company to increase it's profits continually. when there are high levels of unemployment and/or underemployment those that remain are forced to make up the work of the others so productivity increases.

seriously this stuff is so easy to comprehend.  this is one of the many negative effects of privatization there are tons of reports about this written by economists all over the globe.  this is why there needs to be a mix of government enterprises that employ and are not required to generate a profit and private business that does.

Privatization, Entry Regulation and the Decline of Labor???s Share of GDP: A Cross-Country Analysis of the Network Industries (2007)
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp0806.pdf

I am a small IT business owner 90% of our revenue is generated explicitly though labor, I put the costs of materials back on on 90% of my clients so they incur the expenses of that, this reduces my payments to bookkeepers and tax accountants.  Because I don't spend much on materials I have to pay retail so marking up goods only adds another layer of complexity, so I have this reduced hassle this to the bare minimum.  On large installs I have my clients provide 100% of the materials or the funds for them.

I do not install much, I get paid to repair things that were originally not installed properly due to a variety of reasons.  I pay cash for all vehicles and all of my telecom test equipment is used.  Vehicles are maintained regularly and most test equipment is purchased off ebay for a fraction of the original cost.  I then ship the items back to the manufacture or other sources that I have in san jose and have them re-calibrated and/or refurbished, this has saved me hundreds of thousands of dollars.  I now have better telecommunications test equipment than ALL of the local telephone company's and cable company's which allows me to obtain a much larger caliber of client than a small company would ever be able to do.  This also allows me to generate a much higher amount of profits since less time is spent on site.  I charge a specific amount for a truck roll at a fixed rate and then an hourly rate after 2 hours.  But because of my investment in the proper equipment most calls are resolved in less than an hour, freeing up more of our time and keeping my clients extremely happy the never complain about paying the obscene fixed rate that I charge for a truck roll at $350 for the first 2 hours.

from a personal economic perspective I had a fixed amount of money that i wanted in the bank in my personal and business accounts to last me X number of years.  these numbers vary slightly depending on the rate of inflation.  once I hit these numbers I then turned my focus onto my contractors, they all get paid in 5 working days after completion of a work assignment and they pay no taxes, I incur those costs myself. on average they get about 50-80K a year from me and are quite happy.  they do not have to wait the standard net-30 or 60 day period because I have plenty of business cash on hand.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 27, 2011)

Let's go up the road to Connecticut.  Where 7,500 state workers are now....unemployed.
---
Here is some more....Austerity.  Austerity, is what it is. Laying off workers for the state. A move that only a few years ago was considered unthinkable.
*Union Deal Shot Down; Malloy Pledges To Cut Close To 7,500 State Workers*

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced he was moving quickly to lay off 7,500 state workers after union members rejected contract changes. 

By CHRISTOPHER KEATING,The Hartford Courant June 24, 2011

HARTFORD ??? *Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said Friday that he was moving "full steam ahead'' with plans to lay off 7,500 state employees,* as leaders of the AFSCME union announced that their members had officially rejected a savings and concession deal that would have given them layoff protection for four years.

The administration has ruled out a renegotiation with the unions because the multi-faceted agreement took months of intense negotiations and compromises to complete. *Malloy said he and his budget team intend to release layoff notices "as soon as possible'' to balance the budget.*

Entire: Union Deal Defeated; Gov. Dannel P. Malloy Pledges To Cut Close to 7,500 State Workers - Courant.com


----------



## LAM (Jun 27, 2011)

Most states that are having pension funding problems simply were not managing them properly for many years, they were not being funded properly.

US State Pension Budget Fact Sheets
http://downloads.pewcenteronthestates.org/The_Trillion_Dollar_Gap_Factsheets_final.pdf


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jul 14, 2011)

The movement is spreading.  Note that these reductions are for new hirees.  Other states have already started doing this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/n...ackle-pension-changes-in-2012.html?src=rechp#

*
Cuomo Says Curbing Public Pension Benefits Will Be His Top Goal in ’12*
By THOMAS KAPLAN and MICHAEL BARBARO

Published: July 13, 2011

*
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, basking in the afterglow of a legislative session that he described as “unusually successful,” said Wednesday that his top priority next year would be limiting retirement benefits for new state and city workers.*


----------



## LAM (Jul 14, 2011)

with GDP decreasing and state revenues dropping they have to, it's only logical.  and they should be happy most are not so lucky to even have access to pension programs only 401K's.  the percentage of us corps with pensions has decreased like 60% in the past 15 years down to only like 20% now they have all gone to 401K's.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jul 26, 2011)

It's gonna be in the news more and more....and more and more.....
---
*Ala. county readies for possible record bankruptcy*
APAP 

  BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — *Alabama's largest county is laying the groundwork for filing what would be the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history,* over a more than $3 billion debt for its sewer system.

The Jefferson County Commission approved resolutions Tuesday to hire prominent bankruptcy lawyers and to sell bonds later in case money is needed to emerge from bankruptcy.

Jefferson is Alabama's most populous county and seat of Birmingham. It's been trying for three years to avoid filing bankruptcy over debt payments it can no longer afford.

Two of the five commissioners say there's an *80 percent chance the county will file bankruptcy. *The vote could come at a meeting scheduled for Thursday in Birmingham.

The commission president, David Carrington, says other possibilities include extending talks with creditors or accepting a settlement offer.

Ala. county readies for possible record bankruptcy - Yahoo! News


----------



## BigPapaPump68 (Jul 26, 2011)

Nothing amazes me anymore but this is absurd. Christie is going after the wrong things in NJ and it's not like taxes will be any cheaper...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jul 26, 2011)

I think taxes have actually gone up since he took office.


----------



## MDR (Jul 26, 2011)

Funny how they can default on a pension, but if a student defaults on a student loan, the G takes everything.  Maybe the pension owners should sue and demand the liquidation of state assets for payment.  That is what the government would do in a similar situation.


----------



## LAM (Jul 26, 2011)

MDR said:


> Funny how they can default on a pension, but if a student defaults on a student loan, the G takes everything.  Maybe the pension owners should sue and demand the liquidation of state assets for payment.  That is what the government would do in a similar situation.



look at what the banking systems and wallstreet has done to the working class.  trillions lost in home wealth due to their un-regulated gambling practices and mayble 2-3 of them are going to do time.  big business in the US never pays for it's mistakes.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 19, 2011)

Worthy of a bump.


----------



## LAM (Oct 19, 2011)

BigPapaPump68 said:


> Nothing amazes me anymore but this is absurd. Christie is going after the wrong things in NJ and it's not like taxes will be any cheaper...



even though his approval rating has increased since the spring he will not be re-elected


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 19, 2011)

LAM said:


> even though his approval rating has increased since the spring he will not be re-elected



i sometimes wonder if the DNC actually is planning to have a candidate run as an independent because they know obama's chances of re-election aren't great and they simply haven't leaked it out yet.....


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> i sometimes wonder if the DNC actually is planning to have a candidate run as an independent because they know obama's chances of re-election aren't great and they simply haven't leaked it out yet.....



I wish they'd run Hilary, I'd vote for her.


----------



## CBR Shadow (Oct 19, 2011)

I for one am very happy to see unions put in the hot seat.  I'm an engineer and worked very closely with a shop of union carpenters in my previous job.  My current job has a non-union shop and I have to say WHAT A DIFFERENCE!
In the union shop there was no sense of urgency no matter how far behind we were on a job.  No care for keeping a customer or bettering the company. Breaks are taken exactly on time no matter if it would take another 60 seconds to ship out a job or load a truck.  On top of that, as an engineer I was not allowed to do many things in the shop because I was not in the union.. For example, a customer order needed to be rush-delivered to Chicago (45 minute drive) from our shop.  Our union guys were about to load the last crate onto the truck when the break bell went off.  They all walked away with the pallet jack 10' from the truck.  Since the customer was in such a hurry I tried persuading them to spend the extra 45 seconds to load it, but nope.  I went to the jack to load it myself and was later reprimanded for doing so.
I could give 10 more stories about many other union shops that work this way.  This attitude helps nobody and needs to be stopped.  The company can't get rid of these people and is forced to give them raises annually.  They made very good money.

Anyways, for those of you who defend unions I'd like to know if you've worked with them before.. seen firsthand how inefficient the whole process is.  Go to a tradeshow in Chicago and walk around.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^^ I agree on the "unsustainable." "Sorry, your f*cked."
> 
> And yes, ^ the sh*t IS hitting the fan, NOW.


 amen get them fat cat unions in line


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 19, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> i sometimes wonder if the DNC actually is planning to have a candidate run as an independent because they know obama's chances of re-election aren't great and they simply haven't leaked it out yet.....


 this..and i bet your right


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 19, 2011)

Dark Geared God said:


> amen get them fat cat unions in line



Only 8% of the private sector is unionized.

Add the government employee unions and it's 12%.

So....88% of the US workforce is non-unionized.

Yes, unions are resisting the cuts, but they are also losing the battle.

The bottom line is: da money ain't there.


----------



## LAM (Oct 19, 2011)

CBR Shadow said:


> I for one am very happy to see unions put in the hot seat.  I'm an engineer and worked very closely with a shop of union carpenters in my previous job.  My current job has a non-union shop and I have to say WHAT A DIFFERENCE!
> In the union shop there was no sense of urgency no matter how far behind we were on a job.  No care for keeping a customer or bettering the company. Breaks are taken exactly on time no matter if it would take another 60 seconds to ship out a job or load a truck.  On top of that, as an engineer I was not allowed to do many things in the shop because I was not in the union.. For example, a customer order needed to be rush-delivered to Chicago (45 minute drive) from our shop.  Our union guys were about to load the last crate onto the truck when the break bell went off.  They all walked away with the pallet jack 10' from the truck.  Since the customer was in such a hurry I tried persuading them to spend the extra 45 seconds to load it, but nope.  I went to the jack to load it myself and was later reprimanded for doing so.
> I could give 10 more stories about many other union shops that work this way.  This attitude helps nobody and needs to be stopped.  The company can't get rid of these people and is forced to give them raises annually.  They made very good money.
> 
> Anyways, for those of you who defend unions I'd like to know if you've worked with them before.. seen firsthand how inefficient the whole process is.  Go to a tradeshow in Chicago and walk around.



my guess is you have not read the ILO Global Wage reports from 2008/2009 or 2010/2011 they talk extensively  about labor unions and wages across the OECD countries.  you do realize that since the decline of US labor unions wages have fallen substantially behind productivity, there are dozens and dozens of studies about this from economists all over the world.  The also mention the "flawed" and outdated CPI as a means in determining wages and that the minimum wage should be close to the median income wages and not on the border of poverty.

even the FRB has releasing reports about low unionization rates in the US and lagging wages behind increased productivity, that tells you something. and this has been going on for about 15 years now.  the FRB used to use interest rates to curtail wage increases and high employment numbers, but this stuff doesn't make it on the tv.

everybody that is anti-union focuses on the bad aspects of "some" labor unions...when greedy wallstreet tanks the economy you don't see people trying to end wallstreet do you? no..they just want changes to be made.   

only radicals deal in absolutes...


----------



## Arnold (Oct 19, 2011)

how much of a pension does one get if they serve as a US Senator for one term?


----------



## LAM (Oct 19, 2011)

Prince said:


> how much of a pension does one get if they serve as a US Senator for one term?



not sure but I do know that about 50% of ex-House members go work as lobbyists once leaving government.  this is one of the biggest problems with "democracy" in the US.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 19, 2011)

Prince said:


> how much of a pension does one get if they serve as a US Senator for one term?


 lifetime of bennies for 1 term....6500 a month for life plus family medical


----------



## OfficerFarva (Oct 19, 2011)

CBR Shadow said:


> I for one am very happy to see unions put in the hot seat.  I'm an engineer and worked very closely with a shop of union carpenters in my previous job.  My current job has a non-union shop and I have to say WHAT A DIFFERENCE!
> In the union shop there was no sense of urgency no matter how far behind we were on a job.  No care for keeping a customer or bettering the company. Breaks are taken exactly on time no matter if it would take another 60 seconds to ship out a job or load a truck.  On top of that, as an engineer I was not allowed to do many things in the shop because I was not in the union.. For example, a customer order needed to be rush-delivered to Chicago (45 minute drive) from our shop.  Our union guys were about to load the last crate onto the truck when the break bell went off.  They all walked away with the pallet jack 10' from the truck.  Since the customer was in such a hurry I tried persuading them to spend the extra 45 seconds to load it, but nope.  I went to the jack to load it myself and was later reprimanded for doing so.
> I could give 10 more stories about many other union shops that work this way.  This attitude helps nobody and needs to be stopped.  The company can't get rid of these people and is forced to give them raises annually.  They made very good money.
> 
> Anyways, for those of you who defend unions I'd like to know if you've worked with them before.. seen firsthand how inefficient the whole process is.  Go to a tradeshow in Chicago and walk around.



I'm a member of LIUNA Local 92.  It's the only reason I was able to afford to put myself through university.  Ya you definitely can't go doing another unions job.  Once that starts happening unions will become useless and obsolete.  As far as the inefficiency goes, that applies to union and non union workers.  If a person is lazy nothing will change that.  

One huge difference between union and non union guys in the trades industry is the safety level.  The union guys have a far lower record of incidence because they have to have so many different tickets to be able to get on site or do a specific job.  The non-union people don't have nearly as much safety training.  

Just because the ground worker's aren't worried about a deadline doesn't mean upper level people like foremans, general foremans, site supervisors and management level people don't care.  You don't rush a job to try and get it done quicker if it means endangering workers (it costs far more to the business to pay out a hurt work and possibly shut down the site until the investigations are done taking place than it does to take an extra hour to finish something).

There's a heavy oilsands processing unit owned by CNRL called Horizon in northern Alberta.  It pumps out 110000 barrels a day.  A huge portion of it called the Coker burnt down in January due to non union workers.  They wanted to get this place up and running quickly and safely so they got rid of the non-union workers and brought in the union guys.

Don't bash somebody unless you know the whole story.


----------



## BlueLineFish (Oct 19, 2011)

Cuomo has the right idea.  You change the benefits for the new people hired.  I really don't find it fair to change the rules in the middle of the game just because for so many years pension funds were raided to fund public projects and completely mismanaged for the personal gain of government officials.  I am only about 4 years into my pension system and I am really worried about the future of it.  I currently have a New York pension but my wife has a jersey one so I see the effects this will have.


----------



## CBR Shadow (Oct 20, 2011)

LAM, letting unions have a strangle hold on a company doesn't "fix" the low pay problem for everyone.  Again, it seems like you don't have personal experience with actually working with unions.
Officer Farva, Union members always fall back on the "work safe" excuse.  It kills me.  I helped Union Pacific with some issues they were having and spoke to some of the union employees working on the trains.  One of them explained how things work around there.. work was slow, so they start "working safe", which means take 3 days on a job that requires 30 minutes.  They explained that this is typical and saves jobs.  This is the same attitude I've witnessed in union employees.   Yes, lazy people will always be lazy, but this atmosphere enables and even encourages them. People that aren't normally lazy become lazy very quickly when they find out that there is no motivation to work harder because they will be getting a raise based on how long they've been there, not on their performance.  
This isn't just a blanket statement coming from a guy who had one bad experience with one union employee.  I worked right alongside unions for 11 years.  Being in the tradeshow industry for 8 of those years I dealt with tons of different unions.  Now working for a company that doesn't use a union shop it's amazing how much gets done.


----------



## LAM (Oct 20, 2011)

CBR Shadow said:


> LAM, letting unions have a strangle hold on a company doesn't "fix" the low pay problem for everyone.  Again, it seems like you don't have personal experience with actually working with unions.
> .



my guess is that you haven't read any of the studies from the EPI, ILO, OECD, the FRB or any of the hundreds from economists in and out the US over the past 20-30 years.  labor unions help bring up wages for everyone, this fact is undebatible as it is common knowledge in the economic world and has been for decades.  unions only help employment in the union the positive effect that they have on wages for all is an economic fact observed worldwide.

I suggest reading the ILO Global Wage Report from 2008/2009 and 2010 where the US is named specifically.  The US has the lowest rate of unionization in the OECD at 13% we also have the highest amount of low paid workers at 25% of the labor force the highest in the OECD, we also have the highest child poverty rate only bested by Mexico and Turkey and the greatest wage inequality of all wealthy country's and highly industrialized countries.  We also experience the most bubble/burst cycles and the most recessions out of all other country's in the world.


http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_100786.pdf


http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...---publ/documents/publication/wcms_145265.pdf


----------



## CBR Shadow (Oct 21, 2011)

So the US has issues, but unions are definitely not the solution. You forgot to mention school shootings above - if we had more unions those wouldn't happen either! I've had this argument with several liberals and one commonality of all people defending unions is that they're either in a union or have no experience dealing with unions.  I subscribe to the belief that in a free market if you have a marketable skill (mechanic, engineer, seamstress, whatever..) you can get a fair wage for what you do.  If your company wont pay you a fair wage then your skill isn't marketable there and you need to find a place that will, otherwise, a new skill.  
Another common argument is that "companies will take advantage of their employees without unions.. over work them and give them poor working conditions!"  That a poor argument since the OSHA and other agencies can be called for an inspection of work safety at any time.  We have work standards agencies that weren't around in the 40's when unions began. 
When I start telling stories like the above union laziness people want to say "well that's an isolated incident" but it truely isn't.. How can you think that this type of behavior should be allowed? Saying unions shouldn't change is saying that this behavior is acceptable, because once there's a union contract there's no enforcement. This is the reason everyone hates going to the DMV and everyone at the DMV is an Ahole.. they dont need customer service or to perform well.. they're protected! 
Feel free to keep bringing up "evidence" that unions are a good thing.. I dont really have time to review every link you've posted (14 in total on this thread alone!) and then follow up with why they are either irrelivent or have a strong liberal bias.  If I had a union job I'm sure I'd have plenty of time to read all 14 links     I know my personal experiences will be written off as "Republican propoganda" to you and wont change your mind, and your links aren't going to change my opinion that I formed over the last 10 years while working with unions.
I'll agree to disagree.


----------



## LAM (Oct 21, 2011)

CBR Shadow said:


> So the US has issues, but unions are definitely not the solution.



all of the data collected from hundreds of countries across the world over the past 30+ years compiled by independent 3rd parties say the exact opposite...

your opinion is based on personal experiences and not economic/empirical data or facts..

my guess is you didn't read any of the reports that I posted which is typical of the standard anti-union advocate.

in the US all of the non-union right to work states (w/ VA being the exception) all have the lowest per capita and household incomes and they all consistently receive more federal tax dollars than they pay.  in the OECD there is a direct correlation between the household income and education attainment.  the right to work states all consistently score at the bottom of ATC testing as well.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 21, 2011)

CBR Shadow said:


> So the US has issues, but unions are definitely not the solution. You forgot to mention school shootings above - if we had more unions those wouldn't happen either! I've had this argument with several liberals and one commonality of all people defending unions is that they're either in a union or have no experience dealing with unions.  I subscribe to the belief that in a free market if you have a marketable skill (mechanic, engineer, seamstress, whatever..) you can get a fair wage for what you do.  If your company wont pay you a fair wage then your skill isn't marketable there and you need to find a place that will, otherwise, a new skill.
> Another common argument is that "companies will take advantage of their employees without unions.. over work them and give them poor working conditions!"  That a poor argument since the OSHA and other agencies can be called for an inspection of work safety at any time.  We have work standards agencies that weren't around in the 40's when unions began.
> When I start telling stories like the above union laziness people want to say "well that's an isolated incident" but it truely isn't.. How can you think that this type of behavior should be allowed? Saying unions shouldn't change is saying that this behavior is acceptable, because once there's a union contract there's no enforcement. This is the reason everyone hates going to the DMV and everyone at the DMV is an Ahole.. they dont need customer service or to perform well.. they're protected!
> Feel free to keep bringing up "evidence" that unions are a good thing.. I dont really have time to review every link you've posted (14 in total on this thread alone!) and then follow up with why they are either irrelivent or have a strong liberal bias.  If I had a union job I'm sure I'd have plenty of time to read all 14 links     I know my personal experiences will be written off as "Republican propoganda" to you and wont change your mind, and your links aren't going to change my opinion that I formed over the last 10 years while working with unions.
> I'll agree to disagree.



That is complete and utter bullshit, your whole argument assumes there is an equal distribution of power between employer and employee. In EVERY employment situation the employer has considerably more power and leverage in a potential hire situation. They certainly have more financial resources.

I'll give you that unions are a problem, but how do you think all of the OSHA regulations, medical benefits, minimum wage, vacation time, etc. came about? Do you think employers just decided to give all of this to it's employees? Hell no, unions bargained for those rights and they eventually became part of our culture.  Employers don't want to pay you what you're worth, they want to maximize profit off you. That is done by paying as little as possible, not giving you a fair wage.

The problem with unions is the inability to fire members. This needs to be fixed, but scrappng unions won't fix our situation, it will make it worse.

If you really need evidence of unions being necessary, look at all of the talk about removing the minimum wage. If people can't make it at $6 an hour what do you think $3/hr is going to do.

As for the complete ignoring of empirical data...I get it, your a conservative, there is no room for empirical evidence or facts in your head. I don't discount your personal experiences, but your personal experience has no bearing on our problems. We aren't in this mess because unions are lazy, we are in this mess because people in the middle class can barely afford a car, lodging, and food on what they are making now. In a consumer-based economy, that causes a significant problem.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 21, 2011)

CBR Shadow said:


> I for one am very happy to see unions put in the hot seat.  I'm an engineer and worked very closely with a shop of union carpenters in my previous job.  My current job has a non-union shop and I have to say WHAT A DIFFERENCE!
> In the union shop there was no sense of urgency no matter how far behind we were on a job.  No care for keeping a customer or bettering the company. Breaks are taken exactly on time no matter if it would take another 60 seconds to ship out a job or load a truck.  On top of that, as an engineer I was not allowed to do many things in the shop because I was not in the union.. For example, a customer order needed to be rush-delivered to Chicago (45 minute drive) from our shop.  Our union guys were about to load the last crate onto the truck when the break bell went off.  They all walked away with the pallet jack 10' from the truck.  Since the customer was in such a hurry I tried persuading them to spend the extra 45 seconds to load it, but nope.  I went to the jack to load it myself and was later reprimanded for doing so.
> I could give 10 more stories about many other union shops that work this way.  This attitude helps nobody and needs to be stopped.  The company can't get rid of these people and is forced to give them raises annually.  They made very good money.
> 
> Anyways, for those of you who defend unions I'd like to know if you've worked with them before.. seen firsthand how inefficient the whole process is.  Go to a tradeshow in Chicago and walk around.



I was a temp in a dairy right after college in Indianapolis, union central next to Chicago, and those guys were the exact same.  I never in my life met lazier, more useless people before on the job.  It was perfect training for me just entering the workforce since I got to see what not to do to move ahead.  When you take away the incentive to work like the protection that unions give workers, efficiencies suffer greatly and costs are driven up.  You wonder why all the foreign manufacturers that make cars in the US are all non-union yet the workers are happy and are paid the same as the union BUT they are profitable.  It's crazy talk I swear, its like it actually works without them Jim Hoffa, the world must be out of its mind.  

Not all unions are like this mind you and I am not so short sighted to say they need to all go but I will add that the protections that workers have and inflexible rules do nothing to support their case for staying around in today's time.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 21, 2011)

LAM said:


> not sure but I do know that about 50% of ex-House members go work as lobbyists once leaving government.  this is one of the biggest problems with "democracy" in the US.



One day in office guarantees you a full pension of your yearly pay the day you leave office for the rest of your life so that is $150K or so a year, no matter what and you get full government benefits.  Yeah, they didn't line their own pockets at all.  All of the members are guilty of this and it is beyond ridiculous along with no term limits.  You wonder why many make it to congress well off and then end up wealthy; you would too if you got and extra $150K every year thereafter on top of your other wage you surely are earning.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 21, 2011)

LAM said:


> all of the data collected from hundreds of countries across the world over the past 30+ years compiled by independent 3rd parties say the exact opposite...
> 
> your opinion is based on personal experiences and not economic/empirical data or facts..
> 
> ...



You really, truly believe that labor unions are the solution don't you?  We are so non-competitive now it is no wonder wages stagnate and production was sent offshore, the cost to grow organically here is astronomical compared to the rest of the world.  Unions are fine but past collective bargaining on wages that is all the power they need.  I don't need to be in a union to get the best healthcare I have ever gotten or be paid near the top of the wage scale for my job type, I get it from a public company that treats its workers with respect.  Sure, we don't always get what we want but I know for a fact my benefits are every bit as good as some newbie in a union, I just am not part of a pension system like many are.  

Here is another thing you just refuse to touch on but is proven time and time again, people don't necessarily want to be in a union.  There are as many downsides as there are upsides and all states should have it be a choice and it should be protected at that.  Legislation to do so have been put in place in many states and it is how it should be, people should have the right to choose based on the facts not forced into a situation they don't agree with just cause they want to be a plumber, carpenter, electrician or longshoreman.  If there was a union here chances are I would find another job, it would make it impossible for me to be effective at what I do for a living.  This is the key fact that has to be considered, do you want to be in a union knowing all the rules, restrictions, limits on making quick moves up, fees, work hours etc...  Once you provide that which many times it is not made clear to the workers, things may not be as clear cut as you think.  Again, give people the choice, it's America for god sakes.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 21, 2011)

CBR Shadow said:


> So the US has issues, but unions are definitely not the solution. You forgot to mention school shootings above - if we had more unions those wouldn't happen either! I've had this argument with several liberals and one commonality of all people defending unions is that they're either in a union or have no experience dealing with unions.  I subscribe to the belief that in a free market if you have a marketable skill (mechanic, engineer, seamstress, whatever..) you can get a fair wage for what you do.  If your company wont pay you a fair wage then your skill isn't marketable there and you need to find a place that will, otherwise, a new skill.
> Another common argument is that "companies will take advantage of their employees without unions.. over work them and give them poor working conditions!"  That a poor argument since the OSHA and other agencies can be called for an inspection of work safety at any time.  We have work standards agencies that weren't around in the 40's when unions began.
> When I start telling stories like the above union laziness people want to say "well that's an isolated incident" but it truely isn't.. How can you think that this type of behavior should be allowed? Saying unions shouldn't change is saying that this behavior is acceptable, because once there's a union contract there's no enforcement. This is the reason everyone hates going to the DMV and everyone at the DMV is an Ahole.. they dont need customer service or to perform well.. they're protected!
> Feel free to keep bringing up "evidence" that unions are a good thing.. I dont really have time to review every link you've posted (14 in total on this thread alone!) and then follow up with why they are either irrelivent or have a strong liberal bias.  If I had a union job I'm sure I'd have plenty of time to read all 14 links     I know my personal experiences will be written off as "Republican propoganda" to you and wont change your mind, and your links aren't going to change my opinion that I formed over the last 10 years while working with unions.
> I'll agree to disagree.





Try being a conservative in Chicago, it was part of why I moved.  I got sick of talking to the preverbial wall of progressive liberal bias.  You had to give in to their point of view but god forbid they say a word in favor of yours.  I want to have a beer with you if I am in Chicago soon man, I like your style.  My pops would live it up talking your ear off about his experiences he had like yours.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 21, 2011)

oufinny said:


> You wonder why all the foreign manufacturers that make cars in the US are all non-union yet the workers are happy and are paid the same as the union BUT they are profitable.



Yes, but they would not be getting paid that much if the unions hadn't raised the wages. And people would have never had to unionize had they been getting paid a decent wage in the first place.




oufinny said:


> Not all unions are like this mind you and I am not so short sighted to say they need to all go but I will add that the protections that workers have and inflexible rules do nothing to support their case for staying around in today's time.



It really shouldn't be as difficult as it is to terminate a union employee, and I know quite a few union folk who should have been fired years ago. It's ridiculous that greedy fucks have to ruin everything.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 21, 2011)

oufinny said:


> You really, truly believe that labor unions are the solution don't you?  We are so non-competitive now it is no wonder wages stagnate and production was sent offshore, the cost to grow organically here is astronomical compared to the rest of the world.  Unions are fine but past collective bargaining on wages that is all the power they need.  I don't need to be in a union to get the best healthcare I have ever gotten or be paid near the top of the wage scale for my job type, I get it from a public company that treats its workers with respect.  Sure, we don't always get what we want but I know for a fact my benefits are every bit as good as some newbie in a union, I just am not part of a pension system like many are.
> 
> Here is another thing you just refuse to touch on but is proven time and time again, people don't necessarily want to be in a union.  There are as many downsides as there are upsides and all states should have it be a choice and it should be protected at that.  Legislation to do so have been put in place in many states and it is how it should be, people should have the right to choose based on the facts not forced into a situation they don't agree with just cause they want to be a plumber, carpenter, electrician or longshoreman.  If there was a union here chances are I would find another job, it would make it impossible for me to be effective at what I do for a living.  This is the key fact that has to be considered, do you want to be in a union knowing all the rules, restrictions, limits on making quick moves up, fees, work hours etc...  Once you provide that which many times it is not made clear to the workers, things may not be as clear cut as you think.  Again, give people the choice, it's America for god sakes.



You must spread more reputation around before giving more to oufinny.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 21, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Yes, but they would not be getting paid that much if the unions hadn't raised the wages. And people would have never had to unionize had they been getting paid a decent wage in the first place.
> 
> *Yes this is true and it is one of the best aspects of what unions can do and have historically done for people with a trade.  Many lived very fruitful lives because of it and that should not be overlooked.  Hence why them being here is fine just limit the power to collective bargaining on wages and basic benefits, no more, no less.  That way they are not a burden on the companies that employ the workers; as it should be if America wants to be a manufacturer again.  You can have your cake and eat it too people just need to realize things have to change to a reasonable degree.  Selling that without starting a riot like in Wisconsin is going to be the real challenge.*
> 
> It really shouldn't be as difficult as it is to terminate a union employee, and I know quite a few union folk who should have been fired years ago. It's ridiculous that greedy fucks have to ruin everything.



*Yes I agree here too, the same goes for tenured teachers who bring nothing to the classroom (many aren't like this but there are some that suck, I had a few in my public school days).  See my post above, remove a lot of the rules that prevent efficiencies while keeping a safe work environment [which insurance companies and OSHA do well already cause the cost is too high not to be]  and a union is a viable option. *


----------



## CBR Shadow (Oct 21, 2011)

I read just today that they changed the rules in McCormick Place in Chicago where you can setup your own tradeshow booth yourself now instead of being forced to use grossly overpriced union labor.  Looks like our new Gov is doing a good job w/ bringing business back to Chicago so far.  Big companies weren't even bothering getting tradeshow booths w/ us because of the union labor.
Anyways, thought I'd share.


----------



## LAM (Oct 21, 2011)

CBR Shadow said:


> I read just today that they changed the rules in McCormick Place in Chicago where you can setup your own tradeshow booth yourself now instead of being forced to use grossly overpriced union labor.  Looks like our new Gov is doing a good job w/ bringing business back to Chicago so far.  Big companies weren't even bothering getting tradeshow booths w/ us because of the union labor.
> Anyways, thought I'd share.



nobody is saying that unions are perfect of which very few things in reality are


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 21, 2011)

LAM said:


> nobody is saying that unions are perfect of which very few things in reality are


----------



## maniclion (Oct 21, 2011)

oufinny said:


> You wonder why all the foreign manufacturers that make cars in the US are all non-union yet the workers are happy and are paid the same as the union BUT they are profitable.


Has it occurred to you that in a lot of those countries it is the law for all of the workers to be paid fair and have the best healthcare, pension and vacation time....

We need a workers party to stand for the rights of us common folk instead of Corporate Sponsored Party 1 or 2....


----------



## ExLe (Oct 21, 2011)




----------



## LAM (Oct 21, 2011)

ExLe said:


>



nothing special about Christie at all...NJ pension funds were mismanaged and underfunded like most states, they also suffered substantial losses by investments in the tech sector during the early 2000's, etc....then there is the lovely Pension Reform Act of 1994 which is when all the problems started for NJ.  NJ has high incomes no reason for that state to have pension problems in terms of mathematics.  problems occur when politicians stick their dick beaters into thing that they have no real knowledge of to fulfill campaign promises and or win elections.


----------



## ExLe (Oct 21, 2011)

LAM said:


> nothing special about Christie at all...NJ pension funds were mismanaged and underfunded like most states, they also suffered substantial losses by investments in the tech sector during the early 2000's, etc....then there is the lovely Pension Reform Act of 1994 which is when all the problems started for NJ. NJ has high incomes no reason for that state to have pension problems in terms of mathematics. problems occur when politicians stick their dick beaters into thing that they have no real knowledge of to fulfill campaign promises and or win elections.


 

Are you talking about Obama?


----------



## LAM (Oct 22, 2011)

ExLe said:


> Are you talking about Obama?



sure...all these problems started in Nov, 2009. now go eat some more lead based paint chips.  and if you ran out i'm sure Rick Perry has some as he has stated the same...30+ years of economic policy that favors capital over labor is surely Obama's fault... 

just refer to this graph...since 1980 every major downturn of labors share of the national income occurs during a republican presidency as a direct result of unequal economic policy.

Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share (PRS85006173) - FRED - St. Louis Fed


----------



## ExLe (Oct 22, 2011)

LAM said:


> sure...all these problems started in Nov, 2009. now go eat some more lead based paint chips..
> 
> just refer to this graph...since 1980 every major downturn of labors share of the national income occurs during a republican presidency as a direct result of unequal economic policy.
> 
> Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share (PRS85006173) - FRED - St. Louis Fed


 

LAM an insult? That is so unlike you...

Did the wife not give it up tonight?...

Are you still actually going to defend Obama's policies...

Not even the Democrats are voting for his 2nd stimulus...

They broke it up in parts... And they still refused... How sad when your own party has no faith in your policies...

So are you going to blame the Republicans again?...

He didn't create the problems, but he sure as hell doesn't know how to fix them...


----------



## LAM (Oct 23, 2011)

ExLe said:


> LAM an insult? That is so unlike you...
> 
> Did the wife not give it up tonight?...
> 
> ...



Grover Norquist had republicans and some democrats sign a no tax increase pledge.  that is why some Dems did not vote on it.  upgrading the US infrastructure is a sure fire way to create jobs for many years to replace those lost in construction, etc. from the housing collapse.

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers
112th Congressional List
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/091411-federalpledgesigners(1).pdf

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/fi...r Protection Pledge List_CURRENT_2011(28).pdf

* this pledge among other signs (massive lobbying) is the continuing decline of the functionality of representative government in the US.  being that an economy is dynamic so is economic policy you increase regulation here, decrease it there, lower taxes here and never raise them there?

Grover designed the tax reforms under GWB in 2001 and 2003.  they were designed to reduce federal revenues drastically causing increased deficits since they were not matched with cuts.  with the long term goal of shrinking government and entitlement programs eventually ending all the new deal reforms.  he is the text book far right conservative bully that grew up in a wealthy family in Mass father was a CEO at Polaroid, etc.  that likes to stick it to poor people.


----------



## Bowden (Oct 23, 2011)

Out of options.
It's a giant shit sandwich and everyone is going to have to take a bite out of it.

States cannot keep on raising income and property taxes on their taxpayers to fund public sector benefits when the taxpayers that funds those benefits are having their salaries and benefits reduced by corporations and are loosing their jobs. Eventually the money will run out.


----------



## LAM (Oct 23, 2011)

DBowden said:


> Out of options.
> It's a giant shit sandwich and everyone is going to have to take a bite out of it.
> 
> States cannot keep on raising income and property taxes on their taxpayers to fund public sector benefits when the taxpayers that funds those benefits are having their salaries and benefits reduced by corporations and are loosing their jobs. Eventually the money will run out.



the middle class has been taking a bite for 40 years as all the data shows with the 2 income trap.  states are not raising income to pay for public sector benefits, that's all political economic bs from tv.  public sector pensions on average account for less than 2% of state budgets.  state pension plans have been mismanaged for many years and as the FRB has steadily reduced interest rates since the 80's which causes investment funds to be placed in riskier portfolios as an attempt to compensate for inflation, etc.

all these problems started in the 80's with the lose of real income growth as productivity increases and the decline in tax progressivity.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 23, 2011)

LAM said:


> Grover Norquist had republicans and some democrats sign a no tax increase pledge.  that is why some Dems did not vote on it.  upgrading the US infrastructure is a sure fire way to create jobs for many years to replace those lost in construction, etc. from the housing collapse.
> 
> The Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers
> 112th Congressional List
> ...



Norquist is a douche and these pledges do nothing for us; one guy controls it all yet we have no say?  I try to hold out hope but when the deck is stacked against us, there is not much chance of change.  Does that mean we should keep the status quo in 2012, no, but I don't see massive changes happening with the GOP making fools of themselves at the debates.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 23, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Has it occurred to you that in a lot of those countries it is the law for all of the workers to be paid fair and have the best healthcare, pension and vacation time....
> 
> We need a workers party to stand for the rights of us common folk instead of Corporate Sponsored Party 1 or 2....



The downside is that puts in place wage controls, it is in fact the definition of socialism that you speak of.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 23, 2011)

DBowden said:


> Out of options.
> It's a giant shit sandwich and everyone is going to have to take a bite out of it.
> 
> States cannot keep on raising income and property taxes on their taxpayers to fund public sector benefits when the taxpayers that funds those benefits are having their salaries and benefits reduced by corporations and are loosing their jobs. Eventually the money will run out.


 Funny you say that my 2 rental houses in Az even though the value of the houses dropped over the past few years I'm still paying for the taxes pre-08 the state says because they can affore to adust the taxs because they would be to law they need to pay for medicade welware ect...


----------



## LAM (Nov 6, 2011)

Dark Geared God said:


> Funny you say that my 2 rental houses in Az even though the value of the houses dropped over the past few years I'm still paying for the taxes pre-08 the state says because they can affore to adust the taxs because they would be to law they need to pay for medicade welware ect...



that's bullshit...property tax's do not fund welfare programs or medicare/medicaid, those programs are funded by the federal government and are part of the annual budget.


----------



## LAM (Nov 6, 2011)

*The Wrong Target: Public Sector Unions and State Budget Deficits*

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/research/state_budget_deficits_oct2011.pdf


----------



## Dark Geared God (Nov 6, 2011)

LAM said:


> that's bullshit...property tax's do not fund welfare programs or medicare/medicaid, those programs are funded by the federal government and are part of the annual budget.


 the welfare thing i addedbut the taxes..are true we are paying the same even as the value of the house drop but i think that it dose fund thses programs


----------



## LAM (Nov 6, 2011)

Dark Geared God said:


> the welfare thing i addedbut the taxes..are true we are paying the same even as the value of the house drop but i think that it dose fund thses programs



it doesn't...they are funded by the federal gov and those monies are dispersed to the states as stated in the oasdi program

here in Vegas we had to file petitions to get our property taxes decreased after the crash of the housing boom that never should have happened to begin with.


----------

