We need unions. North American society would have never developed a middle class in the 20th century but for the creation of unions and support for their struggles.
Consider some of the compelling facts outlined in “The Trouble With Billionaires” by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, which I have summaried below.
- by the early 1900′s, the US had become a highly stratified, top-heavy society dominated by a few dozen, incredibly wealthy “robber barons.” Ferdinand Lundberg captured the extent of this economic concentration in his book: “America’s 60 Families.” A mere 60 families owned and controlled the vast majority of the country’s wealth.
- although the 1920′s saw significant technological advances (and financial gains for corporate owners), workers were in such a weak bargaining position that they were unable to demand a meaningful share of these gains. From 1919 to 1929, worker output in manufacturing rose by 43%, by wages by only 8%. The gains of the improved worker productivity mostly all flowed directly into corporate coffers.
- FDR started a new, labour friendly era in 1935 (after the Crash) with the Fair Labour Relations Act to ensure workers had the right to organize and bargain collectively. Union gains (United Auto Workers in particular) served to push up wages across the entire economy.
- The early post-WWII era was one of restrained banking, reduced incomes for the super rich, and a rising middle class; and, it was a time of extraordinary economic growth and prosperity. Government came to enjoy respect as a central and beneficial force in society. The notion developed that there is such as thing as the public interest, and government has an obligation to serve it.
But there have always been those interests who have been wanting to undo the post-war deal that benefited workers. They watched and waited and, by the 1980s were able to make in-roads (i.e., get Reagan elected) that have seen a broad resurgence of excessively wealthy interests in the ensuing years…leaving labour and ordinary working people ever more marginalized. The clout and income of workers has done nothing but decline.
Now we are right back into a “robber baron” era. In 2009 the top 25 hedge fund managers (who are basically gamblers in the casino that is Wall Street) made, on average, incomes 24,000 times that of the average American. The top earning 1% of Americans enjoys a whopping 24% of the national income, according to McQuaig and Brooks.
Obscenely rich financial interests dominate in North America. They have inappropriate and disproportionate influence over the political process.
You might not like unions, but there is nothing else currently in existence that stands a chance against the resurgence of greedy corporate interests that cares nothing for “the little people.”
I have been a government union member. I resented paying the dues. I saw how often the union rules/protections were abused by some workers, and how the collective agreement served to protect mediocrity at times. But those union ”abuses”, if you want to call them that, are nothing compared to what awaits workers and the shrinking middle class, if the current union-busting efforts in the States actually prevail.
People are going to yelp that unions are big, rich “businesses” and serve limited, special interests just as much as the corporate interests. Considering the fight unions have on their hands, I hope to high heaven they DO have well-funded coffers. Someone has to oppose the highjacking of North America’s political and financial systems – it is going to take a Goliath to fight a Goliath.
other blog entries from »
I have never seen another woman's vagina, so have no idea what they look like, except mine.....I assume you mean (not vagina), But labia....the outer lips. I think it is sad you/anyone thinks any body part is ugly. Our bodies are amazing. I dou
Roadrunner,
Let us know how your lips turn out, mine are so thin I have often thought of doing something. But I am scared whitless!
Unions are institutions, just like corporations and Gov’ts. Therefore what starts out with pure intentions will eventually go corrupt. That doesn’t mean we don’t need them. It means that they need to be naturally replaced when they no longer resonate with the people they promised to serve.
A resurgence of new guilds by middle class is on it’s way, because the internet has provided new ways for workers to connect with each other. Artisan guilds are only the tip of the iceberg IMO. Pre internet institutions were corrupted by a tremendous amount of gatekeeping – originally meant to protect, then used to keep it’s members in the dark – and these new guilds thrive on the ABOVE BOARD exposure. Eventually after they have reached their zenith, they will corrupt, and another form will be needed. But for now, I am excited about seeing this new restructuring of the middle class working class. And that it is is happening at a time when America has had a painful reality check and forced to reevaluate it’s priorities may promise a chance to honestly construct something good that will work in the near future.
Very good observation, Deborah re organizations running their cycles. It seems that the cycles seem to end due to restrictions and control (i.e. greed for power and money) imposed by the organizations themselves. As you said, this is true of any organization, whether public or private.
The last time I had heard about guilds was way back in school. However, recently I read ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (it came free in my e-reader) and it spoke of guilds–which made me want to learn more. Wikipedia has a good, comprehensive write-up on guilds. They, as the unions, started out with good intentions, but eventually became obsolete because of their increased control of members and limiting of the market. I think guilds are a good idea, let’s hope this time around they return with lessons learned from the past. I agree it’s time for a new type of organization to emerge, especially one that is open and above board.
(Just as an interesting aside, in the ‘Manifesto’ Marx and Engels saw the labor unions as the vehicle for bringing down Capitalism.)
Though I confess never having read the “Manifesto” I really see Marx and Engels being just as idealistic as Our founding Fathers were of their philosophy. Both believed in the creation of a utopian Society. And both failed to take into account the human condition. Utopia can only exist as long as it’s members work for the whole as equally as they work for their own personal interests. I guess that is why we will see these ideologies as a necessary check and balance for each other, IMHO.
What we haven’t see in the recorded history of humankind is the Global village – which puts damper on a great deal of the gatekeeping that was necessary to keep the power intact for the ruling forces of government as well as corporations. The only thing that has been done profusely to counteract is to flood the net with useless and MIS information which confuses the general public.
However, with this reality check of a failing economy in place, I think most people will begin to wake up ad smell the coffee… start sorting out the fact from fiction – reality from the garbage.
Perhaps a new utopian ideal will come into play through all of this.
I’ll have to disagree with you about the founding fathers wanting a utopia. On the contrary, I think they saw mankind as flawed* and tried to develop a system that would keep checks on those flawed humans-rather than trying to change the person. Thus, our three branches of government–to provide checks and balances on those flaws. They wanted freedom for individuals to pursue their own lives, without being held to some arbitrary standard of what a human ‘should’ be.
I don’t believe in utopia. Don’t know much about the Global village idea, so I’ll have to check it out. I believe, as is believed in the field of psychiatry, that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Therefore, any system that proposes that mankind (in large groups) will behave any differently (i.e. more harmoniously) from what the overwhelming historical data indicates, is unrealistic in my book.
*(the fact that they accepted slavery shows their own flaws yet the system they developed allowed for a constitutional ammendment to be added to outlaw the practice).
I guess we don’t have the same idea of the definition of Utopia. I was using it in the sense of “is an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system.” ( Wikipedia) In truth I only believe that this is an ideology and can never be a reality. But we need ideologies to strive towards or most of us would lose hope. I know I would.
People who sincerely believe in a socialist form of gov’t (and I DO NOT) appear to hold an ideology of the people of the working class being the true “brotherhood of man” that has the right to govern itself as long as the live on an equal socionomic scale. Of course, as I see it, Communism corrupted that right from the start As the ruling class still enjoyed the better lifestyle than the people that it said was their “comrads”.
People who sincerely believe in a capitalistic form of Govt certainly appear to believe that those who win isn the commerce game deserve the gain… those who don’t just didn’t try hard enough. Coming from a family of first and second generation Americans, who started with nothing to becoming extremely successful in their fields , I would like very much to believe that that is true. Most of my family members do. However, as a teacher, I have seen many “diamonds in the rough” that never got a fair chance. And a lot of noble career choices that hardly provided food for the family that they had to feed. And on the other hand, I have seen a lot of very successful people make it to the top by turning their head and looking the other way.
Our three branch system works only as well as the governing populace…”WE the people”… attend to the care and upkeep of it. But when we become a fat and lazy society that cares about superficially getting ahead of the other guy, ( esp when the competition becomes very intense) we tend to let those three branches take care of themselves. And when the cat is away, the mice will play. And play they have.
To believe that mankind will never reach a point of living harmoniously is definitely a philosophy backed by, as you say, overwhelming historical data. Yet giving up hope would in my book be giving up reason for us to go on as a human race. And I guess I am idealistic enough to think that there is something better that lies in the heart of humankind. Perhaps I am naive. I think it is merely all the types of governments that are the temporary solutions to an ever changing, ever evolving, ever growing soul of humanity on the face of this earth as we learn to balance the extremes of selfishness and selflessness among the members of it’s collective consciousness.
I cheered when I watched Norma Rae all those years ago. There was a time when unions were needed because of poor working conditions and the like. It was a time when the workers wanted a union and fought for it. Now, we have government regulations in place (OSHA, etc.) that can (but doesn’t always) take the place of some of what unions do.
Unions have become power mongers just as much as any other. It has to do with money, of course. I can agree that there are still companies that unions can make a difference in the lives of their workers, but I will also state that there are times when a union is totally unnecessary. For instances, in the public sector.
I am against unions for public workers. Here’s why: public employees work for us, the taxpayer; they aren’t in competion in the marketplace, they’re a monopoly; their employment isn’t market-driven, it’s political. The union gets dues (whether by the workers’ choice or not is another question). They donate toward political campaigns (#1 and 3 in Wisconsin – Follow the Money); then, my favorite quote on this: Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.
Bottom line? A public union is fighting the taxpayers with each and every “demand.” They extract it from me, my children and my granchildren. ♥
Actually, I think the reasons you gave for not having unions in the public sector are the reasons why the public sector needs unions. Ideally, they work for us. But realistically, they work for a legislative body, who can change the rules of their employment by enacting, or not enacting, laws at whim. Since there is a monopoly, the workers are at the mercy of whatever political winds happen to be blowing at the time. I remember years ago, when a new party came into state power here in PA, that was it. My husband was out of a job, because he wasn’t in the union. He didn’t have an appointee position. I get the politics behind that. But his boss was an appointee. And when he went, the new boss fired at will to make jobs available for his friends’ friends.
I’m not a big fan of private sector unions. I’ve always taken the “there are now federal laws and agencies to protect the workers” stance. But I’ve softened in the past few years, watching the shenanigans that go on in my future SIL’s workplace. His union has had to step in on several occasions to ensure the corp complies with the law, saving the workers lots of legal expenses, and saving their jobs, when they try to assert their workplace rights.
I get that many of the demands are unreasonable. But recently, in my state, I’ve seen a lot of concessions by public workers. Are public unions fighting taxpayers? No, they are fighting politically motivated legislators. They are taxpayers too, after all.
As far as I know, most unions tend to support mostly Democrats – and I’m not saying that everything the Democrats do is wrong – I’d prefer to be able to support by policy, not party – so I end up supporting the party that supports my position the best, if not perfectly.
Corporations do tend to support Republicans more (using my link to Follow the Money and clicking on the “eye” (which takes you to OpenSecrets) gives so much information!!). I am not, as a rule, funding a corporation; I am, though, funding public employees – many of who are getting benefits (not to mention higher wages) that they pay little or nothing for in comparison to private workers and I, along with my children and grandchildren, will be paying for it.
I can’t think of any public employee that needs a union to protect them from disregard for safety laws and the types of things that a private union could need on certain types of jobs. It would appear that all the unions do in the public sector is to negotiate more money and more benefits.
While I see some of your points and had to think about them (and discuss – I have a great sounding board here…:D), I still don’t quite see the need for public unions.
They may be fighting legislators, but then aren’t we all? :} ♥
I have a large circle of teacher friends. More money and better benefits are at the top of the bargaining list, and what you see when you read the newspapers. Having gone through salary freezes and benefit cutting in the private sector, I don’t see a problem with this – I could go find another employer, but public school teachers can’t. But there are other items on the list too, that I found came up in discussion over the years more than salary and benes. How long they had to work in one school before they could seek promotion or transfer, how many hours of training needed to retain certification, what was considered acceptable training, how many hours they were required to work in a day, and how large the class size could get, are just a few that come to mind. And since you mentioned safety, two of my teacher friends were attacked in the classroom. Another three were accused – falsely – of abuse. It was the union who guided and represented them, not the schools, or the government (who were, or would have been named separately in any civil case).
So if you can’t see a need, maybe you aren’t looking hard enough.
I don’t fault unions for representing teachers. That’s their job. However, don’t try to sell me the BS that it’s ‘for the children’. Unions only represent their members. PERIOD. The truth is that while reading, science and math scores have remained relatively unchanged since 1979, inflation adjusted costs of k-12 public education have increased 90%. (see the charts in the attached link)
Following are excerpts from someone who has an idea to make the whole teachers’ union situation more equitable:
…….union leaders have sought to grow their membership. More members mean more dues revenue with which to influence legislators. In this regard, too, they have been enormously successful: the number of public school employees has grown ten times faster than the number of students for two generations—a major factor in the system’s exploding cost and collapsing productivity.
…………………….
Public school employees clearly understand that union membership has benefitted them handsomely in both compensation and job security. Over the past forty years, union membership as a share of the public school workforce has increased from 42 percent to 70 percent. Even if collective bargaining were eliminated tomorrow, school employees would have every reason to continue funding the self-interested political action that has served them so well in the past.
So what would provide a counterbalance to unsustainable union demands?
To find the answer, it helps to know that while union membership was rising in the public sector it was falling steadily in the private sector—to just 6.9 percent of the workforce in 2010 (see figure below). The reason is simple: when a business makes excessive concessions to a union and is thereby forced to raise prices above those of its competitors, it loses customers. As it loses customers, it lays off workers. If this situation continues, the business fails. Private sector unionization is thus self-regulating to a significant degree.
………………………
Public school employee unions, by contrast, have no direct competitors. They cannot drive their employer out of business because there is only one employer in the sector and its existence is mandated by law. The only real solution to the spiraling cost of our state school monopolies is thus to open them up to private sector competition, so that both parents and taxpayers have an alternative to the no-longer-affordable status quo.
There are several ways of doing this, of which education tax credits seem the most promising. In Florida, Arizona and other states, taxpayers can claim a dollar-for-dollar credit for donations to non-profit scholarship organizations. These organizations, in turn, subsidize private school tuition for low-income families. In Illinois and Iowa, families who pay for their own children’s education are eligible for tax credits to directly offset part of the cost.
So while curtailing collective bargaining won’t rein in out-of-control spending, introducing real private sector competition will.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/ditching-collective-bargaining-wont-control-public-school-costs-heres-what-will/
Here are some excerpts from an article in reason.com which states that it’s the politicians who have scammed both the taxpayers and the workers in order to ‘buy’ votes:
Government workers have long accepted a tradeoff. They get lower pay than they might get in the private sector, but better retirement benefits. The great majority of them have pension plans with guaranteed payouts—an option that has largely disappeared from the private sector.
Most businesses long ago abandoned defined-benefit plans because they were unaffordable. The public sector has stayed with them, though—apparently to prove those private companies right. State and local governments……… have promised $3 trillion more in benefits than they have set aside to pay for them.
Why? Because there are powerful incentives for both legislators and union leaders to do that. Politicians (particularly, though not exclusively, Democratic ones) want to ingratiate themselves with unions, whose members can be a huge help on Election Day. Union leaders want to keep their members happy and return their favored elected officials to office. The problem, of course, is that such generosity costs a lot of money, which taxpayers may resist paying. That’s where the back-loading of compensation comes in.
Promising government workers excellent retirement plans, off in the future, gratifies union members without outraging the taxpayers. The burden is postponed until some future date, which makes the process painless—until the future arrives…………………..
Now we can all see the damage done. Though public employees have paid their share, the state has failed to keep up its end of the bargain. So in Illinois, as in Wisconsin and many other places, there is a conflict between what they were promised and what the citizenry is prepared to pay.
Government workers and taxpayers are both victims of this scam, which allowed extravagant pledges that don’t have to be redeemed until later—by which time the governors and union officials who devised them are gone, leaving someone else to cash the check.
In the private sector, these shenanigans would never be tolerated. Public pension systems get to assume implausibly high returns on their investments, which gives the impression they can meet their future needs. The looser rules “allow governments to base their budgets on economic fictions,” …… You could even call it fraud.
Republicans in Congress are trying to prevent deception by requiring public pension systems to follow the same basic rules as corporations. Politicians hate the idea for the same reason the rest of us—government workers included—should welcome it. As Moody’s Investors Service said in endorsing the plan, it would “provide new incentives to state and local governments to take action to ensure public-employee pension plans’ long-term viability.” Creating incentives for governments to behave honestly and responsibly? It’s a new concept, but it might be worth a try.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/24/how-public-employees-and-taxpa
I agree with this and watched this drama play out in my own state, and the bill is coming due. I think it’s interesting that it was our state Republicans, in the early 90′s, who passed the most damaging legislation, promising a pie-in-the-sky pension plan that couldn’t possibly be paid for, and the Dems who opposed it. Now they are trying to clean up the mess in the best way they know how – last summer, they postponed action on any plan that would help alleviate the mess, so they wouldn’t have to raise taxes before the fall elections. In the meantime, local taxes have to soar to cover the shortfall. So, yes, they and the union heads hoodwinked most of the workers and taxpayers.
Politicians are a dangerous lot………..no matter what the party.
Unions were necessary at one point in time. With the avalanche of employment law they have become increasingly irrelevant as demonstrated by their ongoing membership decline. Further their unreasonable and unsustainable entitlement demands contributed to the bankruptcy of one major auto manufacturer and then on top of that received the govt bailout in the USA. Add to that the thug mentality and brand built up over time, and most US citizens have a major bad taste in their mouths for unions. In the USA the number of US citizens who approve of unions are at an all time low, the majority of people actually think unions hurt the economy and dont help it.
May be different in Canada or Mexico but US citizens are — majority speaking — totally “bleh” as it relates to unions.
You could change your wording for ‘unions’ to ‘government’ and the paragraph would still have the same meaning.
Goodness knows I’m not a fan of big govt either!! I want smaller govt, and one less involved in individual moral decisions. Give me a govt focused on natl security and shared infrastructure and get over meddling in our homes I’d be happy!
The unions and the Labor Movement brought us child labor laws, the 8 hour work day, the 40 hour work week. They are organizations/institutions like all others, and at times, individuals in the leadership act in a corrupt manner — as do our elected representatives, business leaders, attorneys, and many others. I believe we sill need unions in both private and public sectors. One of the most important functions of a union is to protect safe working conditions. My spouse works in a very dangerous job, it is the union that protects his life and limb every single day. His company is private sector, makes a tidy profit, pays its shareholders. He earns a very good living and much more than I earn with triple the education (though my working conditions are less hazardous) as a non-union employee.
Unions DO contribute to political campaigns. The are major contributors. The other major contributors are the big corporations. If unions were to be “busted” out of existence, the big corporations would completely own Washington, DC. So we need a balance in terms of campaign financing, otherwise I think it could come down to a single party system — and we all know what that looks like.
All that being said: what about private vs. public sector unions? There is a difference and the difference, as some have pointed out, is that taxpayers foot the bill for public sector union workers. And because of that, there may be less will to be strong in negotiations with our public sector employees. In private corporations, there is a strong incentive to negotiate hard because the organization still has to make a profit and pay shareholders. In the public sector, elected representative may tend to be “soft” as their objective is re-election and they may not be too worried about taxpayers who foot the bill — presently or in the future through debts. So, while I think public sector employees should have the right of collective bargaining, some reform is likely in order.
We need to keep in mind that the 9 states who don’t allow public sector collect bargaining are in dire straits with their budgets. This shows that public sector unions are not necessarily the cause of budget shortfalls. Also Montana has successfully bargained with their unionized public sector workers (50% of whom earn less than $40K per year) and has a budget SURPLUS. This information does not come from an article but a discussion I saw on PBS with the governor of Illinois and Democratic Gov Schweitzer of Montana speaking on the subject.
Along with major changes in tax policy and the decline of unions in our country, we have seen major shifts in wealth disparity and stagnation in the incomes of the middle class. We still need them, even though some changes are in order.
You said: We need to keep in mind that the 9 states who don’t allow public sector collect bargaining are in dire straits with their budgets. This shows that public sector unions are not necessarily the cause of budget shortfalls.
What we need to keep in mind is that 45 states + the DoC are experiencing budget shortfalls. Isolating 9 who don’t allow public sector collective bargaining as indicative of something is complete fallacy and proves nothing. Public sector unions with unrealistic demands and entitlement mentalities unwilling to compromise and sacrifice like the rest of us can make a horrific situation all the worse, no doubt, and that’s what they have the potential of doing. The worst recession since the 1930s has caused the steepest decline in state tax receipts on record. State tax collections are 12 percent below pre-recession levels, while the need for state-funded services has not declined. As a result, even after making very deep spending cuts over the last several years, states continue to face large budget gaps. They are faced with stark realities and having to cut even more, and find ways to exist on less. Asking some teachers in Wisconsin to actually contribute to their own pension for a change like the rest of us is hardly asking too much of them. Nor is asking them to go to work and teach the kids they are paid to teach. I heard anecdotedly that Milwaukee test scores of students are abysmal. Havent looked into that myself. But if I lived in Wisconsin, I’d be all over what the ROI is.
I am well aware that state and municipal gov’ts are struggling in this Recession and that those who need state funded services continue to need them. The need for assistance is higher given so many unemployed, partially employed and underemployed.
The issue is the right to bargain collectively. It has been said repeatedly that the employees are willing to consider cuts to pay, benefits, etc in light of the economic problem. The governor of Wisc, unlike the governor of Montana, refuses to consider the dialog.
If 9 states where collective bargain of public employees is prohibited are still in dire straits, that is evidence that collective bargaining is not necessarily the heart of the problem. Prohibiting it in Wisc won’t necessarily end their problems, but it be a step toward dissolving the organizations that contributed to the campaign funding of the incumbent governor’s opposition.
And, as I pointed out: “So, while I think public sector employees should have the right of collective bargaining, some reform is likely in order.”
I have made NO comment on whether or not teachers in Wisc should be working in their classrooms. . . .
I support the right to bargain actually in the private sector. What I don’t support is the right of so called public servants to strike against the people. And ultimately that’s what they do. And i agree that collective bargaining by itself isn’t the cause of the budget woes…but it is contributing to making an already bad situation much worse when their demands are egregious and outrageous compared to the situations of those they are striking against–the public. No you didn’t make a comment about Wisconsin teachers–but you DID bring in the states and budget woes into the conversation, and that comment led to mine. That’s the way these conversations go–and not always the way we may choose or desire either. Its all good.
If there was actual total union busting, we could easily become another third world country, the worse case scenario/ Or just another serf-slave state and going back to the middle ages. But if that is the way you want for you and yours, don’t come whining to me when it actually happens.
I am confused by your comment to me, as I tend to favor unions and collective bargaining.
that was suppose to be a general comment supporting unions.
You said: “If there was actual total union busting, we could easily become another third world country…”
Can you talk about this further? What evidence or data supports this? What has happened in the past or is happening today that supports a correlation between non-union membership and 3rd world status?
In the USA union membership and popularity is at an all time low. But its NOT just the USA–its world wide. The USA isn’t the only country in the world seeing union membership nose dive.
There are a few reasons why labor unions have declined in America. First, labor laws (from FMLA, to ADA, to OSHA) have led to better treatment of employees and a safer work evinroment. In todays modern and improved workplace (not a 3rd world one!) employees have less of a need for union. Next, the economic equation has shifted from a two-party monopoly (union as labor supplier vs major corporation as labor buyer) vs. one of a much more multifactorial equation. In an era of strong international competition, one corporation doesn’t dominate a single industry and the two-party economic equation falls apart. Finally, the success of a labor union will reflect the competency of labor leadership. Competent labor leaders support corporate productivity, and corporate efficiency; long term corporate stability translates to long term union stability. The union thugs just don’t get that. They priced themselves out of the market, and they through their own lies, thievery and malfeasance created their own reputation that is no better than that of the corporations they rail against.
I agree that public and private sector unions are different animals. I disagree re the collective bargaining. It is my understanding that the original intent of collective bargaining in the private sector was for workers to be able to share in the profits they helped to create for the corporation–it’s only fair, plus gives workers an incentive to work harder.
Public employees, however, provide services, they don’t create profits. Public employees provide services which the taxpayers fund because it is what taxpayers want to see provided in their communities.
Mind you, I was a public employee for 30 years, in a right to work state. We had an employee association which was a lobbying group for public employees. It was voluntary, and very effective. (That particular state is not in dire straits–at this time.) I believe the states that are in bad situations are there because of promises politicians made in order to get votes. Unfortunately, those promises involved the largest portion of the states’ budget–personnel costs.
As Deborah said above, I think the Unions, in their current state, have become bloated organizations–and as bad in their own way as the governments and corporations on the other side of the table. A different type of emploer-employee interaction system is needed.
Reform, with regard to public sector unions, is definitely needed as I mentioned above Olga. In my state, it used to be you could get a pension with only 10 yrs of service. This has now changed to 20 yrs of service, and frankly, I would like to see it change to 30 yrs of service AND attainment of at least age 65 for a full pension with percentage amts for 20-25 yrs ATTAINMENTof age 65, One thing that used to occur quite often was with lawyers. They would run a private practice all of their careers into their 50′s, then settle into a state job for the pension that would be forthcoming in 10 yrs. For them, state jobs DO pay much less. For the nurses at our state hospital, the pay is comparable to any hospital. State social workers make less than those in regular hospitals, but more than most of us in private non-profit agencies. Teachers in my state are at the municipal level, but the state kicks in for the municipal pensions — the amt kicked in is decreasing. A necessary reform and one which will cause the municipalities to do some harder bargaining with the education associations in future.
Lisa, you mentioned FDR as favorable to unions. He was; however he was against public unions:
“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.” FDR’s warning. ♥