• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Public Sector Unions Destroyed Detroit [W:225]

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Detroit’s one-man show

George F. Will AUG 2
Kevyn Orr tries to revive a city gasping for breath.

FDR warned that public sector unions would prove catastrophic for sound government. Detroit shows he was right.
 
Personally I am against public unions as they are now. The whole of the area pays thier paychecks, pensions, insurance etc etc and as such should have a say in what those things. As it stands right now they only say that they have is through voting for politicians...and even then the person that they voted may not win or...a common theme...the politician breaks their "promise". A public union however not only can vote but can also threaten to go on strike or if they can't "officially" do that call in "sick" and bring government services to a stand still just like the teachers in Wisconsin did in order to try and bully their way to getting what they want. That doesn't just hurt the government...it hurts the public itself.

For those that are hacks...I am talking only about PUBLIC unions. Not PRIVATE unions. While I may not like private unions I am not against them. Seems that I always have to make that distinction due to hacks trying to twist what is actually said.
 
Personally I am against public unions as they are now. The whole of the area pays thier paychecks, pensions, insurance etc etc and as such should have a say in what those things. As it stands right now they only say that they have is through voting for politicians...and even then the person that they voted may not win or...a common theme...the politician breaks their "promise". A public union however not only can vote but can also threaten to go on strike or if they can't "officially" do that call in "sick" and bring government services to a stand still just like the teachers in Wisconsin did in order to try and bully their way to getting what they want. That doesn't just hurt the government...it hurts the public itself.

For those that are hacks...I am talking only about PUBLIC unions. Not PRIVATE unions. While I may not like private unions I am not against them. Seems that I always have to make that distinction due to hacks trying to twist what is actually said.

They'll twist it anyway...
 
Personally I am against public unions as they are now. The whole of the area pays thier paychecks, pensions, insurance etc etc and as such should have a say in what those things. As it stands right now they only say that they have is through voting for politicians...and even then the person that they voted may not win or...a common theme...the politician breaks their "promise". A public union however not only can vote but can also threaten to go on strike or if they can't "officially" do that call in "sick" and bring government services to a stand still just like the teachers in Wisconsin did in order to try and bully their way to getting what they want. That doesn't just hurt the government...it hurts the public itself.

For those that are hacks...I am talking only about PUBLIC unions. Not PRIVATE unions. While I may not like private unions I am not against them. Seems that I always have to make that distinction due to hacks trying to twist what is actually said.

Add to equation that the public unions then supply campaign cash to the same party (person?) that they later negotiate their contracts with and you see the problem even more clearly.
 
Last edited:
Detroit’s one-man show

George F. Will AUG 2
Kevyn Orr tries to revive a city gasping for breath.

FDR warned that public sector unions would prove catastrophic for sound government. Detroit shows he was right.

I thought the mantra was supposed to be that it was the UAW that destroyed the auto industry in Detroit and set it on the road to bankruptcy. Now, it's public unions, not private ones?
 
Detroit’s one-man show

George F. Will AUG 2
Kevyn Orr tries to revive a city gasping for breath.

FDR warned that public sector unions would prove catastrophic for sound government. Detroit shows he was right.

Jefferson warned us about corporations.

“I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Detroit shows us he was right ... hell, this economic mess we're in shows us he was right ...
 
Detroit’s one-man show

George F. Will AUG 2
Kevyn Orr tries to revive a city gasping for breath.

FDR warned that public sector unions would prove catastrophic for sound government. Detroit shows he was right.

No, that's simply not true. Public sector unions don't have the power to grant their own wishlists. That blame belongs on the politicians who granted them.
 
No, that's simply not true. Public sector unions don't have the power to grant their own wishlists. That blame belongs on the politicians who granted them.

When they are both paying each other (with other people's money), are there really two parties involved in those "negotiations"?
 
When they are both paying each other (with other people's money), are there really two parties involved in those "negotiations"?

No. And, of course, that's the problem. The politicians are coming from the position of, "Let's give them all we can without looking like complete idiots." Problem is, they couldn't even get THAT right.
 
When they are both paying each other (with other people's money), are there really two parties involved in those "negotiations"?

Not really.
Unions, public or not, are supported by their members.

and, if corporations can bri.. I mean make political contributions, why can't labor?

The solution is to get the money out of politics, which is to say, an impossibility.
 
I thought the mantra was supposed to be that it was the UAW that destroyed the auto industry in Detroit and set it on the road to bankruptcy. Now, it's public unions, not private ones?

The UAW drove the auto industry away. The public sector unions destroyed the city's finances.:peace
 
The UAW drove the auto industry away. The public sector unions destroyed the city's finances.:peace

It wasn't loss of jobs and population, then? Industry moving to other nations had nothing to do with it?
 
Jefferson warned us about corporations.

“I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Detroit shows us he was right ... hell, this economic mess we're in shows us he was right ...

FDR:
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.":peace
 
No, that's simply not true. Public sector unions don't have the power to grant their own wishlists. That blame belongs on the politicians who granted them.

FDR:
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
 
It wasn't loss of jobs and population, then? Industry moving to other nations had nothing to do with it?

Most moved to right-to-work states.

FDR: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
 
Most moved to right-to-work states.

FDR: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

Did it?
The last Detroit brand I bought was my Chevy Impala, made in Canada.

Foreign makers, like Honda and Toyota, did locate in right to work states to be sure.
 
FDR:
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.":peace

Jefferson trumps FDR ... Not even close --- plus FDR was this rich guy who didn't like unions ... my hero was Reagan who was a good union man, but then realized that he had a better political future by going to the other side ... so he sold out, prostituted himself, and was rewarded with the presidency ... no doubt that up until he got alzheimers half way thru his first term he had a hard time looking at himself in the mirror ...
 
FDR:
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

Well that's mighty deceptive of you Jack. No statement has ever been found for FDR's views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers. He made it clear that Congress set the wage for federal workers.
 
No. And, of course, that's the problem. The politicians are coming from the position of, "Let's give them all we can without looking like complete idiots." Problem is, they couldn't even get THAT right.

Nobody noticed that the retirement "fund" was raided until it was too late. Under single party rule nobody is held accountable.
 
Detroit’s one-man show

George F. Will AUG 2
Kevyn Orr tries to revive a city gasping for breath.

FDR warned that public sector unions would prove catastrophic for sound government. Detroit shows he was right.

Good morning 2M,

I wouldn't blame public sector unions for the problem so much as I'd blame public sector union contracts and those who approved them. That would be the elected officials over the years who caved to union demands and also the arbitrators who awarded contracts, most often favoring union demands but never taking into consideration the public's ability to pay.

Arbitrators, like politicians, seem to believe that when you have taxing power you have, in effect, an unlimited ability to pay. Detroit, and other cities and states are starting to prove that wrong. I saw a statistic this morning that showed the pension and healthcare yearly obligations of the State of Illinois is about 241% of the state's ability to raise revenue. That's just impossible to sustain.

The reason for being of unions is to generate the highest salary and benefits package they can for the employees they represent and also to protect those employees from improper sanctions or working conditions imposed by their employer. Clearly, those unions have done a terrific job. Those who employ them and those who arbitrate settlements have not.
 
Not really.
Unions, public or not, are supported by their members.

and, if corporations can bri.. I mean make political contributions, why can't labor?

The solution is to get the money out of politics, which is to say, an impossibility.

Public sector unions are totally supported by tax money and yet are able to "negotiate" with the very politicians that they support. You are correct that it is constitutionally impossible to get the money out of politics, as that would simply enlarge the advantage already givien to the incumbents.
 
Nobody noticed that the retirement "fund" was raided until it was too late. Under single party rule nobody is held accountable.

Ahhh, but that's where you're wrong. The unions noticed it. They made a decision not to out the politicians figuring they were golden anyway. The first time a contribution was missed, unions should have been in court pounding their fists on the table. I'm pretty sure I know why they didn't do that; you?
 
Ahhh, but that's where you're wrong. The unions noticed it. They made a decision not to out the politicians figuring they were golden anyway. The first time a contribution was missed, unions should have been in court pounding their fists on the table. I'm pretty sure I know why they didn't do that; you?

Exactly. The union reps are supposed to look out for their members, yet somehow they seem to spend more time (and other people's money) on the behalf of the politicians.

Public Sector Unions & Political Spending | Union Watch
 
Public sector unions are totally supported by tax money and yet are able to "negotiate" with the very politicians that they support. You are correct that it is constitutionally impossible to get the money out of politics, as that would simply enlarge the advantage already givien to the incumbents.

They are supported by tax money in the sense that their members, who pay dues and thus support the union financially, are paid from tax money. In that sense, everything the employees buy, from apples to Zima (eww..) is supported by tax money.

But, they aren't supported directly by taxes.
 
Back
Top Bottom