pmconusa you fail to mention the transfer of benefit costs that occurs when a rehire is done.
Wrong again, the retire rehire thing was a change in state retirement laws not just a local school group.
It would behoove you to look up the pertinent laws etc..
But I can still see that it’s fairly laughable to think that a breakaway segment of workers would negotiate a contract with more favorable terms than a large collective bargaining unit could, or that any take it or leave it offer would be more favorable for a worker than something negotiated.
I don't think it's at all laughable that lots of individual workers would prefer a take-it-or-leave-it offer in preference to the union's terms. What constitutes "more favorable terms" isn't the same for everyone.
Consider that the union's negotiating position must straddle competing interests among its membership. Even if we assume that the union actually extracts a compensation premium for its members (and this is not a certainty) there are, for example, some members who prefer expanded health insurance to wages and and vice versa. From an employee's point-of-view, an expensive concession made to the union by the state may be of little or no value to him.
So, hypothetically, if the state offered a separate compensaion package to non-union employees, it wouldn't much matter how great a premium the union might extract (assuming it could succeed at all). Some employees inevitably would find the non-union package to be more valuable.
We also have to consider that union dues are a headwind for the union: before it can claim success in gaining higher compensation, it must first get the state to make up the cost of dues.
As I wrote -
Once such an offer is in place, all employees would have a choice, and union membership would become a mere matter of convenience. The notion that workers need union "protection" would be revealed as the pretense that drives the union's extortion racket.
WHAT HAPPENED TO MSEA'S NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR?
Is it true that Eric Noyes is no longer in that position already? The website for that union/PAC now shows his position as “Vacant” for some reason…FMI, see https://www.mseaseiu.org/index.php/our-staff/ ---MF
That's really weird!
Maybe Eric Noyes started reading this website.
Or maybe he found Rod Hiltz's old sign saying "This would be a great place to have a union."
And once enlightened Noyes bailed before the train wreck.
Which could mean MSEA is way beyond just being an earth shaking embarrassment.
Oh well, you can't say you didn't hear it here so...
Don't mourn, pulverize.
Because you can't make chicken stew out of chicken sh!t.
Bruce: I didn't say Brunswick enacted the law changing some of retirement provisions because teachers pensions and other state and government workers are covered by state law not local ordinances. The Brunswick teacher's union may be the first and maybe the only one to take advantage of the changes. That is neither here no there because it is the unions influence that got the changes made. It certainly wasn't for the advantage of the taxpayers. These facts, though interesting, are immaterial, whether researched or not.
Featured Video — CRC at the Mark Janus Supreme Court Rally
Posted at: https://capitalresearch.org/article/featured-video-crc-at-the-mark-janus...
This 3-minute video gives an interesting perspective of what it was like to be down in DC for the SCOTUS hearing of Janus vs. AFSCME... union bullies being union bullies.
I think you should talk to Angus King since he was instrumental in initiating the changes years ago.
The reason why was very specific and has since been broaden/been abused IMO.
But the facts are not immaterial. They are material and paid attention too they would probably show you are wrong.
The actual influence came from a shortage of math and science teachers caused by the retirement of baby boomer teachers in those fields.
As for advantage for taxpayers there was advantage in benefit savings
From experience and involvement with union officials there was significant opposition to the entire process after it expanded beyond its'
But do not let any of that dissuade you and your knowledge.
Are you going to answer my question?
Well thanks for that softball question, Matt, and I apologize for the delayed response on this busy Saturday.
At this time, I'd say the Maine State Law Enforcement Association is a true labor union that does a good job for their members.
FMI, see www.mslea.org and http://www.maine.gov/oer/contracts/mslea/index.htm
UNITED PUBLIC SERVICES EMPLOYEES UNION
I would also add that UPSEU, headquartered in Long Island, does a good job for it's members.
That's because they are a "bread and butter" union.
Which means they focus on their members' representation services and not political campaigns.
But I hope people who read this website don't think I am anti-labor union.
Because I am no more anti-labor union than I am anti-corporation or anti-law firm or anti-restaurant.
I am just anti-bad labor union like I am anti-bad business and anti-bad law firm and anti-bad restaurant.
And last but not least I am very much for freedom of choice, movement, speech and religion.
All of course which mean nothing without the right to bear arms!
I will offer those unions that are good, meet a need the members see as needed.
It is a myth that members do not need protection, hopefully they do not need it, but when management doesn't live up to its' agreed upon provisions
it is needed.
Hey Matt, since you indicated that you don't have any direct experience with labor unions, one statement seems a bit odd: "I’ll also assume that you had no idea workers do indeed have an avenue to opt out of their dues $ going to political contributions."
Will you explain your understanding of how "workers do indeed have an avenue to opt out of their dues $ going to political contributions" when employed by the State of Maine and dealing with either AFSCME or SEIU?
Matt, with regard to another one of your statements: "But I can still see that it’s fairly laughable to think that a breakaway segment of workers would negotiate a contract with more favorable terms than a large collective bargaining unit could, or that any take it or leave it offer would be more favorable for a worker than something negotiated."
While I fully support your right to have that personal opinion about what a "breakaway segment of workers" can or can't negotiate on their own, why do you even care?
While this labor issue involves many aspects, one of the largest things involved here is a worker's right to freedom of choice to support or not support an organization. Do you recognize that problem?
Nice try Bruce but your argument fails because the jobs, which paid about $30,000 a year back then were never advertised to those who graduated from teachers colleges and could fill them. By the same token, those who reached 62 were not forced to retire because retirement is not obligatory it is optional as are all labor contracts. The latter I believe stems from the fact that involuntary servitude is prohibited.
Mel nailed it ! Rule #s 1 and 2 !
Why don’t you explain how union members can opt out, since as you noted I’m not an expert. Am I wrong? Does everyone have to pay the same amount, and have their $ go to whatever the union wants?
As for “why do I care”? It’s because right to work isn’t about bad unions, or giving workers choices, it’s about getting rid of unions, and lowering wages of working people in the process.
I’m curious if any right to work states have had stronger, alternative unions formed once the law has been passed. Are workers doing better? Or are companies just choosing to move to/open in states with weak unions because the cost of doing business is cheaper?
Average wages are a bit lower in right-to-work states. Unemployment also a bit lower. Average income is a bit higher.
It's hard to tease conclusions out of these marginal differences. Right-to-work states also tend to have lower costs-of-living.
Once workers opt out of unions they seldom join "stronger, alternative unions" or any other union again. Labor union participation in private business has fallen to less than 7%.
Economike: Because of our economic system, a person has to work in order to survive. That places an employee in the untenable position of having to accept whatever an employer wants to pay and that is the minimum to sustain life and that is what we have defined as slavery or involuntary servitude.
The real minimum wage is our economic system is zero, because there are people who will actual volunteer their time, the reason being they already have enough money and don't need more and most of that work is being performed for charitable organizations or those who do not pay corporate taxes like political parties.
In the economic system I propose in my book, natures wealth, in the form of a medium of exchange, is given, up front, to everyone and those who work can obtain some of it from others for the services or goods they provide. That makes my proposed system far different than socialism or communism. Those currently benefiting excessively from the current capitalist model would see their excess disappear and there would be no more poor. They will not allow that to happen. Since they control the government that determines who gets how much of what, it won't until it is too late to adopt another model.
Bruce: I'll save you the trouble: WTF
Hey Sonny, look at what the BDN reported:
Maine state employees’ union lost another leader
The embattled Maine State Employees Association is looking for its third executive director since late August. The union representing 13,000 state employees announced Executive Director Eric Noyes’ resignation to union members on Monday. The union’s former president, Ginette Rivard, will serve as interim executive director.
Noyes was hired in January, replacing a former executive director who quit after members’ August move to accept a contract with the LePage administration trading raises for “right to work” language. An official said last month that the union lost fees from 2,000 workers who aren’t members.
BTW, does anyone happen to know if that's the same Eric Noyes who was arrested in 2013? FMI, check out this article (emphasis added):
Most of the Arrested Anti-Right-to-Work Protesters Have SEIU 'Dues Skim' Connections
Jan. 14, 2013
“Seven of the eight people facing felony charges for their alleged actions on Dec.6 at the State Capitol are affiliated with the SEIU Healthcare Michigan union.”
“The names of the eight union protesters arrested on Dec. 6 are: Joshua Kersting, Chreda Troutman, Eric Noyes, Stephen Cousins, Brett Matthews, Scott Holiday, Benjamin Wilkins and Ida Sinclair-Williams.”
“Troutman, Noyes, Matthews and Cousins are all listed on the 2011 SEIU Healthcare Michigan LM-2 report.”
“According to the report: Cousins received $59,213 in 2011 for political activities and lobbying; Noyes received $48,361 in 2011 for political activities and lobbying;”
“Noyes was described by sources as, until recently, having been the head of organizing for the union.”
The reason why I asked that question, Matt, is because you clearly have the talking points that are used by political activists supporting Forced Unionism and that money laundering scheme.
The accounting games within some of the public sector unions/PACs are now being exposed, and the Janus vs. AFSCME case could finally outlaw that anti-worker process. In light of the accounting games that have been taking place, it doesn't really matter what's on paper for "how union members can opt out" since so many of those union/PAC bosses just do what they want with the money anyway.
BTW, Matt, can you tell us the real reason why Eric Noyes didn't last as Executive Director at Maine SEIU?
There's also a great free book about this very subject titled 'Stranglehold: How union bosses have hijacked our government' by Reed Larson. You should read it, Matt, as it’s extremely informative and is available at http://www.nrtw.org/stranglehold-0 and other websites.
Look I gave you background on the retire rehire thing.
I never said anything about retirement except that was part of issue to begin with.
I never posed an "argument".
I never said I agreed with the retire rehire thing.I don't. I could have done it 2011 and chose not to.
As a matter of fact it isn't in any union contract at all that I know of. It is part of retirement law.
It's no trouble at all just very applicable to your posts and your superiority.
WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY!
"Hey Sonny, look at what the BDN reported: 'Maine state employees’ union lost another leader'" ---MF
Inquiring minds want to know!
What's that all about?
Eric Noyes starts in January 2018 and like Caesar he is out the door on the Ides of March 2018.
Was his exit voluntary or involuntary?
Either way MSEA members need to ask their Reps: "What happened and why?"
Did he bail before the train wreck?
Because Ginette Rivard won't be an improvement.
She'll just be more of the same as she always has been.
Brucie responds with WTF to everything simply because it's the only thing he knows how to spell.
Smegma just pmconusa' blather !
I wouldn't even consider using it on anything you posted !
When U. S. industry priced its labor out of competition with the world market, jobs in the manufacturing industry were lost and are not coming back because we keeping believing raising the minimum wage will make our labor cheaper. How stupid is that. The rise of the information age has now priced our service industry out of competition with the world's knowledge workers, particularly those who speak English. Even now, that industry is working diligently to figure out how to eliminate more human labor because it is the single variable cost they cannot control but must be passed on to the consumer. The consequences, our colleges and universities are producing more and more applicants for jobs that do not exist or are in the process of elimination.
Certain service monopolies are protected and unionized such as government workers because what they do cannot be done outside the country. Unions in the military industrial complex are protected by government fiat that demands their supply of raw material and subcontracted components be purchased from domestic sources. If General Dynamics, which is one of Maine's biggest employers didn't have this mandate and could purchase components from the cheapest sources, which all happen to be overseas, all jobs in their supply chain would disappear. Bath Iron works, makes very little of what it assembles into finished product, just like the automobile companies and they are not encumbered with buy America rules.
The end result is our schools are churning out more prospective job applicants, nearly all with no experience at anything and the jobs they are vying for are far fewer, making it a buyers market. Simply examining the nation's demographics shows that about 7 million are reaching retirement age but 10 million are reaching the age where they have to work for a living. A good percentage of those are putting themselves deeply in hock for jobs they won't get to pay back the loans. At 3.5% the banks could have half of these loans go belly up and still come out even.
If we ever came to the realization that we are not threatened by invasion from the countries or organizations currently deemed as enemies firms like General Dynamics would disappear. While we were looking to these countries, Iran, Russia, North Korea and Syria, Mexico has infiltrated millions of Mexicans into this country and your government is clamoring for more. This is just as stupid as raising the minimum wage.
The politicians from both sides of the aisle whom support Forced Unionism should be forced to read this article, as it details exactly what's been happening right here in Maine and all over our USA:
Unions, 2018: The Intimidation Game
Mar 14, 2018
“From pressure to shaming to threats. Behold the face of unions, 2018.”
Moving Forward: Politicians don't support forced unionism anymore because the original reason to do so was because they mistakenly believed the union bosses could deliver the votes of their members. Unlike the African American community is usually delivered to the Democrats because their leaders, like Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson and the like still carry weight in controlling their flocks. How many Republicans are in the so-called black caucus?
Unions can no longer deliver votes to the Democrats in the numbers initially delivered. When you go to work for a company that has been unionized you automatically become a member of that union and required to pay dues. Most of that dues money went to Democrat politicians campaigns. When many of the members that are unfortunately not in significant number to be organized to decertify the union, objected to paying to support politicians with whom they disagreed as to policy they lost their battle in the courts regarding the payment of dues. With the judiciary controlled by the Democrats this was a no win situation to begin with. Now they find themselves, like the parents who home school their children because they are dissatisfied with what they are being taught having to pay anyway.
Good morning, pmconusa!
You posted "Politicians don't support forced unionism anymore because the original reason to do so was because they mistakenly believed the union bosses could deliver the votes of their members."
If that's true, why then to so many current and/or past politicians still support Forced Unionism?
In addition, since Forced Unionism goes directly against the Republican platform in Maine, can you explain why so many Maine R's support it?
For your convenience, here are some of the Maine R's that have proven their in-that-camp:
Rep. Matt Pouliot;
Sen. Roger Katz;
Sen. Scott Cyrway;
Sen. Tom Saviello;
Rep. Tim Theriault;
Sen. David Woodsome;
Sen. Dana Dow;
Sen. Kimberley Rosen;
Rep. Jeffrey Pierce;
Rep. Dick Campbell
and we can’t forget US Senator Susan Collins.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
Moving Forward: For the very same reason they support Social Security, Medicare and all the other entitlement programs. If they didn't they would lose the votes they think they might be getting by opposing them. By the way there is no such thing as forced unionism. You are not required to join a union but you don't get to bargain for your salary and benefits and you don't get to have union dues not deducted from your salary or wages. Its like the public education system, the state cannot mandate school attendance but they can make you pay for it, even if you send your children to private school, home school or don't even have children. Tell me where in the U. S. Constitution or the Constitution of Maine does the Congress or the state legislature get the power to do that?
LOL... hey Bruce, that's exactly what I thought as I read his/her post... WTF?