Comments on: Obama Rolls Back Transparency Rules For Unions

By: midcon

midcon — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:10:30 +0000

More than 1.2 million, or approximately 62%, of federal employees belong to recognized bargaining units. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) represents about 700,000 employees. Only about 175,000 pay dues because union membership is not a requirement. So even though a federal employee is a member of the bargaining unit they get a free ride (more than 500,000 of them just for AFGE and remember there are two other unions). And if you were to ask many of them what they think about the union and why they dont belong, they will explain to you that the union does essentially nothing except keep federal workers employed who should be fired and making life difficult for the Cabinet Secretaries.

The BLS data does not separate out federal employees from the rest of the public sector.

Bottom line is, more feds does not mean more dues for the unions. The most the federal unions do is negotiate over working conditions, performance reviews, and other things that matter. They can't negotiate over pay (recommended by the President and set by Congress). Most everything else is governed by Title V U.S.C.

By: barker13

barker13 — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:50:43 +0000

Re: Midcon; wrote 51 minutes ago --

"I would not have posted Frum's cut and paste job. What I would have done is write an article that discuss the roll of the unions in today's economy and where they may be useful and where they might no be useful."

OK. So write it. I'll read it! Send it along to Frum, see if he'll post it; if not, post it elsewhere and let us know where we can access it.

"I would then discuss the excesses of the unions currently and in the past in relation to their own internal workings and highlight the need to transparency to protect the union rank and file just as we have the need for more transparency in the government to protect the citizens."

Well that you can do here! You can do so right now, right here - on this thread.

"Adding federal workers is not an automatic boon to federal unions."

Sure it is. One word: "Dues."

"As a retired federal employee I can guarantee you that most federal employees are not members of any union and have no desire to be."

True. Unionized workers do not constitute a majority of the federal work force, however, just to lay out the stats:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.8 percent) is substantially higher than the rate for private industry workers (7.6 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers have the highest union membership rate, 42.2 percent.

BILL

By: midcon

midcon — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:20:46 +0000

I meant “role” vice “roll” I was eating one at the time!

By: midcon

midcon — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:19:44 +0000

I would not have posted Frum's cut and paste job. What I would have done is write an article that discuss the roll of the unions in today's economy and where they may be useful and where they might no be useful. I would then discuss the excesses of the unions currently and in the past in relation to their own internal workings and highlight the need to transparency to protect the union rank and file just as we have the need for more transparency in the government to protect the citizens.

The $3M budget cut presumes they were spending their $45M efficiently. Unless one has insight into exactly how they are spending their $45 (now $41) M, it is impossible to opine about the impact of the cut.

Adding federal workers is not an automatic boon to federal unions. That's a ridiculous assertion. As a retired federal employee I can guarantee you that most federal employees are not members of any union and have no desire to be.

The changes to the NRLB is the only real story here. The rest is just an attempt to weave a story with individual snippets that can't stand on their own.

Does the GOP advocate a "fair day's wage, for a fair day's work", for all employees regardless of gender or other characteristic? How is that thought pro-union?

By: barker13

barker13 — Mon, 18 May 2009 10:23:08 +0000

Yep.

All true, David.

Still... if you want folks to pay attention... you need to throw in the name "Limbaugh" somewhere in the post title - or at least a photo.

(*SNORT*)

Re: Midcon; 5:04 AM --

Huh...???

No, no... I "get" your point about articulating what we're for, not just what we're against, but how exactly would you improve upon Frum's cut & paste job here?

BILL

By: midcon

midcon — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:04:07 +0000

There is a very discernable pattern of postings which paint Obama in a negative manner in regards to national security, business, and other areas. While this is a necessary activity for an opposition party, unless it is counterweighted requally by postings which articulate what the opposition party is for and how that can make America stronger, better, etc. the risk is that Americans will continue to view the GOP as the party of negativity.The strategy should include postings about what the GOP is for in a clear and concise manner, excluding the trigger phrases that the GOP is known for. You have to say what you stand for, not just what you stand against. There needs to be balance.