Patrick and labor, in context

Carley, the Ed Reform bill makes (6.00 / 4)

A Central Falls debacle possible in Massachusetts.
Defend that.

"Metaphors be with you."  Yoda to Robert Frost

---

by: pablophil @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:12:18 AM CDT

Obviously, (0.00 / 0)

That was CHARLEY.  Sorry.

"Metaphors be with you."  Yoda to Robert Frost

---

by: pablophil @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:13:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not all (6.00 / 6)

Charley's spinning mightily on this bill.  What it does is lift a "smart cap" system in certain districts and make it easier to privatize education.  Frankly, for a man who's never set foot in a Massachusetts public school outside of photo ops, he is eager to disparage them.

This bill passed only because his much ballyhooed and promised "Readiness Reform" fell flat on its face.  Promises that would be incorporated into that reform during the campaign were forgotten.

Also on the labor front, he also favors invalidating contract law by allowing forced movement of a workforce into the GIC.  Not just voting or bargaining for it, but basically forcing workers to cede benefits.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:38:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And this is a bad thing because...? (0.00 / 0)

Seriously; I'm on the whole a fan of unions, but this is overreaching by the various government, fire, and teacher's unions of the highest order.  I personally strongly favor the idea of forcing workers (if necessary) into the GIC.  It should have happened years ago, and did not because there wasn't quite a crisis in any given year-until now.  Now there by damn is a crisis, and health benefits must give.  The other choice is to wait for cities and towns to become bankrupt piecemeal, whereon the workers who insisted they get their high-grade benefits will find themselves on the point of court action which will not favor them.

They who live by the contract, are eventually hoist by the contract.

---

by: tamoroso @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:53:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Welcome to the Bathtub (6.00 / 3)

Grover Norquist put it best, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I
can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Yeah, there's a big economic crisis, but I think you're falling into the trap conservatives laid for us government with tax cuts and reductions on long-term spending. You guys are playing by their rules, and you don't even realize it. You're turning on labor. You should be working with us. The Governor and legislature is trying to weaken labor. They should be trying to raise the bar, but you all want to lower it.  

Even the silent are now guilty in the empire of the senseless.

--The Mekons

---

by: Mark Bail @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 16:31:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Governor Patrick - Anti-Labor? (6.00 / 3)

You are completely wrong in your assertion that Governor Patrick is trying to weaken Labor.  This Governor signed a card check law in Massachusetts, and supports the proposed Federal Employee Free Choice Act - and he has not just signed a letter, he has personally lobbied our Congressional delegation on the Employee Free Choice Act.  Governor Patrick gave collective bargaining rights to personal care attendants, even though they don't neatly fit into the traditional employee-employer relationship.  Governor Patrick reversed 16 years of neglect of the state's public sector labor relations agencies and reformed and revitalized those agencies that are so necessary to enforce public sector workers' rights.  Governor Patrick issued an Executive Order to start to give state workers the kinds of rights that private sector workers have under OSHA.  Governor Patrick created the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, once again giving labor a seat at the table of state government.  And every board, commission, advisory council, whatever, under Governor Patrick has labor representation on that body.  Then there is the Joint Task Force on the Underground Economy, which is going after unlawful employers who cheat and exploit their workers.  I could go on and on, but that's just my quick reaction.  Yes, there are a handful of issues that have aggravated some public sector unions, and I understand their aggravation, but if you really think that Governor Patrick is trying to weaken labor, you are woefully uninformed.  If you think Governor Patrick is anti-labor, wait until you see Charlie Baker and/or Tim Cahill.  

---

by: yellowdogdem @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 18:18:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So...we...break the law? (6.00 / 1)

If it essential that public workers be stampeded into the GIC, then mandate it for any new contract.  Not existing contracts.  Yelling about crises is a great means to circumventing the law, but the result remains the same.

Those who live by the contract receive benefits, that eventually hoist up non-union workers' standard of living.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 18:52:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you could expand on that. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:49:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Anti-labor (6.00 / 2)

To me, the term "anti-labor" means someone who is against the very idea of labor unions. You know the kind -- they blame failures directly on the fact that unions exist, they preface each discussion with "we should get rid of the unions".

Supporting labor does not mean always agreeing with what they want. It is possible to be opposed to a union request but to not be "anti-labor".

Republicans typically are associated with being anti-labor -- they don't believe that unions should exist, they want to weaken their powers whenever possible. It would be self-defeating for people concerned about unions to vote for most Republicans -- though I heard a number of teachers who voted for Scott Brown, which was weird.

An anti-union provision would be one that allows cities and towns to simply change terms surrounding health care, for example, changing everyone over to the GIC, or even changing the percentage of the policy costs picked up by the employee in the middle of a contract, if the contract had something different in it.

I personally think that municipal employee health care costs should be defined as a percentage. That way as costs increase, the municipality isn't picking up 100% of the cost of the increase. However, I believe that this should be collectively bargained and agreed-upon.

I believe that the balance between municipal unions and municipalities is not currently even, it definitely is not the same as in the private sector. In the private sector, the union can strike, the employer can lock-out, but most importantly, the company can go out of business.

There is virtually no threat of bankruptcy in municipal negotiations. It almost never happens, you can count on your fingers how many times a city or town has filed chapter 9. Municipal unions know this, so that emboldens them.

In Springfield, the municipal unions have shown a willingness to "harm the product" when it comes to negotiating. During the last round of negotiations, the police union ran radio ads telling the area that Springfield was dangerous and crime-ridden.

The teachers union waged a campaign telling everyone how a lot of the teachers in the system were not qualified, and that the veteran teachers were leaving the system in droves. They manipulated numbers to make it sound like 85% of the teachers left the system during the negotiations and were replaced by unqualified and unlicensed teachers.

I haven't followed many private sector labor negotiations, but I have never heard the unions running campaigns telling the public that the company is bad, that the product is dangerous and should be avoided. I think that is because the private sector unions know that if they go too far, they will harm or even kill the company.

I think that municipal unions know that it is virtually impossible to kill their company, so they go all out. I'm not sure how to change those incentives, to make the unions understand that the good of the city/town is an important thing. Perhaps it just takes a different tone of treatment from the people in charge of the communities.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 11:09:13 AM CDT

actually SEIU versus beth israel (0.00 / 0)

I haven't followed many private sector labor negotiations, but I have never heard the unions running campaigns telling the public that the company is bad, that the product is dangerous and should be avoided. I think that is because the private sector unions know that if they go too far, they will harm or even kill the company.

generally true.  but remember sometime BMG blogger Paul Levy?  

SEIU was trying to organize hospital where he's president.  it's kind of in the middle - not gov't, but not private sector per se.  

anyway, they relentless attack BI, trying to drive patients away.  i'm puzzled by the strategy.  i'm generally sympathetic to the seiu causes (housekeepers and so forth), yet this is such a turnoff.  

http://www.eyeonbi.org/

---

by: GoldsteinGoneWild @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 15:35:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hang on (0.00 / 0)

I know this thread is old and cold, but this still needs to be said: Blaming the municipal unions for "harming the product" of Springfield's educational system and society at large is about as fair as blaming Mr. Jones for denting Mr. Smith's plane.

Professionals have been leaving the Springfield city payroll in large numbers over the past decade and it has been consistently difficult for Springfield to attract new police, teachers and other municipal workers to take their place. That's mainly due to two factors (none of which, incidentally, were the fault of the municipal unions):

1. the long term decline of Springfield's factory base, which has tended to lower property values, property tax revenues and general standard of living in the city;
2. the high-handed treatment that the Control Board meted out to the municipal unions when the pre-existing economic decline forced the city to ask the state for a bailout.

The second of those factors is probably the more important. In this context, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about unionized public sector workers or non-unionized private sector workers. People like to think that once they sign a contract, it will be honored. And they're reluctant to go to work for a city or a company where they think their contract is going to be violated by the state. It's that simple.

The advertisement by teachers' union didn't distort or exaggerate (or cause) the facts regarding the brain drain from the City of Homes. It simply reported them.

---

by: Arlingtondan @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 18:14:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leaving our wingnutty friends' perspective... (6.00 / 5)

What bothers me about union criticism is two-fold: 1) the idea that unions are monoliths 2) no one seems to understand the centrality of collective bargaining to unions.

Without collective bargaining rights, a union serves no purpose. That's the objection to the Governor's education legislation, which, incidentally, was much worse than what eventually passed. If the state ignores or outlaws collective bargaining rights, even on certain issues, it is taking a large step toward killing unions. Anyone who says they support unions, but advocate the violation of collective bargaining is disingenuous.

And unions are not monoliths. Contracts vary widely. Some communities have negotiated to pay what seems like ridiculous portions of health insurance premiums. Others haven't. Some teachers are paid better than others too. Some police unions, as I've said elsewhere, can be pretty thuggish. Some are not. It depends on the community. Lumping unions together and saying they won't allow GIC is disingenuous. Out here in the West, we've had insurance cooperatives that are at least as good as the GIC. Unlike the GIC this year, for example, the Hampshire Council of Government's Insurance Cooperative didn't have an increase in co-pays. It's not just unions that have a problem with GIC legislation.

I accused Charley of sounding like Marie Antoinette. I was criticizing his attitude, not his opinion. To me, saying "Collective bargaining... yawn" is like saying "Health care or marriage equality or the Iraq War... yawn." Charley can stand by his words or not. I don't care. I'm good for offending someone every couple of weeks, so I'm not holding it against him.  

Even the silent are now guilty in the empire of the senseless.

--The Mekons

---

by: Mark Bail @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 13:49:45 PM CDT

Drawing lines (6.00 / 1)

Mark, I completely agree in concept with what you're saying. I'm conflicted though.

I agree 100% that collective bargaining is the heart of unions. On the other hand, there needs to be some limits on what is collectively bargain-able.

Let me give you an absurd example. Let's say the state wants to change traffic patterns near UMass. Maybe the new traffic pattern would result in employees having to drive a little further to get to their parking lot. Should that be collectively bargained? Technically speaking, yes -- it is as much a change in working conditions as if UMass started making employees park in an auxiliary parking lot a mile from campus. But on the other hand, it all such things were collectively bargained, we would be paralyzed.

So the question, in my mind, is where to draw the line?

That's where I'm torn.

I can tend to agree that switching a town's employees to GIC should probably be collectively bargained. But what about closing pension loopholes like the "in for a day" thing? Should that?  Should the introduction of new charter schools be collectively bargained? After all, this could lead to fewer teacher jobs within a community.

I agree, unions are important. I just don't know where that line should be drawn.  

---

by: NoPolitician @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 14:11:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The line is drawn in the contracts themselves, (6.00 / 3)

and collective bargaining draws them in a contract. The contract draws the line. (I'll leave your example alone because it was just illustrative). Here are two examples of line drawing with the GIC.

Communities draw that line different ways. I teach in East Longmeadow. For our geographical area, I'm well-paid. I'm not exactly sure what percentage I pay for my Health New England family plan. (Note to Easterners: HNE is better than an HMO, but not the Cadillac Blue Cross plan). One person at school told me I pay around 50% of the premium. Another told me it was around 30%. I pay about $6000+. Our contract was negotiated that way. Not because we are super-powerful or uncooperative--we're not--but because the community values our work. They are well-represented. They could introduce GIC into bargaining if they wanted to. Apparently, they don't want to.

I live in Granby. Teachers here get insurance through the Hampshire Council of Governors cooperative. They offer Health New England too. According to HCOG, this insurance cooperative has done better supplying insurance without an increased cost to its employees than the GIC did this year. At a meeting last fall, it was explained that the GIC had increased the number of insured, affecting the risk pool for the worse and driving up costs. HCOG provides group health insurance for 27 public employers in Hampshire County, 32 public employers in Franklin County, and 2 public employers in Hampden County. So far, it's doing better than the GIC. As a selectman, I want to keep what we have. It's better for our town and our employees. We don't want the GIC. When Gov. Patrick and other Beacon Hill pols come to Stan Rosenberg's shindig next Saturday, I'm sure they'll hear about it. Hampshire and Franklin County will be there in force.


Even the silent are now guilty in the empire of the senseless.

--The Mekons

---

by: Mark Bail @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 16:16:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes: Collective Bargaining Essential to the Existence of Unions (0.00 / 0)

The question is: What should be part of collective bargaining?  General wages and (safe) working conditions--of course.  But the slow ebb of what is part of the collective bargaining process can not be sustained when we live in a point in history when things move so fast.  Health care is the perfect example--negotiating whether  a plan has a $5 co-pay vs $10 and lock in that plan for a three year contract?  Crazy.  Contract agreements that allows a teacher with two active drug convictions to teach?  Nope.  Cops and firefighters insisting that drug testing be bargained...what does that have to do with the struggles of that sparked the Bread and Roses riots?    

We have met the enemy and he is us.

---

by: Pogo @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 16:18:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Drug testing (6.00 / 1)

But isn't testing employees for drugs a condition of the job? I don't do drugs -- never have, never will, but I would find it downright offensive if my employer came up with a new policy that said that I had to pee in a cup once a week, and that I could be fired if I tested positive -- even if it was a false positive.

That's the kind of employer mandate that unions are supposed to protect against, isn't it? Or maybe if your employer demanded that you shave your beard. Or if your employer mandated that you had to be at home for 4 hours every night, "just in case". Without a union, your choice is to simply get another job. With a union, your choice is that the union speaks as a unified voice of the employees and says "sorry, that isn't acceptable, and we're willing to all walk out because of that policy".

I know that there are plenty of people who believe that it the worker-employer relationship should be David vs. Goliath, but if unions never existed we would still have 6-day, 50+ hour workweeks with no vacation or sick days, because employers have tremendous economic power over employees.  

---

by: NoPolitician @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 21:21:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

IN general i would agree, but within the context of... (6.00 / 1)

...two fire fighters dying in a fire while impaired completely changes the context, never mind the spate of drug and alcohol incidents that occur by people responsible for public safety, again makes it a reasonable exceptions.   Off track a bit, but when your riding on the highway late at night, it's good to know that the truck drivers barreling around you are subject to random testing.  

We have met the enemy and he is us.

---

by: Pogo @ Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 14:54:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You can read my walk-back (0.00 / 0)

of that hastily written comment on collective bargaining (but actually not intended as such) here.

I agree that unions are not monoliths. Neither is the Governor's attitude towards them; nor mine. I am not lumping in all unions as being opposed to GIC.

---
Blue Mass. Group
Call Scott Brown's office at (617) 565-3170, or (202) 224-4543 to support a cap on carbon emissions: 350ppm by 2050
My Twitter feed

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 20:26:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We should all want collective bargaining (0.00 / 0)

Public sector unions need to understand that they are negotiating not only directly with the powers-that-be, but also with the voting public. Therefore the deals that they strike need to be not simply a product of their power over bureaucrats or electeds; they need to be palatable and fair in the eyes of the public. Otherwise the public will demand changes; and lawmakers can make them, since, after all, they make the laws.

The problem for unions, especially some public employee unions, is that they can act more like special interest groups than like a labor movement.

Special interest groups are out for themselves.  They end up "negotiating with the voting public".

The labor movement, (the movement for a decent wages, affordable health care, retirement benefits, working conditions that allow you to have a life and a voice, Bread and Roses, etc.) should include most of the voting public.  Unions should (and some do) fight for affordable health insurance for all, not just for their own members.  Same for decent retirement benefits.

If we in the labor movement could do a better job at that, maybe more of the voting public would realize that supporting good health care (retirement, working conditions, etc.) for their public employees increases the chance that they themselves will be able to get (or keep) the same thing.

Speaking here for myself only

---

by: jhg @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 22:15:27 PM CDT