This story was interesting. In Wisconsin, the governor and legislature threatened to eliminate the "collective bargaining right" for Wisconsin State employees. In protest, the Democrats walked out of the legislature, preventing a quorum. The Republicans have the votes to pass the law, but they need some Democrats physically present to get a quorum.
Unionized Wisconsin state employees are protesting. They are currently paid more than private sector workers. They object to the pay cuts that will probably come with the new law.
Some people are saying "Look out! Egypt style protests are coming to the USA!" That's not exactly true. Think about it. In Egypt, people were protesting "We want a new figurehead leader." In Wisconsin, the protest is "Unionized government employees should keep their high salaries."
That isn't an anti-government protest. It's a pro-government protest. The unionized government employees are literally saying "Taxes should be higher! Gimme!"
If you're a unionized government employee, you have a strong incentive to protest. The other taxpayers have less incentive to protest. They're too busy working to pay taxes to support the government employees!
In cases like this, the union usually hires "professional picketers", in addition to any angry workers. "Paid professional picketers" are extremely offensive. It's an example of astroturf and fake grassroots.
In the private sector, the reason for unions is to protect workers from a greedy employer. The real problem is that the State makes it hard for the workers to start competing businesses. If a worker is getting an unfair deal, he can't easily start a new business that competes with his large corporate employer.
Private sector unions are shrinking. Jobs are getting exported. Non-unionized employers are beating unionized employers in the market.
In government work, there is no "abusive greedy employer". By definition, everything the government does is legal (according to State logic). Who are the government workers unionizing against? They're protecting themselves from the taxpayers!
Government workers get pensions and retiree health care, which no almost private employers give. If I switch jobs, there's no pension benefit for me to lose. If a government worker switches jobs or is fired, he loses a huge chunk of his pension.
(A typical pension formula is "base salary" times "2%-3% per year of service". If you get fired or quit after 10-15 years, you lose a *HUGE* chunk of your pension. You miss the % increase *AND* the salary increase, raise and promotions. The incentive is to never quit, and never do anything could lead to getting fired. This places the State employee in a position where he can't quit.
In NYC, there's even more State employee pension abuse. The pension formula is not "base salary", it's "base salary plus overtime in your last year". The incentive is to rack up as much overtime as possible in your last year, bribing your supervisor if necessary.)
Many state governments are very bankrupt. Some are almost bankrupt on a current cashflow basis. They are very bankrupt if you include pension liability. Unlike the Federal government, states can't inflate their way out of bankruptcy. However, defaultlation is like as the Federal government, Federal Reserve, and banksters inflate.
As part of the recent "stimulus" package, the Federal government gave some money to states, so they could pay off their unionized workers. It's literally vote buying. Unionized workers typically vote for Democrats.
Suppose that more than 50% of the people work for the government. Then, it's impossible to reduce the size of government by voting. People who work for the government will always vote to keep a big government. People who work for the government shouldn't get to vote. Of course, no amount of voting legitimizes taxation/theft.
The protests in Wisconsin are not anti-government protests. They are pro-government protests. Unionized government employees are protesting to keep their high salaries. They are protesting for *HIGHER* taxes and *MORE* State power. They are literally protesting against the people who pay their salaries via the State taxation extortion racket.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Pro-State Protests
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"That isn't an anti-government protest. It's a pro-government protest."
Good point, I was thinking the same thing. The state has too many employees as it is. Rather than ban the "right" to collectively organize (how can this not be a natural right), they should eliminate most of the government departments altogether and let everyone go.
It's a good thing you put the hyphen in the title.
"In the private sector, the reason for unions is to protect workers from a greedy employer."
Nope. Any worker that feels not happy with his terms, can walk away freely. No one has an obligation to supply me with a job.
The purpose of any union is to steal the ownership of an enterprise, through picketing, mass non-compliance, and government help.
Union members are suckers of their own kind, they are thieves, no better than a federal reserve banksters.
If not for government (STATE) violence, then any entrepreneur worth his salt would lay them all at once (having prepared the groundwork first, of course), so they can see the truth as it is. They are replaceable, and that is their own fault.
In the free market there would be a stuffing companies offering to fill in all positions on a temp basis if necessary, to help businessmen fight these thieves.
This would put unions out of business in a hurry. The fact that there isn't such a thing proves unions reliance on state violence, when the state protects them, while they have broken their contractual obligations to their employer, by stopping work.
Some pro state trolls say : "well it is hard for a worker to find a new job". So? Therefore we need the socialism to help you deal with your own laziness, stupidity, and bad choices?
Trolling for the state today, FSK?
So what you are saying is that to be fair all workers should share the misery equally? Confound those evil state employees and their shameful benefits that no clear thinking american would countenance? Hopefully these protests are the thin end of the wedge -- the pushback from labor has to start someplace. All workers should have these benefits. Higher taxes on the rich solve a lot of these problems.
No, gotcha, you missed the point.
In a *REALLY* free market, workers who are mistreated would walk away from their jobs and start competing businesses. In a really free market, unions are unnecessary.
In a really free market, an employer burdened with stupid union contracts will lose out to his competitors.
In the present, unions are an attempt to patch a corrupt system.
I should have said "The 'official' reason for unions is to protect workers from a greedy employer." You should have read the next sentence "The real problem is that the State makes it hard for the workers to start competing businesses."
Unions can *ONLY EXIST* with collusion from the government. Union negotiations are backed by State power. For example, an employer can't fire members of a State-approved union for striking. Unions also exist because the corporate employer is shielded from competition, preventing new ununionized competitors from entering the marketplace.
In the present, I can't start my own large financial institution with a State-backed monopoly, even if I feel mistreated by my employer.
>Nope. Any worker that feels not
>happy with his terms, can walk away
>freely. No one has an obligation to
>supply me with a job.
That is not quite true. In the United Kingdom, you are expected to stay in each job for two years. You are allowed to leave your first job after maybe 1 year, but if you do this more than once or twice, you are effectively banned from working again or at least you will find it hard to get a decent job. I've heard some employers say you are not allowed to have more than 5 different jobs even over a period of a decade.
It is commonplace to put clauses in employment contracts saying you are not allowed to work for competitors for up to 1 year after leaving. I've seen very nasty court cases where this is actually enforced. One guy had to leave his new job and one employer had to close down his business. How the lawyers have the bare faced cheek to take on cases like this I don't know. Judges that enforce these clauses are disgusting and are not part of humanity.
In software the start-up costs are relatively small. It is quite possible to start up a software business. You do need a bit of luck though.
However if you are a mechanical engineer or chemist then perhaps the start-up costs will be too large.
The first thing any sensible society should do is to make sure capital is evenly distributed.
And also to make sure money is available without crushing debt.
FSK, I agree with your corrected statement, on the official version of the corrupted state explanation of unions.
I think not all would, should, or could start their own business in a completely free market, not that they shouldn't try or that they should be prevented from trying.
This is because there are many people who are simply machines and nothing more, they never aspired to gain any sort of intelligence, education, wisdom or imagination. By their own choices, they would be confined to performing a routine operations for someone else, and that is fair.
I agree with Chuck Homic that you had a good luck putting the hyphen in...LoL!
I did not get the point of the Anonymous... I think he was hoping for more government evil workers to be fired... if so, hell yeah man!
Protests or not, the fact is, these evil people currently sucking our blood will be all left on the street in carton boxes, because the state is going bankrupt. Doesn't matter what they do or how they protest. There will simply be no money. They pledged their allegiance to the evil, they have entrusted their future to the evil, against all people and against all good and against justice, - so they shall reap as they had sown. I saw it once in my life already, - in another country. I hope to see these evil creatures begging for crumbs once again.
Lot's of previously milked people then took their anger out on them, once their jack-booted state wasn't able to protect them anymore.
Just wait, folks, and you will see. Lots of oppressed and extorted do lay in wait and remember their names and faces of their oppressors, the opportune time is fast approaching.
"The first thing any sensible society should do is to make sure capital is evenly distributed." - by Anonymous
Yes, like in you work and I keep starting dumb ventures and keep wasting the capital that you create.
I like the idea.
Post a Comment