You are exactly right. Why doesn't ANYONE call this what it is? This is a money laundrying scheme; period!
Posted on 02/23/2011 9:02:12 AM PST by bigbob
After spending several days complaining about Governor Walker’s proposed compensation changes for state employees (as if a 100 percent match on pension contributions and picking up 87 percent of health insurance premiums were raw deals) the union operatives have shifted gears.
“It’s about rights, not pay,” is their new mantra. Organized government employee unions are expressing panic over their would-be inability to negotiate items other than pay. They are specifically troubled at the prospect of no longer being able to dictate work rules, engage in union activities during the work week or participate in negotiated procedures to mitigate their grievances against management.
News flash. The work rules and grievance procedures for public employee unions cost taxpayers dearly in loss of productivity; and state taxpayers can no longer afford to sit by while some employees engage in union-related activities rather than performing the duties for which they are presumably employed.
The various contracts between the state of Wisconsin and their multiple government employee unions contain dozens of provisions regarding guaranteeing the ability of union stewards to operate in and out of the workplace, often while paid.
They are allowed to use work interoffice mail, phones, email and fax machines to communicate union business.
They are guaranteed time off to attend union-mandated educational classes as well as to attend annual union conventions.
Employees on leave without pay to attend to union and contract bargaining activities are allowed to still accrue vacation and sick leave, not for time working for the state, but for time participating in authorized union activities.
The most-senior employees are generally allowed to bump down to a lower classification if they are minimumly qualified to perform the new job, yet they still maintain their current rate of pay when (or more precisely if) layoffs occur. This routinely leaves the newest employees the most vulnerable while reducing the cost-savings associated with employee attrition.
Those who do receive notice of layoffs are allowed to search for new employment while at work.
These work rules are so pervasive and the contracts are so arcane, that they actually mandate the size of the bulletin boards at the work place. (You think I’m kidding?)
The Employer shall provide bulletin boards at locations mutually agreed upon for use by the local Unions to enable employees of the bargaining unit to see notices posted thereon. Such mutual agreement shall be arrived at locally. The normal size of new bulletin boards will be eight (8) square feet. The Employer will maintain bulletin boards provided under prior negotiated collective bargaining agreements and they need not conform to the normal size. In the event any new bulletin boards are mutually agreed upon, the Employer shall pay fifty percent (50%) and the Union shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of such new boards.
None of these provisions give taxpayers more return on their investment in these employees. They may strengthen the union, but again that is counter-productive to the best interest of the employer (read: Taxpayer).
And the work rule insanity is not limited to state employees. There are a myriad of examples at the municipal and school district level, too.
As I wrote in November: Since the advent of government employee unions in the middle of the 20th Century, “the cost and scope of government in the United States has grown exponentially. Government employs more, attempts to do more, involves itself more and more into previously private matters and consumes larger and larger amounts of private sector wealth to fuel this binge. This growth is fueled by the influence of public employee unions, who gain their power through taxpayer paid union dues, which in turn are used to leverage policies that lead to the increase in the size, scope and cost of government, which means more public employee union members, which means more union dues and the cycle continues.
The result?
We now have more government jobs than manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.
We used to be a state where we make things. Now we are a state that makes excuses for why the government behemoth cannot be tamed.”
This budget repair bill is a step in taming the behemoth. The Walker Administration projects $330 million in savings over the next two years. What is not calculated is the increased productivity taxpayers will see when union business is no longer conducted on their dime.
You can’t balance the state’s budget by these measures alone, but without these measures, the budget won’t balance, workers will be let go, children will be kicked off Medicaid, or a combination of those results will occur.
So that, folks, is why changes to collective bargaining practices are included in the budget repair bill, alongside the wage and benefit changes. Doing so will save taxpayers money.
We all know the Union is doing their utmost to say they've given in, they've agreed to give-backs, so there's no need to change their collective bargaining "rights".
We have to be equally strong in getting the message out that it is ALL about the damage collective bargaining has done (and will continue to do) in the public sector.
It's not about being "mean" and it sure as hell is not about "rights". It's about what We the People can afford.
And Wisconsin is the first of many battles yet to come.
Sorry! I just realized that my paste chopped-off half the title - could you please correct it to read:
Union-Negotiated Work Rules for Public Employees Cost Taxpayers Dearly
Thanks.
As long as anyone accepts that public sector workers have a “right” to collective bargaining, the public fiscal condition will never be sound.
Same with Medicare, Social Security and Welfare. They are not “rights” conferred on them by God. And as long as they believe they are, we are going to be bankrupt some day. It’s not a question of “if” but “when.”
They are crapping their bloomers because their ability to have taxpayer-funded employees who are FORCED to join THE UNION AND PAY DUES essentially taking money out of taxpayers' pockets, sending it to the Union, and having them send it on to the DNC. How this is legal is beyond me.....we are FORCED to donate to the DNC as taxpayers, and the CHOICE not to contribute is thereby stifled.
You are exactly right. Why doesn't ANYONE call this what it is? This is a money laundrying scheme; period!
I’m okay with completely busting the public employee unions. They’re nothing but thugs anyway.
A simple solution would be to bar public employee unions from either directly or indirectly contributing to political campaigns.
Public Unions = Rent seekers
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.