When Will The Madness Stop?

[Bill Call]

What Government Unions Really Think Of You

From the article:

Albany Police Officers Union President Chris Mesley says that, regardless of the faltering economy, a no-raise new contract is unacceptable.

And to hell with the public.

"I'm not running a popularity contest here," Mesley said. "If I'm the bad guy to the average citizen . . . and their taxes have go up to cover my raise, I'm very sorry about that, but I have to look out for myself and my membership."

Mesley added: "As the president of the local, I will not accept 'zeroes.' If that means . . . ticking off some taxpayers, then so be it."


http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/20 ... lly-think/

[Dustin James]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Union_history
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union representing about 1.8 million workers in over 100 occupations in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. SEIU is focused on uniting workers in three sectors: health care (over half of the union's members work in the health care field), including hospital, home care and nursing home workers, public services (local and state government employees), and property services (including janitors, security officers and food service workers).

Okay. Is it possible that this is a very good recruitment tactic? What a super hedge against the inflation that all regular citizens face! If you are unionized, money keeps coming in for raises whether it can be afforded or not (see Detroit Mich. for examples). It's not arrogance, it's just good business.

When unions started, it was to protect regular workers from the abuses of big business. Unfair pay practices, overly long hours. The assumption was that the workers were all good and the big bad employers were mostly all bad.

Now we have something entirely different. People who cannot be fired and who do not have to meet standards of performance of the job. It's a welfare mentality and has only caused problems.

Imagine a government run health system along the lines of one gigantic Medicare program. Chances are, all the workers would be unionized (they would have no choice). Right off the bat, you have a system that can only get more expensive, because there can never be concessions or performance reviews. And to top it all off, if demands aren't met for say triple holiday pay, your government doctor/nurse team might be on strike when you have that inconvenient heart attack.

Don't think it could happen? I'd love to think that the public interest is in mind, but can't think of a single example.
Just sayin.

[Will Brown]

[quote="Dustin James"][url]http://en.wikipedia.orgAnd to top it all off, if demands aren't met for say triple holiday pay, your government doctor/nurse team might be on strike when you have that inconvenient heart attack.

[/quote]

The most apparent flaw in your argument is that Medicare does not employ treaters, such as doctors and nurses. It is simply a vast inefficient army of clerks who decide whether or not to pay the cost of your treatment, like any insurance company.

And I'm pretty sure federal employees, even if unionized, are forbidden to strike.

[Dustin James]

Remember, I said IMAGINE a government run system....along the lines of Medicare, not what it is today.

Look into the future and envision how it could c h a n g e.

You are right, the provider network (treaters as you call them) would have to have a buffer entity created. They would merely be controlled by and depend upon the government, something like what the insurance companies that process medicare for the government are today. But a lot bigger. So big, that the unions would definitely be players and why not, they can guarantee concessions!

First the government has to control the payments. Follow the money. With vast sums of money to distribute, there is a certain "float" that happens. Social security is not in a "lock box" it's in the general fund, it floats... and is running out an alarming rate. Money we all paid into and would like to think is there. It's not.

Once payment to providers is secured, then the squeeze is on to deliver the same quality of care for less and less money.

Some doctors will get out of the business, while others, perhaps from countries with less high standards of living will be happy to take the decreasing payments. The shortfall of qualified providers (particularly nurses) is already at the breaking point. Open the floodgates of "free" health care and you have a perfect storm. You think emergency rooms are bad now...

It is at this crossroad that health care will become highly rationed. The providers will band into consortia of unionized provider networks. They won't actually work for the government, because no one could sue the government for malpractice. My lord, the lawyers that make up the congress would never stand for that. But they will depend on the government, because that is where the huge windfall of public money is.

So the government will then be in a pickle. They have to support unionization, but will also see the tides turn against them as more and more concessions start to make costs rise. Again, see what this did to the Detroit auto industry. Major consortia will have slow downs based on not having enough money to hire care professionals, unless of course the government increases payments (read ever-increasing taxes).

How will the government control this escalating cycle? Well, they have the (our) checkbook. They might be able to work you in for a bypass if you're under 65 and can wait 6 months. Let's wait and see.

If you don't think this can -or will happen, that is your perception of reality. I would submit we have far more examples of the possibility than not, based in part on other public socialized programs throughout the world and in part by our sheer country size.

There needs to be reform in health care and the government can help with safety nets, tort reform, cross-state line policies, etc. But if they exclusively run the payment system, look out for the public getting the short end of the stick.

.

[Bill Call]

If you are unionized, money keeps coming in for raises whether it can be afforded or not (see Detroit Mich. for examples). It's not arrogance, it's just good business.

(

The end game for many cities and some states (and school systems?) is chapter nine bankruptcy:

http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourt ... pter9.html

I find it incredible that at a time when job losses are accelerating and people in the private sector are accepting pay cuts and loss of benefits government unions are demanding more. The man quoted in the article is probably catching hell for speaking the truth. Better he had said: "You are going to endanger the community!".

Over the next few years the Lakewood system will have fewer students and fewer employees but the schools will increase spending on wages and benefits by almost 20%. I find that astonishing but lately I'm in a constant state of astonishment.

The Dream Time for the government unions is that time when the membership lives outside the community they work in and the community is increasingly inhabited by people who consume resources but do not produce them, by people who use tax payer services but do not pay taxes. Passing tax increases is easy, after all the other guy pays the bill.

Dream Time doesn't last forever, sometimes it's followed by Nightmare Time. On rare occasions the community wakes up before the Nightmare begins.

[Tim Liston]

It’s my understanding that Harrisburg, PA nay declare bankruptcy on March 1st, what could be the second (Vallejo, CA was first) in a wave of municipal and state bankruptcy declarations. Cities and states are long past the point where their generous salaries and pensions can be afforded.

It’s gotten so bad that mere mortals (journalists) can’t comprehend the numbers. Check this out….

The Plain Dealer carried a piece this morning that said “The nation’s public pension funds have fallen about $1 billion short in their obligation to cover retirements, health care and other benefits….”

Well I knew that wasn’t right, that the real shortfall is closer to $1 trillion (i.e. a thousand billion). The Toledo Blade carried the same report with the $1 billion reference, online….

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100218/NEWS24/100219611/0/SPORTS12

Well sure enough I knocked around and the real number from the organization cited in those pieces (Pew Center) is in fact $1 trillion, see….

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=56695

The PD and Blade piece was originally written by a Columbus reporter and none of the journalists in Columbus, Toledo or Cleveland was well enough versed in the issue to get it right.

By the way that $1 trillion dollar figure is just for the 50 states, not for municipalities and the federal government. The total public employee pension shortfall is upwards of $3 trillion.

Ohio’s five public pension plans, including STRS and PERS, are at least $50 billion combined in the hole. That’s just about the same as Ohio’s two-year budget. Unless the federal government and the Federal Reserve engineer an inflation that effectively wipes out this obligation, Ohio has no choice but to eventually declare bankruptcy and renege on its pension promises.

[Roy Pitchford]

Ohio’s five public pension plans, including STRS and PERS, are at least $50 billion combined in the hole. That’s just about the same as Ohio’s two-year budget. Unless the federal government and the Federal Reserve engineer an inflation that effectively wipes out this obligation, Ohio has no choice but to eventually declare bankruptcy and renege on its pension promises.

This is why, if I had the option, I would NOT pay in to the OPERS system. I'm currently UP on my investments by about 15%. If I'd had that extra money every month, its impossible to say where I would be financially.

But no, we are all too stupid to save for retirement on our own. We might spend that money. The government must step in and save us from ourselves.

Sorry, got off on a bit of a tangent there...

[ryan costa]

how much did Marshall Matt Dillon pay Deputy Festus?

[Bill Call]

The Plain Dealer carried a piece this morning that said “The nation’s public pension funds have fallen about $1 billion short in their obligation to cover retirements, health care and other benefits….”

Well I knew that wasn’t right, that the real shortfall is closer to $1 trillion (i.e. a thousand billion). The Toledo Blade carried the same report with the $1 billion reference, online….

The Plain Dealer does some good reporting but it's reporting on school levies and the real cost of government is usually pretty bad. A recent article about school levies didn't even mention step raises, cola raises continuing education raises and buys outs:

http://www.cleveland.com/chagrinsolonsu ... _cuts.html

You would never even know what the district spends money on if you read this:

http://www.cleveland.com/sunpostherald/ ... ly_in.html

The answer is clear to this writer in the LA Times. If the states have budget deficits the answer is to have the feds pay for everything. The Feds can print money but states cannot.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 8121.story

Of course another answer is to let states and cities print their own money. What could go wrong?

It doesn't surprise me that this post on Lakewood schools was moved to the hinterland. The education bureacracy depends upon disinformation and ignorance to keep the gravy train rolling. The Observer is just doing its part.

[Tim Liston]

It’s gotten so bad that some states are considering delaying the payment of state income tax refunds until the summer, even if you have already filed! North Carolina and Hawaii have already announced, and New York has said publicly that it’s under consideration.

Cash-Strapped States Delay Tax Refunds

Can California, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Michigan be far behind? If that happens, the floodgates open, and we all wait….

And mind you this is despite the infusion of massive stimulus dollars. What happens when that well runs dry?

Madness indeed….