September 10, 2007 8:30 AM
State employee pay higher than most but unions still pushing collective bargaining
Even though Colorado state employees' average salary is 9 percent above the national average, unions and Gov. Bill Ritter's office are still pushing for "partnership" legislation that would include collective bargaining, reports Chris Barge.
So why is Gov. Bill Ritter's office hosting a working group on "partnership legislation" that unions hope will include collective bargaining?The answer points to a vast philosophical chasm between pro-union Democrats and union- averse Republicans.
Follow the money, as they say, and the answer also points to the fact that unions pay big bucks to get Democrats elected.
Unions and Democrats in favor of partnership legislation point out that their latest appeal is not just about collective bargaining, where union representatives lobby management for higher wages and benefits.
"Employee partnerships are not about money," said Evan Dreyer, Ritter's spokesman. "They're about partnering with employees to give them a greater voice in state government. . . . From a taxpayer's perspective, it's about better customer service."
September 5, 2007
10:44 AM
Springs Repubnut writes:
If government employees won't accept what an illegal Mexian would take to work in state government, then we should fire the lot and send a recruiter to Jalisco to hire temporary seasonal workers to harvest our bureaucracy.
September 5, 2007
10:45 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
The real question is should unions be allowed to fleace members and spend their money on political issues the employee may not agree with? Though there are employers who create work conditions which foster a desire on the part of employees to have union protection, the net result is that the unions are even more oppressive in enslaving the union members for the union's own political purposes.
September 5, 2007
10:49 AM
Anonymous writes:
Of course its fine hogar, as long as they supporting dems, but if it was Repubs, you can bet your ass all hell would break lose. Freedom for libs, none for you!
September 5, 2007
11:12 AM
JW writes:
"Though there are employers who create work conditions which foster a desire on the part of employees to have union protection, the net result is that the unions are even more oppressive in enslaving the union members for the union's own political purposes."
There is a legit argument here, but using it as a blanket statement removes that legitimacy. If stated correctly, you would have to add "Sometimes" before "the net result". But of course, youre anti-union in all instances, so blanket statements serve you well as a talking point. That they are not always true doesnt bother you.
Wal-Mart is a case in point where a union would be beneficial, if properly administered. Having been a member of a union in the supermarket industry, I would say they are far more beneficial than not. Looking at the auto industry, on the other hand, there is an argument that they are a problem, as non-union workers appear to make as much while giving their employers much more flexibility.
All in all your "one size fits all" arguments are what business has been promoting in their anti-union propoganda for years. That you didnt think it through is just another example of your fundamental stupidity. And the hallmark of that stupidity is just buying the entire statement due to a few truths, without looking for OTHER truths which may not be as emotionally satisfying.
Still useless Hogar.
September 5, 2007
11:33 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
Storm in a teacup: of course the negotiations are behind closed doors. Seriously, what the Pubes are asking for is not "openness" but for the Dems and unions to show them their political playbook.
Anyway, good points JW: instituted properly, unions are largely beneficial. I agree with Hogar that we should curtail excesses, particularly when the union bureaucracy becomes self-serving and an essentially detached lobbying organization. However it makes sense to have a widespread proliferation of collective bargaining. The latter route is the only way to get companies/institutions to move on ANYTHING. Demands don't have to be huge, either, or cost the company much, like demanding better maternity leave, or asking for best practices standards, or giving a union rep a seat at the table with regard to budget decisions, etc.
Checks and balances, man, particularly where greed and/or tight budgets are involved.
September 5, 2007
11:33 AM
Anonymous writes:
How would walmart benefit from a union JW? Please do explain tool. Prices would go up, now instead of being worthless employees with low pay, they will be worthless employs that cant get real jobs with high pay and us, the consumer will have to be the ones that pay for it. You are nothing a but a leftist tool spouting the same tired leftist arguments. you were part of a union in the supermarket? See like I said, you are a loser that cant get a real job. I understand you probably moved on to better yourself and your income, something all those useless workers could do. If you are not making the money you want, its time to get an education or move on, its not the company that needs to subsidize peoples wants and pay higher wages cause loony libs like yourself think they should be making 25 an hour to stock shelves. You want benefits? Get a job that offers them, enough said useless libtard. Dont you have anything better to do then cut and paste lefty arguments you read elsewhere?
September 5, 2007
11:42 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
I've worked union and I've worked nonunion before. I think they are great if it is an industry that has safety problems or is easily able to exploit its employees.
In any industry where labor can be moved around the globe, I think a unionized industry will suffer, as we are seeing in the auto business today.
September 5, 2007
11:57 AM
Anonymous writes:
Unions simply help an immediate group at the expense of others. They have served their purpose, and the non union worker continues to prove they are better and do it on merit, not membership
September 5, 2007
12:08 PM
Anonymous writes:
For a bunch of "progressives" you douchebags sure like to hold on to outdated crap because your leaders give you your marching orders to hold onto it.
September 5, 2007
12:30 PM
Anonymous writes:
Welcome to RTLive blogging. Namecalling is next.
September 5, 2007
12:34 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
LOL, if you think it's "outdated" to have your labor exploited, you're just a LITTLE out of touch, 12:08.
Clearly unionizing Wal-Mart employees will not help Wal-Mart's bottom line. But is that REALLY what you value the most? Unionized workers at Wal-Mart means the prices there jump infintessimally for you, the consumer. Meanwhile, you may be ensuring that said "loser" is able to garner a sick day (for themselves or their sick kid at home, perhaps?). If you, the consumer, demonstrate a willingness to pay just slightly more for items, Wal-Mart may also feel less compelled to press their wholesalers, who in turn feel less compelled to have their stuff made at third world sweatshops.
But hey, if you'd rather shit on people here and abroad in order to pay 19 cents less for your anti-fungal cream, be my guest.
I'm also enjoying the cognitive dissonance of the people who claim the people who work at Wal-Mart are "losers" who need to move up in life. Meanwhile you'll vote to under-fund education and social security, whereby there is a larger workforce of the elderly and poorly educated. AND I'll bet you hate illegals, too? Please tell me my assumptions are wrong.
The party of family values my ass...
September 5, 2007
1:52 PM
Anonymous writes:
Oh Dirk, you liberal tool. Wal Mart is totally set up so the little mexican workers get to make just enough and still qualify for welfare and medicaid. Its win win for those folks, ask any mexican that works there! While the rest of us pay for our familys health insurance, theirs is free, plus they get food stamps, housing assitance, cash and the money they make is just extra. Why dont you just come out and admit, you are one of the tools that thinks the rich is to subsidize the ones that have less by cutting them big fat checks. I know damn right every idiot that lives downtown that attends Auraria seems to think they should be collecting a check, that comes from taxes from the rich so they can sleep till noon, drink till 3am and be professional students their entire life. Which is great, until the entire country follows their mantra and there are no taxes to collect. Democrats, party of ideas my ass, party of lazy pukes that wish to leach off of others. Hell everytime a dollar passes thru a dems hand to feed the poor they pockect 80 cents and pass on 20 cents.
September 5, 2007
2:06 PM
Church Lady writes:
Hogar, don't confuse your financial analogy with your church.
September 5, 2007
2:44 PM
Stand and wave writes:
Oh Mark, I've been waiting for this one.....
State employees should NOT be given the chance to be involved in collective bargaining. Since they are employed by the "state" they need to understand that they are indeed a part of the "problem", oops, "state". The standards for employment need to be higher than the private sector simply because of the public trust factor. Government employees have, historically, been the bottom of the barrel types. Time for a change and closer supervision along with ease of firing and NO union backing. Postal workers have a Union and you have seen what has happened to the rates even with mechanization! I can't imagine a more egregious situation than one both feeding at and being fed from a single entity. This proves that the liberal Dems are as piggy as the Neo Con Repubs.
September 5, 2007
3:12 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
1:52: since when did anything I say have to do with some broad defense of the welfare state or tax policy? Stick to the issues, man.
At any rate, anyone who works full time at Wal-Mart is unlikely to be able to qualify for food stamps. Medicare MAYBE. But I would argue that if I'm gonna pay taxes, I want my taxes going to good healthcare, not $500 billion and counting in unnecessary wars. I don't think the rich should "subsidize" everyone else. I think the rich should pay their fair share (and not have loopholes in the tax code just for them), and I think ALL of us should pay into robust--and highly accountable--public services, where the private sector cannot be as efficient. Do the numbers: health care is one of those services.
September 5, 2007
3:39 PM
Kathy writes:
State workers are protected by civil service and that's all they need. If they want to try the At Will mechanism the rest of us have, they can unionize....but not both.
September 5, 2007
10:29 PM
Anonymous writes:
If you think about it, most gov employees probably do need unions . Think about what has been going on with education . school budgets have been cut. higher education has been cut. Teachers pay too.
And the Dem party would do a better job on these domestic issues. Yes its true. Dems are better for all the people.
While the Pubs are only good for starting futile wars and destroying the middle class.
September 6, 2007
12:14 PM
The Brutal Icy Cold Hard Truth writes:
Good to see that the ACLU has won a big battle today, with a judge striking down key provisions of the Patriot Act.
Bush Republicans, like Senator Craig, have one more lump to swallow. (Senator Craig, especially, knows quite a bit about "swallowing")
Snicker
September 6, 2007
3:21 PM
Who Knows writes:
Dirk you say that unionizing walmart would result in a small raise in prices, yet you have argued before that paying a living wage to the farmworkers would cause a large increase in price.
Which is it?
September 7, 2007
4:48 AM
Anonymous writes:
Let's remember that great middle and lower-class entitlement program known as "big-and getting bigger" government , which has expanded more under Bush than any other president in history.
September 10, 2007
10:27 AM
Anonymous writes:
Wal-Mart, ha, what a joke.
Ok, I know they have some things we "NEED" like food at some and clothing, but for the most part, Wal-Mart is nothing more than another American Junk Store importing about 90% of their goods from China. So, Americans fill their garages full of crap, we send our money overseas, and now we have Union Whining, love it. Amazing how some behemeth like Wal-Mart is being discussed here- wasn't this about State Employees? As I digress, let me get back on the new point, Wal-Mart:
So, now with a union at Wal-Mart, those of you that shop Wal-Mart can spend more money for Chinese crap to fill your homes and still make the family richer. This country and our way of life are doomed!
25% of Americans read a book last year- SAD!
September 10, 2007
11:01 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
To Who Knows: When have I ever said that paying a living wage to farm workers would result in a huge incrase in price? You make it sound as if I would be against paying farmers a "living wage" anyway.
Let me just throw out a few points of clarification:
1. I am against the vast bulk of farm subsidies, since their spoils mostly go to large-scale agribusiness, and NOT to the little guy. Meanwhile they hurt developing nations who have ONLY crops to export.
2. I would prefer to see produce prices remain low, if nothing else than for better nutrition in our society. However, if we must pay more for small time farmers and their seasonal workers to make it, then we should be prepared to do that. I doubt that this would result in a huge increase in price. If it did, then we need to re-examine why.
Anyway, comparing the price of produce to the price of the crap you buy at Wal-Mart is really not the same thing. The practicalities of modern day manufacturing in a global economy is vastly more complicated than buying produce from around the world.
My overall point on the topic is this:
Crying over marginally higher prices in order that people are not exploited at their jobs, that they have access to time off, maternity leave, sick days, and holy shit even healthcare, is morally repugnant in my view.
All that said, with the updated notion that state employees are paid well above average, I still support the notion that they should be able to unionize. This should not be seen as tacit support for their union to then jack up wages and run amok. I support unions to the extent that they negotiate for good working conditions, not when they extort the employer or use their funds to lobby heavily.
September 10, 2007
11:19 AM
Anonymous writes:
Dirk,
nice points, but it's amazing that our State Employees would even have to think about unionizing. These folks are us and work for us. If we cannot pay people appropriately working for our govt, we are in big trouble. But again, let's ask what a fair wage is for what type of work. This country is filled with people spening money that could otherwise be saved for a "rainey day" (pardon the pun with the weather today), but people here in the USA feel the need to have "Stuff" to feel comfortable. It's basically the same as people eating too much to fill a void in their lives. So we have people spending more than they earn-plasma tv vs regular tv. Same thing, but everyone wants the $2,000.00 plasma. Point is, if I spend more than I earn, I want a raise, which may mean unionizing. So maybe we need to take a step back.....
September 10, 2007
11:40 AM
shaggy writes:
Of course TaxRitter is pushing for this. It is the Union that got him elected.
He's paying back the favor now.
Ritter has introduced 17 new tax increases already and he's only been in office for what a year or less.
This guy is a complete idiot.
Or should I say a complete Dimnicrat.
September 10, 2007
11:47 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
11:19: good points.
Here's where we can really start bashing both parties. As you say, the reason people may feel compelled to unionize is so that they can consume. But ultimately this consumption is actively encouraged by supply-siders, particularly when it comes to consumption by the wealthy (there is a great article in Slate about the conspicuous consumption of the wealthy, which may have been end goal all along of the Bush administration: http://www.slate.com/id/2173456/nav/tap3/ ).
So recriminations can come two ways: against the Dems who pander to unions, as well as the unions who in some cases may be frittering away tax money and/or undercutting corporate growth. On the other hand, we need to chastise extreme supply-side policies for encouraging consumption at the expense of saving and building equity, as well as lowering median income and increasing the gap between the wealthy and everyone else.
September 10, 2007
12:18 PM
feel the love writes:
"Employee partnerships are not about money," said Evan Dreyer, Ritter's spokesman. "They're about partnering with employees to give them a greater voice in state government..."
So Evan admits that the goal is about political power. Who determines the "voice" of the unionized employees? Couldn't possibly be the union leadership would it?
"From a taxpayer's perspective, it's about better customer service."
Really? Why would a union provide better customer service? Every interaction that I've had with union employees indicate the opposite, just saying it doesn't make it so.
September 10, 2007
2:32 PM
Anonymous writes:
You femdems kill me, if unions were GOP controlled you would screaming the exact opposite. Complete partisian tools you are
September 10, 2007
6:13 PM
Jimmy H. writes:
Unions exist for their own self-preservation. Employee representation is recognized as vital by American industry and is embraced as a way for mutual success.
Other than illegal employers who exploit illegal immigrants, there is a vanishingly small need for unions as compared to the turn of the last century.
Progress puts certain institutions out of business. If unions were smart, they would look for new opportunities and adjust to changing demands just like the industries they like to squeeze.
September 10, 2007
7:35 PM
shaggy writes:
Truth be told told, the FREE Unions have already outsourced themselves with greed.
Ritter wants a FORCED UNION dependant upon TAX INCREASES.
YES, we the taxpayers will pay for three more guys to stand around with the current 5 TAX paid employees to watch the one guy actually doing any work.
September 11, 2007
7:32 AM
David Hakala writes:
Why are Colorado state employees paid 9 per cent more than their counterparts in other states? With no union, the only answer must be that Colorado state government cannot compete effectively with its own private sector and other state governments on any other terms than payroll.
In other words, it sucks so badly to work for the state of Colorado that the state must pay a 9 per cent premium to get the workers it needs.
Yes, there is plenty of work for a union to do here besides lobby for higher wages.
September 12, 2007
11:54 AM
jay writes:
busted
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200709110005
shame on you RMN
September 14, 2007
9:25 PM
Anonymous writes:
Unions for State employees have been there all this time - they are nothing new. What is new is the access they are now getting to the employees - in many cases, the same access that private sector unions already have to private sector employees.
Frankly, if CO State employees are paid 9% more than surrounding states, I can't imagine how low the pay is those states. Perhaps the benefits are better????
While many State jobs pay the same rate as similar jobs in the private sector, a significant number more do not. In fact, many job descriptions are paid as much as 20% lower than similar jobs in the private sector. If benefits were primo, I'd say it balances out, but state benefits have a very high deductible, very high co-pays, and limited benefits - all for a premium higher than many in private sector pay for better benefits.
I get really tired of hearing about the stereotypical government employee lounging around doing nothing but being rude to taxpayers. While there may be a few like that, most State Employees do not sit around twiddling their thumbs - the ones I know consistently work more than 40 hours a week for the taxpayers benefit (without overtime pay), and many have multiple job roles - for the pay of one of those roles. For people who, for the most part, work REALLY HARD, there is not a fair compensation package.
Additionally, during lean budget years, State employees take the brunt of the budget cuts by not getting performance OR cost of living raises - all without a say in that decision, or work stoppages, or mass resignations. I'd like to see that fly in the private sector. These are dedicated people, doing the best they can in the bureaucracy they are forced to deal with. Cut them a break, for pete's sake. Overpaid, my foot.
Oh, and just because they are State employees does not mean they are not accountability-seeking taxpayers. I pay just as much in taxes as you do.