Why the anti-union animosity?

Here's another thing that irritates me about public employee unions. They wages earned are paid by taxpayers. Union dues are removed from wages so that non-public employees can represent their membership at the so-called bargaining table with the goal of getting the employer, which is US, to fork over more money. So, we the taxpayers are funding the unions, whose job it is to get more money out of us.

So, we the taxpayers are funding the unions, whose job it is to get more money out of us.

Here's another thing that irritates me about public employee unions. They wages earned are paid by taxpayers. Union dues are removed from wages so that non-public employees can represent their membership at the so-called bargaining table with the goal of getting the employer, which is US, to fork over more money. So, we the taxpayers are funding the unions, whose job it is to get more money out of us.

Economic nonsense is being reported as fact in most of the news reports on the Wisconsin dispute, the product of a breakdown of skepticism among journalists multiplied by their lack of understanding of basic economic principles.

Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans.

Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, created the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not.

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the “contributions” consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply “contribute more” to Wisconsin’ s retirement system (or as the argument goes, “pay their fair share” of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin’ s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

The labor agreements show that the pension plan money is part of the total negotiated compensation. The key phrase, in those agreements I read (emphasis added), is: “The Employer shall contribute on behalf of the employee.” This shows that this is just divvying up the total compensation package, so much for cash wages, so much for paid vacations, so much for retirement, etc.

Blaming the unions for the fact that the State has badly mismanaged their finances over the years is folly.

Quote:

Blaming the unions for the fact that the State has badly mismanaged their finances over the years is folly.

That has never to this point worked with sports talent blames owners for paying them so much when fans start to complain about high ticket prices. Fans blame both sides, and rightly so. You seem to live in a fantasy world, reality does not support your assertions.

I find your opinions to be uninformed and uninteresting, because they basically consist of you asserting that everyone else thinks like you do.

Quote:

I find your opinions to be uninformed and uninteresting, because they basically consist of you asserting that everyone else thinks like you do.

Bullshit...I am asserting that in the like situation of sports

hawk has the tendency to create other issues that isn't even part of the discussion. I'm not sure how he assumes that athletes and unions can be discussed as equal issues. It only shows he has never studied Econ 101. All this is explained well in this course.

Athletes earn through individual contracts, not unionized contracts. Your ignorance continues to show.

Enjoy the NFL while you still can. It could be a lot different this time next season. If there is a next season...

Far too many fans are still unaware of the fact that the 2011 season is likely to be lost because of a labor fight. In short, the owners are asking the players to take 18% less revenue than under the current agreement, which expires in March. The players don't want to do this without the owners opening up their financial books and showing that it is necessary to sustain the league.

almost 100%.

except for the part about 2 extra games.

In an interview with AP on January 13, NFL negotiator and outside counsel Bob Batterman – a key figure in this negotiation -- used a figure of $500 million of incremental revenue from the added games. When asked about the union not being interested in the 18-2 season, Batterman responded “That is $500 million that is not going to be generated, of which they would have had approximately half”.

In a labor dispute that is now separated by number not far off from $500 million, the 18-game schedule could be a bridge to labor peace. This is the reason why I have called the 18-game schedule a “game-changing issue” in this negotiation.

Good for business of the NFL

As Commissioner Goodell has noted about the CBA negotiations, this is a “business dispute”. And the 18-game schedule is good for business, as it creates new revenue to be shared by the players.

A better way to spin the 18-game schedule, which I think will be in the next CBA starting in 2012, is that it grows the revenue pie by $500 million, approximately half of which will go to the players.

When players see $250 million available to them for agreeing to this – in addition to concessions such as increased roster size, post-career health coverage, and much less contact in training camp – it becomes an easier “ask”.

When someone says, “It’s not about the money”, they usually mean: “It’s all about the money.

I've been following the negotiations.

have you?