Democrats restrict collective bargaining rights.

[jackoroe]

It's apparently caught on in Massachusetts of all places. This is genuinely shocking! I never thought I'd see a democrat doing this to the unions. The times they are a changing.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...use_votes_to_limit_bargaining_on_health_care/

 

[JB3]

And... so?

He's trying to say that maybe, just maybe, some of the efforts (not all of them mind you) to limit those bargaining rights might actually be being done for real economic reasons instead of political reasons.

 

[willie metcaffe]

I find Mass's House decision disappointing. As I read, Labor is voicing displeasure. And there should be protests. Maybe it's surprise that one's own party would choose this path. Maybe it's numbness over the Red Sox current season and the Patriots loss to the Jets. That state is sometimes weird in its political expression. Here in Ohio, it's all republican so while I am disappointed, Im definitely not surprised. And certainly as a state employee I am deeply unhappy at having my rights diminished. Renegotiate the contract all you want. But give something to get something. Thats how negotiation works. Oh well. Both parties are eventually swept out when they screw up.

 

[BostonPirate]

The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.

from the OP article????

Nothing has happened and nothing will. They are negotiating in the state senate. As I have said before in this forum, New Englanders are all about making deals.

It is flagrantly dishonest to title this thread in the way it was titled, and the OP needs to reread his article and turn off Rush Limbaugh long enough to find out what the truth is.

 

[Centexfarmer]

It's apparently caught on in Massachusetts of all places. This is genuinely shocking! I never thought I'd see a democrat doing this to the unions. The times they are a changing.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...use_votes_to_limit_bargaining_on_health_care/

Well from the article that I read, from the link that you provided:

Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.

The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.

So unlike what happened in Wisconsin, the Union will still have a say on a local level about whatever changes are being introduced, and therefore it's still a measure of "bargaining."

from the OP article????

Nothing has happened and nothing will. They are negotiating in the state senate. As I have said before in this forum, New Englanders are all about making deals.

It is flagrantly dishonest to title this thread in the way it was titled, and the OP needs to reread his article and turn off Rush Limbaugh long enough to find out what the truth is.

If it walks like a duck...

To me this sounds more "political" in regard to the Statehouse passing off their responsibilities to local municipalities (so that those entities can make "the deal") than it does anything about the State's finances.

You live there, care to elaborate any further about what the differences are rather than tossing out some comparative hyperbole about the process?

 

[BostonPirate]

You have to understand the way New Englanders govern themselves. Township governance is vital in the Commonwealth. We are all VERY active on local levels. Its reflected in that some townships allow alcohol to be sold at convenience stores and grocery stores, while others are dry entirely, and do not allow alcohol sales in any way.

We want to be able to tinker.

What most people don''t understand is that Boston "proper" is actually quite small while the " Boston Area" is actually a collection of towns and townships that coordinate and share resources very effectively.

One Township, Brookline, is entirely surrounded by boston as it has refused to be annexed by the city of Boston. Dorchester, Where the Wahlbergs and Donna Summer live, was annexed one hundred years ago but still retains some independent rights. Cambridge is the City that actually hosts MIT and Harvard. The Boston Commons and the state capital house is just a few blocks away from MIT, just on the other side of the river. the "Boston Area" actually covers maybe one fourth of the state, as it covers all the commuters. We have a very active commute rail system that once again is a collaborative effort of all the townships to effectively share resources and costs associated with the project.

Its the dominant characteristic of New England Politics, IMO.

The influence of the Unions in this state are resented. That gets into class issues unique to the region. I will try to point out one or two of the obvious ways the union issue is playing out differently in Massachusetts. Its not cheap to live here and do business here. Its not cheap to hire labor here. These are the dominant struggles locally for labor versus corporations, two huge contributors to the ongoing success of Boston and the state.

The Minimum wage is higher here, yet there are vast ammounts of jobs controlled by the Labor Unions. as with the electricians union, it is very costly for a very long time in the beginning of your membership of the union. They train their own members, and they charge ALOT for it. You work for years at low wages as an apprentice, as you pay for exorbidant union fees.

Alot of people try and do not succeed, have knowledge that should be marketable, yet the union controls who gets the jobs based on seniority and membership etc. Having the unions act as contractors who handle Human resources is very cost effective for small Townships, who have commuter wealth, but limited local gov't resources. But in the Urban areas it is creating havoc that the Gov't absorbs in Section 8 Housing costs. If you earn less than 40K a year, you qualify for sec 8 in boston, and can have the state pay two thirds of your rent.

So there is a restless mass of low earning manual laborers, who cant afford the union apprenticeships and locked out of alot of city works projects, who are politically against the unions. You have local areas That want to stay independent, but cannot afford to pay union members. Union labor is expensive. Yet... Big Business, The City governments and townships all at some point or time find it beneficial to allow the unions to basically handle human resources for them, alleviating operating costs.

This has no longer become politically expedient as there are more people having to work for less.

There are MANY who believe that the unions contribute to creating a lower class within labor.... those that are considered unskilled, versus those fully accredited members of unions. One group can buy houses and raise kids. the other group lives check to check in an ever more expensive world.

I think we will see something emerge in this deal making period they are in that allows the indvidual townships to define their relationships with the labor unions.

And politically there are some electoral realities here. In Massachusetts you cant win locally if you are a republican. Its just the fact. The entire gov't of the state is democrat, and I mean that litteraly.


Governor Deval Patrick (D)
Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray (D)
Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin (D)
Treasurer and Receiver General Steve Grossman (D)
Attorney General Martha Coakley (D)
State Auditor Suzanne Bump (D)

house of reps.... dems have 144 seats, the GOP has 14. The senate... 36 democrats and the GOP has 4.

As within any single party that reaches complete control of a region, there are many divisions within the democratic party, and many conservative democrats.

We allow party members here to have disagreements with their party. That is also why Brown, Snowe and Collins have great sway in New Engand now... they are independent Republicans and often cross the aisle on issues. That means we have greater importance and influence on votes in the federal legislature than our population would suggest.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ So essentially what you're saying is, if a Democrat challenges the Union's right to collective bargaining they're looking out for the little guy in MA (and which the only way anyone will be able to tell would be after the next local election, depending upon the outcome), but if a Republican tries this in Wisconsin they're a corporate whore who's looking to fuck the little guy?

I'm still trying to see the difference.

Remember I lived in New England, MA specifically for more than 3 years, and I still have friends who live and work there.

 

[BostonPirate]

^ So essentially what you're saying is, if a Democrat challenges the Union's right to collective bargaining they're looking out for the little guy in MA (and which the only way anyone will be able to tell would be after the next local election, depending upon the outcome), but if a Republican tries this in Wisconsin they're a corporate whore who's looking to fuck the little guy?

I'm still trying to see the difference.

Remember I lived in New England, MA specifically for more than 3 years, and I still have friends who live and work there.

no thats not what I am saying. You asked about the state. I gave you answers.

If you'd prefer an argument I am not really interested.

I am not a democrat and IF they screw with the unions they will get the same thing that the republicans got.

What annoys the fuck out of me right NOW is that there are people who think the legislature of my home state took this action when it has not done so yet.

You are asking me to argue with you about something that hasn't happened yet. The Senate will NOT pass the bill and I assure you, Gov Patrick wont sign it.

Its DOA. Its stupid, and It is not on the radar of people here for that reason.

 

[Centexfarmer]

no thats not what I am saying. You asked about the state. I gave you answers.

If you'd prefer an argument I am not really interested.

I am not a democrat and IF they screw with the unions they will get the same thing that the republicans got.

What annoys the fuck out of me right NOW is that there are people who think the legislature of my home state took this action when it has not done so yet.

You are asking me to argue with you about something that hasn't happened yet. The Senate will NOT pass the bill and I assure you, Gov Patrick wont sign it.

Its DOA. Its stupid, and It is not on the radar of people here for that reason.

Oh! Okay.

So much like the U.S. Congress' budget that they're sending to the U.S. Senate?

It's all growl and no bite.

I'm not trying to "argue" shit with you.

I'm just asking your educated opinion on the difference between what the Democrats are doing in Massachusetts, compared to the pro-corporate anti-labor Republican whores in Wisconsin, and Ohio.

 

[chuck10x]

So the Democrats introduce a Bill to Restrict the unions on bargaining rights for Healthcare.

The vote is 111 to 42 to restrict Bargaining.

Why such an overwhelming vote to restrict Bargaining?

And what happened to RomneyCare that this is even an issue?

 

[BostonPirate]

So the Democrats introduce a Bill to Restrict the unions on bargaining rights for Healthcare.

The vote is 111 to 42 to restrict Bargaining.

Why such an overwhelming vote to restrict Bargaining?

And what happened to RomneyCare that this is even an issue?

Because they have to answer to the local townships at a point in time when money is tight.

The reps will get a bit of Good PR for the crowd at home and the bill will not pass without extensive modification if ever.

The local news isn't even covering this.

 

[chuck10x]

Well I did watch Rachel Maddow this past week when she discussed this and she was not too happy.

What I would like to know is.-
Mass. has Mandatory Health Insurance coverage, Why is it too expensive.

 

[BostonPirate]

Well I did watch Rachel Maddow this past week when she discussed this and she was not too happy.

What I would like to know is.-
Mass. has Mandatory Health Insurance coverage, Why is it too expensive.

Universal healthcare does not make a one payer system

Romneycare is a set of rules that define who has to pay for what and when. It allows individuals to pool together to get group rates through insurance exchanges, it pays partial amounts for people that cannot buy their own, it codifies how big a company is before it is required to pay for its employee healthcare.

that bold part is the answer to your question.

It gives you a 500 dollar tax deduction on state taxes if you have it.

the unions are negotiating for a set healthcare package at a state level, yet are getting paid at a township level. That is an unexpected effect that universal healthcare legislation created.

The truth is if the civil servants healthcare packages disappeared entirely, they would have access to healthcare through common care or the exchange. It would probably be cheaper, but it would shift the cost sharing burden to the state, instead of the small poor townships.

Remember that the Mass Commonwealth is about five years ahead of the rest of the nation with the universal healthcare thing. last year we had 97 percent of our citizens covered, with 3 percent feeling it was cheaper to pay the five hundred bucks in taxes than get insurance.

This is not about needs though. I believe that any union would willingly give up alot of things right now to aid in the economic recovery.

Its the right to negotiate that has to be protected for the worker, IMO

This whole union busting thing is reactionary and a bad idea. The motive seems to be to help the economy, but it reduces individuals rights. Just as the patriot acts took some of our freedoms after 9-11, the union bustings are taking som eof our freedoms in the name of national security.

Its getting old.

Go to the damned table with the unions and ask for a new deal, but take the table away?

that serves no one as far as I can see.

 

[chuck10x]

Thank you Boston,
The Unions-, Police, Firefighters and teachers are a huge pool so should be able to negotiate lower rates.
They may work at a township level, But collectively,State wide, Should ensure the lowest rates possible.

Negotiations are about 2 sides meeting and coming up with a deal that is acceptable to both sides.
Eliminating bargaining rights is just saying F.U. you'll take what we give you.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Minimum wage is higher here, yet there are vast ammounts of jobs controlled by the Labor Unions. as with the electricians union, it is very costly for a very long time in the beginning of your membership of the union. They train their own members, and they charge ALOT for it. You work for years at low wages as an apprentice, as you pay for exorbidant union fees.
. . . .

So there is a restless mass of low earning manual laborers, who cant afford the union apprenticeships and locked out of alot of city works projects, who are politically against the unions. You have local areas That want to stay independent, but cannot afford to pay union members. Union labor is expensive. Yet... Big Business, The City governments and townships all at some point or time find it beneficial to allow the unions to basically handle human resources for them, alleviating operating costs.

We should start being honest about this: an organization that trains its members in a lengthy period when much of the trainee's income goes to the organization, and holds a monopoly on supplying its special skill set, is a Guild.

Guilds are bad for free trade, bad for innovation, bad for the general economy -- that's just historical fact.

IMO, they're also unconstitutional; the prohibition on monopolies was aimed primarily at businesses given monopoly status by government.

When the unions we're talking about are actually guilds, they should be busted -- they're unconstitutional, and every law providing them with a special status with them.


Oregon's legislature used to have votes like this: they'd allow representatives to make noise about an issue and get applause from voters, but everyone knew the legislation wasn't going to pass.

 

[BostonPirate]

If corporations allow wallstreet to be regulated, I see no reason why labor union activity should not be monitored. I do believe thanks to Hoffa, there are not a lack of watchdogs.

The rules?

Who watches the watchers. It is the problem with regulations. They are subject to change on political whims.

Union busting is not union regulation. This I know for sure. Its not constructive to remove the benefits of unionization. the ability of the workers to negotiate as a group is vital and it is an expression of our rights to peacefully gather and associate.

 

[Joshua_me]

Deval Patrick was interviewed on Bill Maher's "Real Time" last night about this subject. (I've tried to hunt it down on youtube with no success...( it's too recent)

Anyway, his kind of flip-floppy responses to Bill's questions kind of amounted to, "Things aren't what they appear - just wait and see..."

 

[Kulindahr]

If corporations allow wallstreet to be regulated, I see no reason why labor union activity should not be monitored. I do believe thanks to Hoffa, there are not a lack of watchdogs.

The rules?

Who watches the watchers. It is the problem with regulations. They are subject to change on political whims.

Union busting is not union regulation. This I know for sure. Its not constructive to remove the benefits of unionization. the ability of the workers to negotiate as a group is vital and it is an expression of our rights to peacefully gather and associate.

And if we bust up corporations for being monopolies, there should be no problem busting up unions that are actually Guilds when they're monopolies.

 

[rareboy]

Hey.

If it is any consolation, the 'Liberal' government of Ontario made the Toronto Transit Commission an essential service, stripping them of the right to strike....but leaving the right to bargaining.

Go fig.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I see no reason for any workers who aren't being paid out of "profits" to be unionized

They aren't being exploited to make a buck. And their employer (government) usually treats them well, with healthy benefits and pensions.

We should go back to the pre-JFK days when only the private sector was unionized.