By Patty Ewing Robichaud on March 7, 2011
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson
One of the big stories dominating the news is the crisis in Wisconsin and the problem a the public sector union. Public opinion is divided, and the liberal media is only telling part of the story.
Union members would tell you that they are protecting their own. Liberals will tell you that unions are good and true champions of the middle class. In fact, some of the latest assaults on on those opposing union rule are becoming more subtle and try to assure the reader of their “truth.”
Such is the case with this article on alternet.org: Public Employee Unions Don’t Get One Penny from Taxpayers and Can’t Require Membership, But the Big Lie That They Do Is Everywhere. This hit piece is circulating the Internet and Facebook as proof positive that unions do not do the things we know unions do.
I debated this article with a very liberal man who re-posted from his college educator (pro-socialist) friend. Of course, there was much chest thumping and trumpeting that the truth had finally come out – but had it?
[Last names have been removed to protect these individuals from mockery.]
My reply: There was no choice whether to belong to the public employee unions I was a part of – and NO CHOICE how my dues were spent. My taxpayer-funded wages were higher than private sector ones for the same work, as were the benefits. However, the higher wage was somewhat compromised by the percentage of my pay the union took. I did not agree with their candidates, and I did not agree with the chronically bad employees they protected. To me, that was wasteful with taxpayer dollars – and perhaps taxes would go down if public employees’ salaries didn’t have to be boosted to pay union dues and protect bad employees.
[Disclosure: I worked for a school district and a city within Los Angeles County, CA.]
Lou Ann: Higher pay than the private sector and better benefits? I wish I could say the same. I have slightly better benefits and much lower pay. Totally agree with the complaint about the protection of bad employees.
Me: As a secretary to a secretary at a school district in Los Angeles County, I made close to $40,000, school district paid 7% into retirement benefits, 12 sick days, 12 vacation and 15 holidays – so 39 paid days off the first year! And that wa…s in 1998. Private sector at that time and area paid $30,000-$35,000 for the same work, with about half of the paid time off, and only some matching funds to a 401(k).The school district required only 20 years’ employment to qualify for retirement.
The city job paid much more than that, for secretarial work.
Thayne: I think Patty you are operating under the assumption that the private sector pay was “correct” somehow, while the public sector pay was not. I would not agree with that assumption.Also, at least in Wisconsin, it is not the case that public …sector employees earn more than their private counterparts. See http://mediamatters.org/research/201102220021 (Yes, Patty, this is a dreaded Media Matters link, but no matter because you can follow a link to the original source material).
I would say that you did have a choice in how dues are spent in that you had a vote within the union. Majority wins. A system in which every member can determine how dues are spent is unworkable and makes no sense.
Me: Yes, majority wins – but there is no choice if you do not have a choice as to whether you pay union dues. And of course the protected bad class or employees get to vote, too. It runs off the better employees because it can be disheartening….Thayne, do you belong to a public-sector union?
And private sector has killed its share of businesses, too. I watched my dad and his Teamsters put an end to Western Airlines. They killed their golden goose. First, by requiring two people to do a one-man job, then striking for top wages in their field…then they wondered why that business model did not work. If you have ever run a business, then you know the answer to that question.
I have read enough of Media Matters to know that they have left behind any impartiality and that they only find tainted information and polls to support their assertions – which are focused entirely on bringing down Fox News – even if they …have to go to back several years.I would like to see an impartial study. Even PolitiFacts (very left leaning) could not discount total income/benefits for public vs private sector in WI:
“According to a national compensation survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total cost of compensation to private industry employees last year came to about $58,000 ($41,000 for salary; $17,000 for benefits).
“So Bolling’s total compensation number for Wisconsin teachers is high, and for private sector employees, it’s is low.
“On his show the following night (Feb. 22) Bolling said in the numbers he had posted the night before, “our math was off a bit.” A new graphic, he said, showed the unweighted average for Wisconsin teachers for the 2010 school year: a $51,000 salary, plus $30,000 worth of benefits (for a total of $81,000 worth of compensation). For an average private sector worker, he said, the salary in 2010 was $46,000 with $20,000 worth of benefits (total compensation $66,000).”
Here is more on the topic:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/17/watch-wisconsin-part-iv-the-salary-info-big-labor-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
And for the brainiacs who enjoy legal language on why some unions can require membership:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-174.html
Could I have been more articulate and brief? No doubt. But my research stands for itself.
What do you think?
