Sunday, October 18, 2009

Unions and Politics... an Unholy Alliance?

At one point California had to give out IOU’s instead of money. Pennsylvania just completed our state budget despite new sources of revenue by renting out land for natural resource drilling and new casino tax revenue. One of the smallest states in the nation (New Jersey) has an awful mess dealing with their insane property taxes despite annual enormous revenue from Atlantic City casino taxes. Ever wonder how the trail to state insolvency is ploughed? This article from today’s ‘Currents’ section in the Inquirer written by Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo has many of the answers. Their argument is that powerful state unions are draining funds from the states, and it is the politicians who give out those contracts that should be to blame. Is this article fair to unions? Some money quotes:

The governmor of a state is supposed to keep the spending in check. What does Gov. Corzine do it 2006?

"...when [Corzine] shouted at a Trenton
rally of about 10,000 public workers: "We will fight for a fair contract."
Corzine was, of course, management in that situation, not labor."

The situation in NY looks dismal… maybe this has something to do with it.

"Nearly 800 Gotham "rubber room" teachers who have problems on the job are
being paid not to work. Salary increases have been running at better than twice
the rate of inflation."

When did this begin?

A significant boost was President John F. Kennedy's decision to mobilize public-sector workers as a new source of political support.

Some additional stats:

"In New York City, where public-sector union benefits have grown twice as
fast since 2000 as those in the private sector, firefighters may retire after 20
years at half pay. Pension benefits for a new retiree averaged just under
$73,000 (all exempt from state and local taxes). To top it off, retirees receive
a health insurance policy that is worth about $10,000 annually."

The punch line:

"In the absence of tough-minded
leaders who will take on the public-sector unions, the fiscal future of states
and localities is bleak."

Posted by at
Labels: ,

5 comments:

  1. Debbie ZimmerNovember 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM

    Today, I'm not a union supporter, actually haven't been for quite some time. Their original objectives/purpose have passed their prime.
    When I saw/read the recent information on SEPTA strike demands and outcomes, I could only shake my head. Number one, what did the workers gain by marching on a picket line for a week--they just "lost" their salary increase. And speaking of which, it's a pretty nice increase given the current state of both the PA and Federal budget situation!
    Number 2, glad to see the Gov. state, "I have 60 counties that need attention..can't just stay in Phila". We can't let unions chart the future. Retiree benefits will gobbleup current worker benefits, just like what happened in the steel and other industries.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian McCannDecember 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM

    The tax payer is supporting union and allowing retirees to have great benefits when retired. People who do not work in a union do not see as much in their pay check and they are also paying for their health benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fatia KasumuFebruary 23, 2011 at 10:36 PM

    I believe the unions are here for a purpose, generally equal opportunity for their workers, but I agree with Debbie, unions have passed their prime. With this economy it is no secret that unions will be directly affected because the companies they work for are trying to manage themselves in this economy. The stats are very good, I've never knew they got 73,000 dollars! The unions should chill for now at least.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMarch 18, 2011 at 11:05 PM

    Unions do get paid a lot of money, often times way more than they ought to, but doing away with unions is a bad idea and unrealistic.
    There are a lot of benefits to being in a union, but these days unions are suffering from greed. I'm not talking about all unions of course. However, my dad works in an electrical union, and he knows first hand that his union (local 269) is putting itself out of business. On average, an apprentice makes around $20-$30 an hour. Electricians earn around $50 an hour, receive time and a half for overtime and Saturdays, and double time for Sundays. Needless to say, such high wages lead to unemployment. My dad has worked a total of 6 months in the past two years.
    Conversely, doing away with unions would take away some of the few things that we can't bare to lose, such as union unemployment, health care coverage, and retirement funds (yes, these are necessary. No one should have to work after they're 65). For some reason, every debate over unions leads to the banishing of unions altogether. Things do not always have to be so black and white. There is a gray area, an area were people like my dad would be more than willing to take drastic pay cuts if it meant full-time employment, and the unions would still exist. This gray area should be where the country is headed, but seeing as how the government is incredibly polar, no one wants to give an inch to reach a happy middle ground.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMarch 19, 2011 at 8:34 PM

    I believe unions in the beginning had good intentions, but temptation of money changed the way business between union leaders, employers and politicians transpire. Union leaders have learned how to manipulate the system. But do the unions protect and provide a service for the employees? This article expresses the intentions of unions, politicians but not the reason the unions are in business for.
    Terrie Hawkins

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Followers