Government Service Unions

[Bob Jentges]

I will preface my thread by saying I am not anti-union or anti-government per se. My concern is with possible excesses in both areas.

I think maybe most of us might agree that private sector unions originated because some businesses misstreated employees with respect to living wage, respectful working conditions, health care, pensions, etc. I would like opinions as to why, under a benevolent government, public service unions would be necessary?

The answer may be obvious or short, or both.

[Dan Conner]

I will preface my thread by saying I am not anti-union or anti-government per se. My concern is with possible excesses in both areas.

I think maybe most of us might agree that private sector unions originated because some businesses misstreated employees with respect to living wage, respectful working conditions, health care, pensions, etc. I would like opinions as to why, under a benevolent government, public service unions would be necessary?

The answer may be obvious or short, or both.

I don't think the decision is left to us about whether public service unions are necessary. That's a decision and right left to affected employees, just like the private sector. We can argue all we wnat about what we feel, but we are not affected. Also, I think you need to clarify what you mean by benevolent government.

[Bob Jentges]

I don't think the decision is left to us about whether public service unions are necessary. That's a decision and right left to affected employees, just like the private sector. We can argue all we wnat about what we feel, but we are not affected. Also, I think you need to clarify what you mean by benevolent government.

I looked-up the definition of "benevolent" and found: "1 wishing to do good; actively friendly and helpful. 2 charitable".

[Dan Conner]

I looked-up the definition of "benevolent" and found: "1 wishing to do good; actively friendly and helpful. 2 charitable".

Well, then great. You were meaning what the dictionary says... Your statement oversimplified the issue. When people use the term "benevolent government" they are usually referring to it and it's relationship with its citizen/constituents, not its relationship with employees. I think our country has been blessed with government attending to constituent needs. However, I assume employee unions are there to ensure government doesn't forget about their needs in the quest to serve constituents. While many can argue, as I have, about whether there is a great need for unions of government employees, that is an arguement that doesn't concern us. That's up to the employees. Why, are you thinking government employees shouldn't be allowed to have unions? If government was truly benevolent, then there shouldn't be any threat, right?

[Bob Jentges]

Well, then great. You were meaning what the dictionary says... Your statement oversimplified the issue. When people use the term "benevolent government" they are usually referring to it and it's relationship with its citizen/constituents, not its relationship with employees. I think our country has been blessed with government attending to constituent needs. However, I assume employee unions are there to ensure government doesn't forget about their needs in the quest to serve constituents. While many can argue, as I have, about whether there is a great need for unions of government employees, that is an arguement that doesn't concern us. That's up to the employees. Why, are you thinking government employees shouldn't be allowed to have unions? If government was truly benevolent, then there shouldn't be any threat, right?

I see nowhere in any of my posts in this thread I was "...thinking government employees shouldn't be allowed to have unions". In fact, considering membership in private sector unions has declined from more than one-third to about 8% now, while membership in government employee unions is presently in the area of 50%, maybe government employees need union representation more than those in the private sector. But as you say, that should be left up to them.

My usage of "benevelonent government" was meant to be all encompasing i.e. "citizen/constituents" and government employees since they are also citizen/ constituents. I find your answer to my initial "why" question in your post quoted above. I think if a government is to be truely benevolent it should not pick winners and losers among its citizen constituents.

[Dan Conner]

I see nowhere in any of my posts in this thread I was "...thinking government employees shouldn't be allowed to have unions". In fact, considering membership in private sector unions has declined from more than one-third to about 8% now, while membership in government employee unions is presently in the area of 50%, maybe government employees need union representation more than those in the private sector. But as you say, that should be left up to them.

My usage of "benevelonent government" was meant to be all encompasing i.e. "citizen/constituents" and government employees since they are also citizen/ constituents. I find your answer to my initial "why" question in your post quoted above. I think if a government is to be truely benevolent it should not pick winners and losers among its citizen constituents.

I really don't understand where you are going here Bob. You ask about whether a "benevolent government" needs unions and then you defined what you meant by "benevolent government, and now you say government shouldn't pick winners and losers? What is your point here? Government hasn't picked "winners and losers" and I don't know where you think I said that. I think you are confused. I simply said it is unimportant for you or me to worry about what employees think they need, as far as representation is concerned. Your first post asked whether government needed unions or not. I responded that it doesn't make any difference what you or I feel. That's an issue for the employees.

I asked you what you meant by benevolent government and you replied with a dictionary definition. Now, you are further clarifying it. Why didn't you further clarify it when I asked? Your meaning now morphs - for what purpose I don't know. I told you what I felt about unions and government. Unlike yours, my definition and clarity has not changed. It is as I stated above. You might choose to group citizens and employees together, but I choose not to. Your question didn't refer to citizens in general, it referred to employees.

It seems you are trying to make an arguement about nothing. It's like asking if a business should belong to Chamber of Commerce. If they want to, fine, but they're not required to belong. I think you have an arguement without a point here.

[Dan Conner]

I see nowhere in any of my posts in this thread I was "...thinking government employees shouldn't be allowed to have unions". In fact, considering membership in private sector unions has declined from more than one-third to about 8% now, while membership in government employee unions is presently in the area of 50%, maybe government employees need union representation more than those in the private sector. But as you say, that should be left up to them.

My usage of "benevelonent government" was meant to be all encompasing i.e. "citizen/constituents" and government employees since they are also citizen/ constituents. I find your answer to my initial "why" question in your post quoted above. I think if a government is to be truely benevolent it should not pick winners and losers among its citizen constituents.

Unfortunately, your figures about the percentage of employees covered by a union was inadequately researched and misleading. Like private industry, the Federal government union (bargaining unit) is comprised of employees, the majority of which voted to belong to the union. However, none of the employees in that bargaining unit need to pay union dues, and many of them don't. In government, as provided for in law, bargaining unit employees are not required to pay dues. This is not the case in private industry. Consequently, there are many more employees covered by the union (bargaining unit) than there are dues paying members. In private industry, if you have a closed shop ALL union employees must pay dues, or they can lose their job. That's not the case in government. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

While I don't have statistics about the percentage of dues paying federal employees, I'm sure the percentage will approach the union numbers you gave for private industry. I think you need to better research your facts before you present them as illustrative of whatever point you were trying to make. This is a little like some of your previous discussions with Lynn.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, I will attempt to respond to your last two successive posts in this, what I expect will be my last reply to you in this thread.

First,I did not say you said government has picked winners and losers. I said if government is to be truely benevelont it should not pick winners and losers among it's citizens. That statement should be difficult to disagree with.

Second, I had previously agreed with you that whether or not government employees choose to unionize should be left up to them.

Third, you asked how I defined benevelont government. I gave a dictionary definition of benevelont. I did not think it necessary to define government.

Fourth, I do not know how to respond to your apparrant inference that government employees are not citizens.

Fifth, I did do some research on the number of private sector employees that belong to unions and government employees that are union members. I found it in an article by Michael Barone, who I consider credible.

Sixth, to me it is not relevant whether or not all government employee union members pay union dues. Either they belong to a union or they do not.

Finally, I stated in my post #5 in this thread, you gave your answer to my initial "why" question. That was all I asked for.

If some other member has an opinion on my initial "why" question I would be interested in that opinion, but I am not looking for an arguement with anyone.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I will attempt to respond to your last two successive posts in this, what I expect will be my last reply to you in this thread.

First,I did not say you said government has picked winners and losers. I said if government is to be truely benevelont it should not pick winners and losers among it's citizens. That statement should be difficult to disagree with.

Second, I had previously agreed with you that whether or not government employees choose to unionize should be left up to them.

Third, you asked how I defined benevelont government. I gave a dictionary definition of benevelont. I did not think it necessary to define government.

Fourth, I do not know how to respond to your apparrant inference that government employees are not citizens.

Fifth, I did do some research on the number of private sector employees that belong to unions and government employees that are union members. I found it in an article by Michael Barone, who I consider credible.

Sixth, to me it is not relevant whether or not all government employee union members pay union dues. Either they belong to a union or they do not.

Finally, I stated in my post #5 in this thread, you gave your answer to my initial "why" question. That was all I asked for.

If some other member has an opinion on my initial "why" question I would be interested in that opinion, but I am not looking for an arguement with anyone.

Bob, I am telling you Mr. Barone is either misleading you or ignorant of the facts. True, the government and civilian businesses have union members, but there is a BIG difference between the two. In government, union members can not be forced to pay dues. In private business, if employees are covered by the union, they MUST pay whatever dues the union decided on. Membership at the Mankato Country Club would skyrocket if no one had to pay dues, but since members do have to pay dues, membership is relatively low and the club struggles to meet expenses. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Here's another explanation:

EXAMPLE: FEDERAL AGENCY 2,000 EMPLOYEES; PRIVATE BUSINESS 2,000 EMPLOYEES. Let's assume that their entire workforces voted to join a union, so each would have 2,000 union members. However, let's say that in government 1/2 decide they don't want to pay any dues. Then, each will have 2,000 memebers, but the federal agency will only have 1,000 dues paying members compared to the private business, where the entire 2,000 must pay dues. The importance of this is that people don't mind joining anything when it doesn't cost anything, but they will think long and hard about voting for a union when they know it will cost a significant amount of money. That explains the enormous gap between government and business. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY EMPLOYEES ARE TREATED, AS YOU INSINUATED. Frankly, I didn't think I needed to explain this to you in such depth for you to understand.

The government passed a law, unique onto themselves that allows employees to not pay dues. THAT'S A FACT! While, if employees have voted a union in in the private sector, they must pay dues, even if they don't want to. THAT'S A FACT! That's an incredible difference between the two and makes comparisons between them very difficult. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Mr. Barone should become better informed before he compares the two in union membership. I don't care who he is, if he implied the large difference in percentages are because of the difference in the way employees are treated, he is ignorant.

Also, I don't know why you are getting so belligerent here, but I never said that you said that I said the government picks winners or losers. YOU SAID IT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY THAT GOVERNMENT PICK BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS. I don't either, but where did that come from and what did you mean? No one said it, so why did you mention it in the first place?

Belonging to a union with totally different rules of membership is very relevant when you toss around facts. When one group is forced to pay dues and another not, then it invalidates the comparison. When you choose to ignore that fact, then you are intentionally misinforming and/or misleading your reader. Your comparison has no validity. I'm certainly not going to let misinformation go unchecked. If you hope to persuade readers to a point of view here, use meaningful and correct data. Your data was inadequately researched and misleading. Therefore, whatever point you were trying to make was lost. I suggest you find a different statistic, preferrably one of value. Moreover, you have previously responded to me that you took such great care when using facts. I'm telling you that you didn't in this case...and nether did Mr. Barone, if he was trying to make the same point as you.

I never inferred, stated, or otherwise indicated Federal employees are not citizens. I was one and I consider my self a citizen. I think your imagination is getting carried away here. Here's what you said in post #5 "I think if a government is to be truely benevolent it should not pick winners and losers among its citizen constituents." And you are right, but if you don't feel that way, and you don't think I feel that way, what is your point? I don't feel that way. So.....what is the point?

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, I am telling you Mr. Barone is either misleading you or ignorant of the facts. True, the government and civilian businesses have union members, but there is a BIG difference between the two. In government, union members can not be forced to pay dues. In private business, if employees are covered by the union, they MUST pay whatever dues the union decided on.

EXAMPLE: FEDERAL AGENCY 2,000 EMPLOYEES; PRIVATE BUSINESS 2,000 EMPLOYEES. Let's assume that their entire workforces voted to join a union, so each would have 2,000 union members. However, let's say that in government 1/2 decide they don't want to pay any dues. Then, each will have 2,000 memebers, but the federal agency will only have 1,000 dues paying members compared to the private business, where the entire 2,000 must pay dues. The importance of this is that people don't mind joining anything when it doesn't cost anything, but they will think long and hard about voting for a union when they know it will cost a significant amount of money. That explains the enormous gap between government and business. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY EMPLOYEES ARE TREATED, AS YOU INSINUATED. Frankly, I didn't think I needed to explain this to you in such depth for you to understand.

The government passed a law, unique onto themselves that allows employees to not pay dues. THAT'S A FACT! While, if employees have voted a union in in the private sector, they must pay dues, even if they don't want to. THAT'S A FACT! That's an incredible difference between the two and makes comparisons between them very difficult. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Mr. Barone should become better informed before he compares the two in union membership. I don't care who he is, if he implied the large difference in percentages are because of the difference in the way employees are treated, he is ignorant.

What makes Mr. Barone's arguement meaningless is that it is extremely easy for employees to vote in favor of belonging to a union when it doesn't cost them anything. Employees in private business are very aware of what unions will cost them, and many vote accordingly.

Also, I don't know why you are getting so belligerent here, but I never said that you said that I said the government picks winners or losers. YOU SAID IT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY THAT GOVERNMENT PICK BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS. I don't either, but where did that come from and what did you mean? No one said it, so why did you mention it in your post?

Belonging to a union with totally different rules of membership is very relevant when you toss around facts. When one group is forced to pay dues and another not, then it invalidates the comparison. When you choose to ignore that fact, then you are intentionally misinforming and/or misleading your reader. Your comparison has no validity. I'm certainly not going to let misinformation go unchecked. If you hope to persuade readers to a point of view here, use meaningful and correct data. Your data was inadequately researched and misleading. Therefore, whatever point you were trying to make was lost. I suggest you find a different statistic, preferrably one of value.

I never inferred, stated, or otherwise indicated Federal employees are not citizens. I was one and I consider my self a citizen. I think your imagination is getting carried away here.

Michael Barone is a senior writer for US News & World Report, and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.

To repeat myself, either a government employee belongs to a union or they do not. If they do, they should be included in the statistical count.

[Dan Conner]

Michael Barone is a senior writer for US News & World Report, and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.

To repeat myself, either a government employee belongs to a union or they do not. If they do, they should be included in the statistical count.

Great! Another worthless statistic. What are you going to do with that one? Gather up a dollar and buy a cup of coffee? I suggest you use more quality statistics when trying to make your point, lest your point be lost.

[Dan Conner]

Michael Barone is a senior writer for US News & World Report, and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.

To repeat myself, either a government employee belongs to a union or they do not. If they do, they should be included in the statistical count.

Bob are you trying to impress me with the credentials of this writer? Well, here's one for you - In 2005 Dick Cheney said Al Qeada was in its last throe. We are now celebrating the 4th anniversary of that. Is this a good example of blindly following bigshots? Are you trying to impress me so much with Barone's credentials that I forget about the facts and accept his misinformation? Or, have you missquoted/misunderstood him? I know that you certainly have misunderstood my posts, so I find it very possible you have misunderstood his. It is meaninless to draw a conclusion from comparing apples and oranges other than they are different fruits. This would fail science 101.

I suggest you either reread his column or he needs to straighten up his facts. If one is trying to draw a conclusion about treatment of employees in the private and government sectors by percentage of union membership they are ignorant of the facts or hopelessly biased in their presentation

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, my only response to your last two successive posts is that I think you fell into a trap with your answer to my initial "why" question, and after I pointed that out to you you have been dancing on the head of a pin to trying to cover yourself.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, my only response to your last two successive posts is that I think you fell into a trap with your answer to my initial "why" question, and after I pointed that out to you you have been dancing on the head of a pin to trying to cover yourself.

Bob, I'm not dancing at all. You are satubbornly holding a false answer and unable to admit you used inaccurate statistics that failed to make your point. If you want to publicly denigrate government or its unions, at least have your facts straight. I don't think it is appropriate to hide behind Barone. Just spend a little time researching the real facts, not the inaccuracies that substantiate what you want to believe.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, I'm not dancing at all. You are satubbornly holding a false answer and unable to admit you used inaccurate statistics that failed to make your point. If you want to publicly denigrate government or its unions, at least have your facts straight. I don't think it is appropriate to hide behind Barone. Just spend a little time researching the real facts, not the inaccuracies that substantiate what you want to believe.

"Satubbornly"?

Since you apparrently do not agree with Michael Barone's statistics, try these few from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics report of 1/28/09.

--"In 2008, union members accounted for 12.4 percent of employed wage and salery workers, up from 12.1 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today....In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent..."

--"The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.8 percent) was substancially higher than the rate for private industry workers (7.6 percent)."

The web site is: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

[Dan Conner]

"Satubbornly"?

Since you apparrently do not agree with Michael Barone's statistics, try these few from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics report of 1/28/09.

--"In 2008, union members accounted for 12.4 percent of employed wage and salery workers, up from 12.1 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today....In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent..."

--"The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.8 percent) was substancially higher than the rate for private industry workers (7.6 percent)."

The web site is: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htmWell, Bob, what are you going to believe...your infallible Mr. Barone or Bureau of Labor. Your statistics were all wrong. You just proved it for me. I'm glad you did a lttle research for a change. Maybe you'll be more careful the next tiime with your statistics...at least from Mr. Barone. Now you come up with good figures (from the government no less). They are signifiicantly at odds with your original misinformation.

Now for the second error. You drew an incorrect conclusion from the statistics you presented. I can only assume it was again because you fail to do much research. In post #1 you indicated you were concerned about the "excesses" of government and/or the union. Now, I fail to see where you get there, but I'll chalk that up to more superficial research. In post #5 you said, "maybe government employees need union representation more than those in the private sector. But as you say, that should be left up to them." . I can only assume that you said this because the Federal employee union membership percentage is higher than the private sector. I will again reply to you inaccurate post that again your conclusions are in error and based on statistics where you have not done your research. I have given you a reason for the difference in the percentage. I guess you are unable to comprehend it. That's fine, not everyone is able to understand relevant statistics. I am telling you that government employees do not have to pay dues in the union. Private sector employees do. Therefore, Federal employees freely and openly join unions because it doesn't cost anything. It costs private sector employees. In some cases, the cost is significant. However, you can continue to believe whatever fantasy you like. You apparently are not able to understand what I thought was a very simple reason for the difference.

At this point, I don't wish to debate the thread with you any longer. This isn't a debate anyway. You made a poorly presented idea, supported by poorly researched statistics, all coming together in an incorrect conclusion. You have wasted a lot of readers' time. I think you should better present your ideas so you can come to reasonably correct conclusion.

[Bob Jentges]

In his post #16 Dan Conner said "I don't wish to debate the thread with [me] any longer." I am not disappointed; he gave his answer to my simple "why" question way back in post #4.

But I do want to make a post to the thread (not to Mr. Conner) for some clarification.

Michael Barone's 8% v. 50% is a greater differential than the Bureau of Labor Statistics 7.6% v. 36.8%. But even the Bureau's statistics show that government workers were nearly five times more likely to belong to a union than were private sector employees. Although I do not criticize government employees for that, it was the basis for my initial thread and the reason I produced those statistics to begin with.

When I posted my origional thread I prefaced it with that I was not anti-government or anti-union but was concerned about excesses in both. I do not find it necessary to do any extensive research ro express concern over possible excess in anything.

If any person that has not followed this thread from the start reads this post and becomes interested, or has an opinion they would like to post, I would suggest they begin reading at the initial thread post, in order to get the true reflection of the history.

[Dan Conner]

In his post #16 Dan Conner said "I don't wish to debate the thread with [me] any longer." I am not disappointed; he gave his answer to my simple "why" question way back in post #4.

But I do want to make a post to the thread (not to Mr. Conner) for some clarification.

Michael Barone's 8% v. 50% is a greater differential than the Bureau of Labor Statistics 7.6% v. 36.8%. But even the Bureau's statistics show that government workers were nearly five times more likely to belong to a union than were private sector employees. Although I do not criticize government employees for that, it was the basis for my initial thread and the reason I produced those statistics to begin with.

When I posted my origional thread I prefaced it with that I was not anti-government or anti-union but was concerned about excesses in both. I do not find it necessary to do any extensive research ro express concern over possible excess in anything.

If any person that has not followed this thread from the start reads this post and becomes interested, or has an opinion they would like to post, I would suggest they begin reading at the initial thread post, in order to get the true reflection of the history.

Well, I change my mind, I will respond. Yes, I hope people read the thread from the beginning. One more thing, you are generally against government and its employees. Your concern about excess doesn't seem to exist in private business, including Wall Street bonuses. However, your concern about the "excesses" of government and/or its unions is puzzling. You were given a reason for the difference, but you continue to refuse to acknowledge it. This shows bias against both government and unions and the truth.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Gents. Me thinks this thread has run it course. Any problems with me closing it?

[Dan Conner]

Gents. Me thinks this thread has run it course. Any problems with me closing it? No problem with me Joe. We're beating a dead horse here.

[Bob Jentges]

gents. Me thinks this thread has run it course. Any problems with me closing it?

Please do!

[Dan Conner]

Hasw this been closed?

[Bob Jentges]

Hasw this been closed?

Obviously not.

[Bob Jentges]

Citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an AP article this morning said: "More union members now work for the government than for private employers,...."!

[Bob Jentges]

http://bigjournalism.com/wthurston/2010/01/26/public-employees-unions-are-sinking-california/#more-12486

Maybe it would help if unions in general did not pay retirement benifits to union members and that would be left to the employees employer, or the the individual employee through an IRA, etc., similar to what has been the trend in the private sector.

[Dan Conner]

http://bigjournalism.com/wthurston/2010/01/26/public-employees-unions-are-sinking-california/#more-12486

Maybe it would help if unions in general did not pay retirement benifits to union members and that would be left to the employees employer, or the the individual employee through an IRA, etc., similar to what has been the trend in the private sector.

Man, for a guy who doesn't like regulation and interference with the private sector, you sure like to mess with unions. It's obvious you hate unions! I think you need to get over it. You have way too many things that you hate and fear. You need to decide what you are for...if there is anything. Heaven knows there are a plethora of things you are against. Start speaking about what you are for and get off the negative against stuff. You sound like the Mikey on the cereal commercial that doesn't like anything.

[Bob Jentges]

Man, for a guy who doesn't like regulation and interference with the private sector, you sure like to mess with unions. It's obvious you hate unions! I think you need to get over it. You have way too many things that you hate and fear. You need to decide what you are for...if there is anything. Heaven knows there are a plethora of things you are against. Start speaking about what you are for and get off the negative against stuff. You sound like the Mikey on the cereal commercial that doesn't like anything.

Dan, A/K/A Anonymous, FYI here is part of what I said when I opened this thread: " I will preface my thread by saying I am not anti-union or anti-government pre se." The opening was not lengthy and you can go back and read the rest if you choose.

There are things I dislike, but I am not one to "hate". Also, I have very little to "fear" because I try to live a good life---I admit to being "against" things that try to interfere with my goals in that regard.

As to "speaking about what [I] am for", the list is too long to recite here, but freedom and liberty is a good start!

I do not know how "...the Mickey on the cereal commercial" sounds because I have not seen the commercial. Time is to precious for me to spend watching cereal commercials.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, A/K/A Anonymous, FYI here is part of what I said when I opened this thread: " I will preface my thread by saying I am not anti-union or anti-government pre se." The opening was not lengthy and you can go back and read the rest if you choose.

There are things I dislike, but I am not one to "hate". Also, I have very little to "fear" because I try to live a good life---I admit to being "against" things that try to interfere with my goals in that regard.

As to "speaking about what [I] am for", the list is too long to recite here, but freedom and liberty is a good start!

I do not know how "...the Mickey on the cereal commercial" sounds because I have not seen the commercial. Time is to precious for me to spend watching cereal commercials.Bob, I don't care what "disclaimers" you state earlier. I only read about your redundant criticisms of unions, their plights, etc. That is not from someone who respects the role of unions. What I am saying, Bob, is that you appear anti-union, disclaimers or otherwise. It is your actions that reveal prejudice here.

[Bob Jentges]

I found Michael Barone's recent article titled "Public Sector Unions Bleed Taxpayers To Help Dems" an interesting read. The title pretty much says it all about his opinion, but if you are interested in the enitre article it is at this at this link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/02/o8/public-sector_unions_bleed_taxpayers_to_help_dems

If you read it, keep in mind I did not write it---Michael Barone wrote it.

[Dan Conner]

I found Michael Barone's recent article titled "Public Sector Unions Bleed Taxpayers To Help Dems" an interesting read. The title pretty much says it all about his opinion, but if you are interested in the enitre article it is at this at this link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/02/o8/public-sector_unions_bleed_taxpayers_to_help_dems

If you read it, keep in mind I did not write it---Michael Barone wrote it.

More republican rags...This is far from an objectrive article. You might as well quote from Glen Beck.

[Matt Christianson]

More republican rags...This is far from an objectrive article. You might as well quote from Glen Beck.

Well at least it's not the Huffington Post

[Bob Jentges]

Well at least it's not the Huffington Post

I agree, Matt.

Anyway, in my opinion it is not so much the publication that prints the article as it is the integrety and reputation of the author of the article. I think Michael Barone is highly thought of by most of his writer collegues, whether they agree with him or not.

One member of the Freep seems to be using the name of Glen Beck a lot in posts recently. One would almost think he is a frequent viewer of Beck's show!:)

[Dan Conner]

Michael Barone is a senior writer for US News & World Report, and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.

To repeat myself, either a government employee belongs to a union or they do not. If they do, they should be included in the statistical count.Bob, leave it to you to come out with a brilliant profundity..."either a government employee belongs to a union or they do not." I bet you really had to look that one up. I suppose you wouldn't be able to assume such a profundity.

There are totally different reasons Federal employees join unions. It is comparing apples and oranges when you compare government unions vs private industry unions. If Mr. Barone was unaware of that, he poorly researched the issue. Again, your anti-union/government prejudice shows through because you believe only the worst of either. That's not objective referencing, that's BS propaganda.

[Dan Conner]

Well at least it's not the Huffington PostOr the conservative Washington Times. Oh, Matt, at work again?

[Dan Conner]

I agree, Matt.

Anyway, in my opinion it is not so much the publication that prints the article as it is the integrety and reputation of the author of the article. I think Michael Barone is highly thought of by most of his writer collegues, whether they agree with him or not.

One member of the Freep seems to be using the name of Glen Beck a lot in posts recently. One would almost think he is a frequent viewer of Beck's show!:)

It is a laugh hearing you admitting the publication doesn't matter, but rather the author. Yet, you don't even read other publications I have proposed. You have ridiculed publications before. Now, in your moment of enlightenment you admit it is not the publication, but the author? Then, why have you not criticized the authors before. You are again like a cameleon. Your philosophy changes like the weather. It's kind of likephilosophy on the fly. You are quick to certify to Michael Barone's respect. How about submitting proof of that respect you allude to? Frankly, I think you are full of BS on this. After I get your testimonials, I'll furnish testimonials about authors I use. Your respect for authors is unresearched and very prejudiced. And "writer collegues?" Have you talked to his colleagues? Then where are those testimonials? Bob, I need waders here because you are getting very deep.

If Barone concluded, as you have, about government unions, any respect he's receive is undeserved. You must be one of his "colleagues". Then, he must be a fellow reactionary.

[Bob Jentges]

To begin with, my post #33 was directed to Matt!

Regardless, you sure seem to be getting a lot of laughs today. The only thing in my post #33 directed to Matt that could be considered funny was the two sentence final paragraph and that was sarcasm, as opposed to a joke. But whatever turns your crank.

FYI I have read almost every "publication [you] have provided"! The final sentence in your post seems like an admission you did not read the Barone link! Moreover, you have admitted previously you did not read other links I have posted! That's OK! But just because you do not read links I post is no reason for you to assume I do not read links you post! Your not reading links others post is an indication of just how narrow minded you are!

Unlike you, I try not to criticize authers; I simply express disagreement with their opinions when I disagree! I think I have that right, when i read their writing! The way I see it a person has no write to criticize a writers opinion if they do not read the writers article!

For heavens sake---I do not need to defend Michael Barone's reputation! You might consider a Google search on the books he has written! You might even be able to find his cirriculum vitae i.e. resume!

For you to say my "philosophy changes like the weather" shows your inability to comprehend most of what I have written throught this Forum! I could have used the word "ignorence", but even if true it may not be polite!

P.S.---To refer back to one of my earlier posts today, note the exclaimation marks!

[Matt Christianson]

It is a laugh hearing you admitting the publication doesn't matter, but rather the author. Yet, you don't even read other publications I have proposed. You have ridiculed publications before. Now, in your moment of enlightenment you admit it is not the publication, but the author? Then, why have you not criticized the authors before. You are again like a cameleon. Your philosophy changes like the weather. It's kind of likephilosophy on the fly. You are quick to certify to Michael Barone's respect. How about submitting proof of that respect you allude to? Frankly, I think you are full of BS on this. After I get your testimonials, I'll furnish testimonials about authors I use. Your respect for authors is unresearched and very prejudiced. And "writer collegues?" Have you talked to his colleagues? Then where are those testimonials? Bob, I need waders here because you are getting very deep.

If Barone concluded, as you have, about government unions, any respect he's receive is undeserved. You must be one of his "colleagues". Then, he must be a fellow reactionary.

Do you have ANYTHING constructive to add to the conversation, Dan, or are you getting your jollies criticizing the most meaningless minutia?

[Bob Jentges]

Do you have ANYTHING constructive to add to the conversation, Dan, or are you getting your jollies criticizing the most meaningless minutia?

Matt, I think the answer to your question is obvious, to probably anyone but Dan.

I adressed my thoughts on the issue in my post #36 directed to Dan. You can bet he will have some outlandish replies to both my and your posts.

This might be a as good a time as any for me to put forth some general thoughts on Dan's replies over the existence of this Forum. He excessivly uses words like "lies, lie, hate, hateful, etc. To me that demonstrates his own general state of mind. His Replies are peppered with insults and usually deviod of intellectual arguements. Ad hominen i.e. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, special interests, etc., might be the shortest and best way to describe what he says!

P.S.---Note the exclaimation point, Dan!

[Dan Conner]

I will preface my thread by saying I am not anti-union or anti-government per se. My concern is with possible excesses in both areas.

I think maybe most of us might agree that private sector unions originated because some businesses misstreated employees with respect to living wage, respectful working conditions, health care, pensions, etc. I would like opinions as to why, under a benevolent government, public service unions would be necessary?

The answer may be obvious or short, or both.Yes you are Bob. You are very anti-union. You can say it all you want, but you bring up too many anti-union posts. Is that more hypocrisy? You say one thing, but do another? Excesses? Well, we might agree that government, on occasion does things in excess. Thank God business doesn't. Heaven knows the health care insurance companies don't act excessively, Of course, the same with the NY financial industry. The banking industry, defense industry contractors, Halliburton...Oh, private industry is the role model for moderation? Come on!

Why don't you worry about industry excesses? I don't hear that from you. Have you been programmed to hate government?

While you ask me the question about why government employees join unions, I think you should be asking government union members. Why ask me? I speculate it is to protect their pay, benefits, and working conditions. Is there something wrong with that? Aren't they entitled to that? Why is it so puzzling to you? Isn't that the reason most everyone joins unions? It is shallow to assume employees have been abused before they join unions. Sometimes they wish that unions protect what they have, and protect their right for a say in how government operates. Is there something wrong with that? Why do you assume unions only happen after employee abuse? Also, as I have stated before, there is the added ingredient, Federal employee union members don't have to pay dues, like their private counterparts. Consequently, there is no disincentive to join, like there is in private business, but I think I have explained that before. I guess it takes you a while. Also, you seem to reveal some of that disdain for government when you facetiously use the word, "benevolent." Your government hate is showing through again Bob. I assume you still hate unions.

Man, there is a lot you hate Bob.

[Dan Conner]

Matt, I think the answer to your question is obvious, to probably anyone but Dan.

I adressed my thoughts on the issue in my post #36 directed to Dan. You can bet he will have some outlandish replies to both my and your posts.

This might be a as good a time as any for me to put forth some general thoughts on Dan's replies over the existence of this Forum. He excessivly uses words like "lies, lie, hate, hateful, etc. To me that demonstrates his own general state of mind. His Replies are peppered with insults and usually deviod of intellectual arguements. Ad hominen i.e. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, special interests, etc., might be the shortest and best way to describe what he says!

P.S.---Note the exclaimation point, Dan! I noted you exclamation point Bob. Boy, it's good you carry on such as hate-free debate. I have encountered numerous times that you have used the words you ascribe to me. Of course, you don't get personal. Just look above. Prejudices? Bob, I think any reasonable person, reading the history of your light-weight debates would concur that you hate government, unions, Obama, change, helping others, and personal sacrifice. I think most reasonable people would conclude there is a selfishness resident with you. Maybe that's because you haven't had to sacrifice for your country. I would like to be wrong, but there are many posts that would indicate that. Now, maybe you can explain that you aren't selfish and that you care for others, but I doubt it. You seem to write a lot saying you do, but then that ugly view of selfishness, self-righteousness, and disdain for change come through. That's too bad. There is an opportunity that our country prosper in the future, when we work together and help each other. You have obviously chosen to only to help yourself and heck with everyone else, but then you think our country will grow and prosper? All I can say is delusional.

[Matt Christianson]

I noted you exclamation point Bob. Boy, it's good you carry on such as hate-free debate. I have encountered numerous times that you have used the words you ascribe to me. Of course, you don't get personal. Just look above. Prejudices? Bob, I think any reasonable person, reading the history of your light-weight debates would concur that you hate government, unions, Obama, change, helping others, and personal sacrifice. I think most reasonable people would conclude there is a selfishness resident with you. Maybe that's because you haven't had to sacrifice for your country. I would like to be wrong, but there are many posts that would indicate that. Now, maybe you can explain that you aren't selfish and that you care for others, but I doubt it. You seem to write a lot saying you do, but then that ugly view of selfishness, self-righteousness, and disdain for change come through. That's too bad. There is an opportunity that our country prosper in the future, when we work together and help each other. You have obviously chosen to only to help yourself and heck with everyone else, but then you think our country will grow and prosper? All I can say is delusional.

OK that does it! Bob and I are going to enlist in the Marines tomorrow so we reach the same intellectual and moral apex Dan has reached. Oh how I long to be finaly enlightened! Because, Bob, if you haven't been in the military your opinon is useless and you're not a real American like Dan nor do you or I know the meaning of the word sacrifice.

[Dan Conner]

OK that does it! Bob and I are going to enlist in the Marines tomorrow so we reach the same intellectual and moral apex Dan has reached. Oh how I long to be finaly enlightened! Because, Bob, if you haven't been in the military your opinon is useless and you're not a real American like Dan nor do you or I know the meaning of the word sacrifice.Alright! That would probably be the first time either of you will have done any unselfish thing. Good suggestion Matt. I just doubt that either of you would last through the fist day of boot camp. There are probably many people better Americans than me, but you guys....you're a piece of work. It's called take what you can get, hate change, and screw your buddy. I wouldn't think there would be many that would want to be in battle with you anyway. Instead of covering their behind, you would be turning around, running, and showing yours.

I think the military would have done some good for you guys. You would have realized what giving and caring is. You wouldn't belly-ache so much about change because you would experience big time change all the time in the military. You sound so much like spoiled people fortunate enough to live in a great country that has done your sacrificing for you. Now, you're complaining about what your country wants in return. Well Matt, I think you had a fine suggestion. I suggest you join the Marines. As they say in the Army...."be all you can be."

[Matt Christianson]

Alright! That would probably be the first time either of you will have done any unselfish thing. Good suggestion Matt. I just doubt that either of you would last through the fist day of boot camp. There are probably many people better Americans than me, but you guys....you're a piece of work. It's called take what you can get, hate change, and screw your buddy. I wouldn't think there would be many that would want to be in battle with you anyway. Instead of covering their behind, you would be turning around, running, and showing yours.

I think the military would have done some good for you guys. You would have realized what giving and caring is. You wouldn't belly-ache so much about change because you would experience big time change all the time in the military. You sound so much like spoiled people fortunate enough to live in a great country that has done your sacrificing for you. Now, you're complaining about what your country wants in return. Well Matt, I think you had a fine suggestion. I suggest you join the Marines. As they say in the Army...."be all you can be."

Thank you for letgitimzing my claim of your childish behaviour and your arrogant belief that you are better than anyone who a). doesn't think like you or b). who hasn't served in the military.

You have no right to question anyones charitible activity when you have no idea. Unlike you, I choose not to brag about giving or volunteering. I believe that if one does boast about such things it really makes that person seem shallow and selfish. I don't help people so I can feel good about myself, I do to help others get through a difficult situation. Nor do I do it so I can lord over everyone else I see as morally and intellectually deficient like you do on a daily basis.

Also your are again showing your arrogance and thuggishness by calling into question how I'd serve as a soldier. It's really inappropriate to say such things. My father served with valor in the jungles of Vietnam so I could live and have the incredible opprotunities that he has afforded me. We were not rich by any means but he taught me how to live right, to be a man, an American, and most importantly to be a father. Just stop doinng what your doing. It's fine that you have opinions but to attack someone in the manner you do because you get frustrated, I suppose for being proven wrong so much(kidding, kidding ;) ), is reprehensible. It's no wonder there is only a handful of people who participate in the forum. It's because of you and your bullying ways. It's impossible to carry on a debate with you becasue it quickly unravels into an insult-fest. I fall into your trap too often and feel the need to take shots at you. I have tried to carry on a respectful debate with you in the past. I hope to try to in the future. Lets stick to the issues. And yes, if you choose to personally attack others in this forum I will stick up for them. Not because they ask me to or need to(Bob does an admirable job sticking to his ideals and standing up for himself) but because you can mean spirited and I want to have new voices contribute to this forum.

[Dan Conner]

Thank you for letgitimzing my claim of your childish behaviour and your arrogant belief that you are better than anyone who a). doesn't think like you or b). who hasn't served in the military.

You have no right to question anyones charitible activity when you have no idea. Unlike you, I choose not to brag about giving or volunteering. I believe that if one does boast about such things it really makes that person seem shallow and selfish. I don't help people so I can feel good about myself, I do to help others get through a difficult situation. Nor do I do it so I can lord over everyone else I see as morally and intellectually deficient like you do on a daily basis.

Also your are again showing your arrogance and thuggishness by calling into question how I'd serve as a soldier. It's really inappropriate to say such things. My father served with valor in the jungles of Vietnam so I could live and have the incredible opprotunities that he has afforded me. We were not rich by any means but he taught me how to live right, to be a man, an American, and most importantly to be a father. Just stop doinng what your doing. It's fine that you have opinions but to attack someone in the manner you do because you get frustrated, I suppose for being proven wrong so much(kidding, kidding ;) ), is reprehensible. It's no wonder there is only a handful of people who participate in the forum. It's because of you and your bullying ways. It's impossible to carry on a debate with you becasue it quickly unravels into an insult-fest. I fall into your trap too often and feel the need to take shots at you. I have tried to carry on a respectful debate with you in the past. I hope to try to in the future. Lets stick to the issues. And yes, if you choose to personally attack others in this forum I will stick up for them. Not because they ask me to or need to(Bob does an admirable job sticking to his ideals and standing up for himself) but because you can mean spirited and I want to have new voices contribute to this forum.What? You aren't going to join the Marines? Is that more feigning of yours? Are you feigning patriotism?

Don't talk to me about questioning here. Theree has been enough of that going around by all of us. If you don't like it, then don't dish it out. Theree have been a plethora of personal insults being lobbed by all concerned here. Believe me, I don't think you have been "without sin" here either. Consequently, I don't expect you to be throwing stones.

I haven't boasted at all. I have told you I was in the military. Heck you don't even know the branch. However, I also knew you and Bob had not been in the military. You related that. Was I to assume that was boasting too? Of course not, but telling someone I was in the military isn't boasting. I am PROUD of my service to my country. I think most are, and they have a right to be. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that. Do you appreciate what the soldiers and airmen have done in Iraq and all the other wars? I would hope so. They were doing it for your benefits. Thousands have gave up everything they had, or will ever have, fighting for this country. I would think you would be appreciative.

I believe I have the right to question a person's charity that says they "step over BUMS." People who say they don't care about people dying for lack of health insurnace and people going broke because they can't pay what the insurnace doesn't. I get angry at the American spirit of people who put profit above human life, as if that's what Jesus intended? What I am trying to do is get to that core of "give a sh&%" about others into caring for each other. Most all people work hard for a living. You know, I just watched a TV show the other night wheer the CEO for Waste Management went incognito into his workforce to see what and how his thousands of employees were doing. Believe me he came back a changed person. He was surprise how hard people worked and the terrible jobs they had to do. He actually cried about the travails of one of his employees. He found out he, and probably no one, has the authority to judge others. I think we all need to heed that.

I will tell you I have run my own little experiemnt here. I wanted to find out about how people thought of each other. It wasn't a flattering picture. I found that no one likes to be judged by others, but there is such a tendency to judge others. It's kind of like that do as I say not as I do syndrome.

I will commit to you that I will debate with you in a civil manner, provided it is returned in kind. When Bob agrees to the same, so will I. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with vociferously debating your issue. I will try to stay away from the personal, provided others do too.

Matt, there is not use talking about "thuggish" and "arrogant" because you feel you are at a disadvantage in the argument. Hey, my father served in WWII. It's not who and when you served, it's only that you did serve. Well, great, I'm glad you are thankful for you opportunities. That's the first time I have heard that. I'm very thankful too. Now, let's turn that thankfulness into some kind of action of appreciation, to make our country better than we got it. We don't get there by bristling against change. We need to move forward.

Matt, I think you research better the FREEP participation. While I was gone last summer, and rarely on FREEP, the only people who had exchanged ideas were the same gang of naysayers that currently do. It's as if they feed off each other's BS. Don't think our bantering has discouraged participants. There haven't been many in a long time, and particularly while I was gone. You know, the sychophantic behavior of Bob's crowd intimidates and discourages participation more than having a counter view. You seem to think that FREEP is better only when one side is presented? I don't. Both sides need to be aired. Your side gets more than its share of participants.

Also, if you don't like the debate personal, then don't dive in with personally distasteful remarks, especially when two others are debating. I am a liberal person, but don't take that for a wimp or shrinking violet. I will debate you on any level you want. I have strong beliefs, just like you, and I won't readily give them up. You better convince me. There has been a sorry lack of convincing among you conservatives. Instead, it's like you sychophantly exchange views as a bunch of emperors without any clothes.

You have respectfully, commented on other threads and I have acknowledged that. I answered in a civil matter. All I have to say is, you got what you gave. You were civil and so ws I. I hope it continues. There i no need to belittle each other or our ideas.

[Bob Jentges]

In one of your earlier posts today directed to Matt you wondered if I might be taking a "day off...?".

In one of my posts to Matt yesterday I said: "Trying to carry on a written debate with [you] was a waste of time" so I decided not to respond to any of your dozen or so posts today---but I read each of them. I noticed that even those you directed to Matt included my name or made some reference to me. I thought the indirect references became so silly that I almost asked Matt if he got the feeling he had a mouse in his pocket.

Although I did not want to interlope in your debate with Matt in this thread, since in your above post (#44) you said to Matt that you "...knew you and Bob had not been in the military", I felt the need to comment. I have never said in this Forum that I had not been in the military so I have no idea how you came up with asserting I had not. You do not know whether or not I was in the military, and I will never tell you in this Forum because it is none of your business as relates to any discussion in this Forum. If you are so damn interested why don't you go down to the draft board and see if they will tell you!

Having said that I respect the service of all who have served and are serving in the military.

In getting back out from between you and Matt here, so Matt can reply to your rambling post #44 if he chooses, I will close with this. Somewhere in your mass of words I think you said something to the effect that no one likes to be judged by others. Yet almost every one of your posts, including #44, includes your judgement of others, often baseless!

[Dan Conner]

In one of your earlier posts today directed to Matt you wondered if I might be taking a "day off...?".

In one of my posts to Matt yesterday I said: "Trying to carry on a written debate with [you] was a waste of time" so I decided not to respond to any of your dozen or so posts today---but I read each of them. I noticed that even those you directed to Matt included my name or made some reference to me. I thought the indirect references became so silly that I almost asked Matt if he got the feeling he had a mouse in his pocket.

Although I did not want to interlope in your debate with Matt in this thread, since in your above post (#44) you said to Matt that you "...knew you and Bob had not been in the military", I felt the need to comment. I have never said in this Forum that I had not been in the military so I have no idea how you came up with asserting I had not. You do not know whether or not I was in the military, and I will never tell you in this Forum because it is none of your business as relates to any discussion in this Forum. If you are so damn interested why don't you go down to the draft board and see if they will tell you!

Having said that I respect the service of all who have served and are serving in the military.

In getting back out from between you and Matt here, so Matt can reply to your rambling post #44 if he chooses, I will close with this. Somewhere in your mass of words I think you said something to the effect that no one likes to be judged by others. Yet almost every one of your posts, including #44, includes your judgement of others, often baseless!Poor Bob. Well, why don't you take the rest of the month off. Read all you want. Your writing sorrowfully lacks anyway. Bob, let's say I can just tell you haven't been in the military. However, feel free to prove it to me, if you wish. I'll correct myself if need be.

I'm not surprised you notice you being mentioned in replies to Matt. I just accept that as more of your paranoia. I don't know why you worry about interloping now. You have interloped on all of my letters to the editor and numerous posts here. Bob, you are a great interloper. You are king of the interlopers. Bob, poor Bob. Feeling picked on. Boo-hoo. Remember, I offered my pocket to cry in before? The offer still stands. Or, if you want I can serve a little cheeze with your whine.

Man, I can't believe you are so whiny. You pepper the posts with derogatory comments and then you whine about being picked on...you must be a Republican? I was perfectly willing to debate issues with you here, but you didn't even cover anything of substance, except cry a lot. Poor Bob.

Frankly Bob, I don't feel you respect people who have served in the military. A lot of the people you would like to kick in the ditch are x-military. There are lots of them with PTSD that your cheap-skate Republicans tried to ignore, hoping they would just go away. Your President Bush even vetoed several bills meant to fund veterans' programs. Bob, respecting people in the military isn't just a word or statement. It means doing something to show you respect them. I mean more than flying the flag on flag day, or wearing a lapel pin.

Bob, what can I say about the judgements that I make about you? I guess you just bring out the worst in me.

[Matt Christianson]

Just to clear one thing up Dan. I said in post #6 in the Generosity of the US thread "He feigns caring for the little guy but would step over a bum in the street to appease Big Union" I'll assume you misread what I had wrote. The comment was, of course, directed at you. I'll readily admit I'll fire these posts off a little upset at times so I can apologize for going to extremes in that particualr post when describing you.

[Dan Conner]

Just to clear one thing up Dan. I said in post #6 in the Generosity of the US thread "He feigns caring for the little guy but would step over a bum in the street to appease Big Union" I'll assume you misread what I had wrote. The comment was, of course, directed at you. I'll readily admit I'll fire these posts off a little upset at times so I can apologize for going to extremes in that particualr post when describing you.Hey Matt. No need to apoligize. I didn't take it that you were serious. You were just angry. I've been there. I think it would be a good idea to refrain from personal attacks. However, when I say that an idea expressed is "selfish", I mean that. It doesn't mean that I have accused oyou, or anyone of being selfish. I'm trying to frame the issue and debate, and I think that is an important part of it.

You know, so much of what we debate is perspective. One is seeing a glass half-empty and anther as half-full. I'm trying to communicate the issue with a perspective where you can see it through someone else's eyes. We bring are different perspectives that should be considered when formulating our opinions. And we all have those.

[Dan Conner]

Michael Barone is a senior writer for US News & World Report, and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.

To repeat myself, either a government employee belongs to a union or they do not. If they do, they should be included in the statistical count.I could care less about Michael Barone. He poorly research and reported his facts.

You poorly represent the facts as well. You would be the kind of a person, if polling others would ask, "You wouldn't want to lose the war in Iraq, would you?", and then conclude most everyone is in favor of the war because most everyone said they wanted to win the war. That was a wrong conclusion, just like yours is a wrong conclusion. By the way, you would lose that one miserably in court.

Also, state that question to yourself again. Doesn't it sound irrelevant and obvious? Either government employees belong to unions or they do not? Come one. That applies to every single person, or even thing, on the face of the earth. Either every persopn belongs to a union or they do not. Either women belong to a union or they do not. Either children belong to a union or they do not. Either lions belong to a union or they do not. Either penguins belong to a union or they do not.

From your either they do or don't question, it is poor research and reporting to conclude anything from that. Research and reporting requires that...research. There obviously wasn't much of that done in the article. Present me something substantly researched, not someone looking to draw a preconceived conclusion, that's wrong.

[Bob Jentges]

Katherine Kersten is probably not a favorite of progressives based on the number and type of "Comments" her articles in the online Star Tribune generate. But based on those comments she might be the most frequent read colmunist the paper has. Her article today, referencing Bureau of Labor Statistics, suggests that the power of public-sector unions has been responsible for the Federal government adding about 9,000 jobs a month and the federal payroll increasing 10.5% during the "Recession".

I guess we should be grateful that the "stimulus" money is helping some people.

[Dan Conner]

Katherine Kersten is probably not a favorite of progressives based on the number and type of "Comments" her articles in the online Star Tribune generate. But based on those comments she might be the most frequent read colmunist the paper has. Her article today, referencing Bureau of Labor Statistics, suggests that the power of public-sector unions has been responsible for the Federal government adding about 9,000 jobs a month and the federal payroll increasing 10.5% during the "Recession".

I guess we should be grateful that the "stimulus" money is helping some people.Another picture of your baseless and fact-free accusation. The only thing I read into what you say is your deep and abiding hate of unions. I told you of that before. You think all business and insurnace companies, in particular, are great, but you only complain about unions.

This was the silliest conclusion about a ridiculous statement. You either forget or don't know that unions don't hire employees. Agencies and management do. Have you ever been a member of management? You don't seem to be aware of hiring authority. I would think you know that? I suggest you produce some objective evidence to sustantiate what you say, or people should chalk up more of your posts to anti-union rants. Actually, you produce the silliest statements I have ever read. Almost always devoid of objective proof. However, sensational they are. Have you thought of Hollywood?

Also, where are the statistics to show Katherin Kersten is the most read columnist. I will agree she is probably one of the most controversial columnists, generating an enormous amount of "blow back."

Just another indication that you, Bob, hate unions. You seem to be a person living in a fact-free zone.

[Bob Jentges]

State budget problems and plans to address them have been in the news for a few days. Cuts will apparrently need to be made and unless the Democrat controlled legislature can work some magic, local taxes may increase.

I read an article this morning by Jonathon Williams titled: "Public Employees Benifit Plans: Up to a Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities." This follows an article in The Free Press a few days back telling that the pension of the retiring Le Seuer County Sheriff will be $80,000+.

P.S. to Dan---To volunteer an answer one of your personal questions---Yes I have been a member of management. When I left teaching/coaching and took a job in the private sector I was promoted to management and served in that capacity for 20+ years. In that capacity I hired many, many people over the years from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds ranging from Native Americans to some with dual citizenship. Many have gone on to bigger and better things throught the USA, and I still keep in touch with many of them. Since you asked and I chose to answer you might go out-of-character and think think twice before you accuse me of "chest pounding" this time!

[Dan Conner]

State budget problems and plans to address them have been in the news for a few days. Cuts will apparrently need to be made and unless the Democrat controlled legislature can work some magic, local taxes may increase.

I read an article this morning by Jonathon Williams titled: "Public Employees Benifit Plans: Up to a Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities." This follows an article in The Free Press a few days back telling that the pension of the retiring Le Seuer County Sheriff will be $80,000+.

P.S. to Dan---To volunteer an answer one of your personal questions---Yes I have been a member of management. When I left teaching/coaching and took a job in the private sector I was promoted to management and served in that capacity for 20+ years. In that capacity I hired many, many people over the years from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds ranging from Native Americans to some with dual citizenship. Many have gone on to bigger and better things throught the USA, and I still keep in touch with many of them. Since you asked and I chose to answer you might go out-of-character and think think twice before you accuse me of "chest pounding" this time!

Bob, Bob, I didn't ask you to drone on in such nauseating detail and brag about your management experience. I'm just surprised that for one who claims to have that experience, you think unions hire people? You "chest beat" all the time. Always trying to impress. I usually think that people who work so hard to try and impress are really not that impressive. If you were prior management, like you said you were, then I would think that even a neophyte in that profession would realize they hire, not unions, but maybe you had a lot of failed hring attempts that you now have to blame on unions? Why did you do that? I think its very petty.

What amazed me the most in the above rant, was how you devoted almost all of the post to "chest beating" and nothing to answer the question about why unions are at fault for hiring? It sounds to me like you have tried to duck YOUR past responsbility. Not an appealing part of your character. Is that exporting blame...?

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, Bob, I didn't ask you to drone on in such nauseating detail and brag about your management experience. I'm just surprised that for one who claims to have that experience, you think unions hire people? You "chest beat" all the time. Always trying to impress. I usually think that people who work so hard to try and impress are really not that impressive. If you were prior management, like you said you were, then I would think that even a neophyte in that profession would realize they hire, not unions, but maybe you had a lot of failed hring attempts that you now have to blame on unions? Why did you do that? I think its very petty.

What amazed me the most in the above rant, was how you devoted almost all of the post to "chest beating" and nothing to answer the question about why unions are at fault for hiring? It sounds to me like you have tried to duck YOUR past responsbility. Not an appealing part of your character. Is that exporting blame...?

You asked me a question---I answered it in three sentances.

Backing up to my very short post #50 citing an article by Katherine Kersten I wrote: "Her article today, referencing the Bureau of Labor Statistics, suggests that the power of public sector unions has been responsible for the Federal Government adding 9,000 jobs a month..." (My Emphasis) I did not say that; Ms. Kersten said it in her article. Also, someone that is trying to master the Dick and Jane reading series would understand the phrase "the power of public sector unions" being responsible... and unions actually doing the hiring are not the same thing. You can not be that dense---you must just play that way in the Freep.

If you want an answer to your question "...why unions are at fault for hiring?", which I never claimed, Ms. Kersten's opinion is in her article.

[Dan Conner]

You asked me a question---I answered it in three sentances.

Backing up to my very short post #50 citing an article by Katherine Kersten I wrote: "Her article today, referencing the Bureau of Labor Statistics, suggests that the power of public sector unions has been responsible for the Federal Government adding 9,000 jobs a month..." (My Emphasis) I did not say that; Ms. Kersten said it in her article. Also, someone that is trying to master the Dick and Jane reading series would understand the phrase "the power of public sector unions" being responsible... and unions actually doing the hiring are not the same thing. You can not be that dense---you must just play that way in the Freep.

If you want an answer to your question "...why unions are at fault for hiring?", which I never claimed, Ms. Kersten's opinion is in her article.Bob, now you are blaming Kersten? Come on! Nowbody is that stupid. You believed here, that's why you included it. Otherwise, what's your point? Besides, you have been bemoaning unions for post after post here. You have long demonstrated your disdain of unions. Bob, you hate unions and you'll do any to spread poisonous lies. Now, you used a columnist, that you asserted was one of the most frequently read, without any proof, I might add.

You put non-sensical, poorly researched, and yellow journalism article in your post, tout the credentials of a questionable columnist, that was only intended to be a negative (and wrong) jab at unions. Yeah Bob, you hate unions. You might deny it, but your actions reveal the fact you lie. Try to show more integrity.

Then Bob, you moronishly defend what Kerstren said. You say unions don't hire, but chose to go with, "the power of public sector unions" are responsible for adding 9,000 new Federal employee. Now, I realize your limitation of deductive reasoning, but I will stick with my original assertion that unions don't hire or participate in those decisions. Bob, now see if you can figure out the rest. You used a bombastically falacious column to draw your bombastically falacious conclusion. The one truth...YOU HATE UNIONS. Don't worry, you probably aren't their favorite person either, and I don't blames them.

[Bob Jentges]

How large a part do public sector unions play in the economic/budget difficulties the State of California is having? Could the same thing be coming to a place near you? Is it only a state problem, or is it federal government as well?

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100215154810.aspx

[Dan Conner]

How large a part do public sector unions play in the economic/budget difficulties the State of California is having? Could the same thing be coming to a place near you? Is it only a state problem, or is it federal government as well?

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100215154810.aspxBob, and you said you don't hate unions? Is that another lie? Man, your true colors show through most of the time. Your reference is a business publication, naturally pro-union, right? NOT? I think you need to get over your deep prejudices.

Bob, just tell the truth, you hate unions! The astoudingly ridiculous thing is that you love insurance companies! You are basically an insurnace company lap dog. At least unions care about the workers they represent, which is not the case for insurnace companies and policy holders. INsurnace companies will find ways to increase executive pay, no matter how many of their customers have to die.

Mayber people need to evaluate what harm insurnace companies have done to our country. Look at AIG and the mortgage industry, and look at health care and the health insurance industry. I think we would all be better off withoujt them.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, just tell the truth, you hate unions!

How many times do I need to repeat that I do not hate unions? I dislike the adverse effect some unions seem to be having on the economics of some of our states and our country!

To say I "love insurance companies" is ridiculous. The way I see it the word "love" and insurance companies are not not compatable! But I know of many people who have collected legitimate claims from insurance companies that appreciate what that insurance company did for them!

[Dan Conner]

How many times do I need to repeat that I do not hate unions? I dislike the adverse effect some unions seem to be having on the economics of some of our states and our country!

To say I "love insurance companies" is ridiculous. The way I see it the word "love" and insurance companies are not not compatable! But I know of many people who have collected legitimate claims from insurance companies that appreciate what that insurance company did for them!You can tell me all you want that you don't hate unions, but you do. You only find negative things to say about them. I'm sorry Bob, but I'm not buying your swampland BS. You hate unions.

Second, you do love insurnace companies. There isn't one you don't defend. By the way, it's compatible. There are many who have received what they paid for. There's no need to be thankful for it, the policy holder paid for it. Unfortunately, there are millions who have been cheated by insurnace companies. In case you can't remember, that ain't the way to run a business.

I appreciate what unions do and what they have done. I realize they are needed. You don't. Besides, if you don't want to belong to one, you don't have to, but people who do appreciate unions have a right to belong, even if you do hate unions. You might say that it is their business.

[Bob Jentges]

Second, you do love insurnace companies....By the way, it's compatible.

An insurance company is a financial instutition, not a person or living thing.

I may be old fashion, but I reserve my "love" for living persons and God.

[Dan Conner]

An insurance company is a financial instutition, not a person or living thing.

I may be old fashion, but I reserve my "love" for living persons and God.

Bob, there you go redefining words to suit you. More rationalization. When using the American Heritage Dictionary, I see that the 5th, 6th definitions define love as, "An intense emotional attachment, as for a treasured object." or a "strong enthusiasm, like a love of language, outdoors, etc.).

I think you need to diminish your prejudice to see things that aren't there, or overlook things that are there. Also, it would have been better if you researched the word before narrowly defining it. Now, you might be constructing your own dictionary, but I use one that is already available.

So, I will restate the correct: You love insurance companies and you hate unions.

[Bob Jentges]

When using the American Heritage Dictionary, I see that the 5th, 6th definitions define love as, "An intense emotional attachment, as for a treasured object." or a "strong enthusiasm, like a love of language, outdoors, etc.).

Your definition did not mention a financial institution i.e. an insurance company.

But have it your way. If you want to "love" a treasured object go right ahead. I prefer to limit my "love" to living presons and God!

[Dan Conner]

Your definition did not mention a financial institution i.e. an insurance company.

But have it your way. If you want to "love" a treasured object go right ahead. I prefer to limit my "love" to living presons and God!Guess what? Yours didn't mention it was only intended for living beings either. Bob, don't you get sick of being wrong? Now, you just go a head and keep bring out your Rush Limbaugh literature.

You don't believe in global warming, you hate Obama, you hate unions, you love insurance companies, any insurance company you hate the truth, you can't stand change, and you don't know how to objectively research anything. Next, you'll say your a "birther." You know nothing of science, but thousands of scientists are wrong. In fact, you think most scientists are wrong. Bob, get with the modern times. You're too busyt tilting windmills here.

[Bob Jentges]

Folks, Dan has finally gone off the deep end!

[Dan Conner]

Folks, Dan has finally gone off the deep end!Bob, just make your point. Can you?

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, just make your point. Can you?

My clearly stated point was that you "...have gone off the deep end"!

[Dan Conner]

My clearly stated point was that you "...have gone off the deep end"!So, you still hate unions then

[Bob Jentges]

So, you still hate unions then

If you can find one of my posts anywhere in this Forum where I said I "hate unions", cite it for me.

I am not asking you to cite any of my many posts where I explicitly said I do not "hate unions".

[Bob Jentges]

I saw the Channel 5 story on pothole repairs by City of St Paul street workers over the past two 5:00 PM newscasts, so when I came across this opinion article in this mornings St. Paul Pioneer Press I decided to read it.

To be pro-active I will state what I have stated a number of times previously in this Forum i.e. I do not hate unions. In fact, maybe the union is not to blame for the malfeasence of the workers in this situation. But a reason I dislike unions in some situations is explained in the article. If someone intends to reply please read the article first and then tell me why I should accept what happened/will probably happen to the union people in this set opf facts.

http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci_14745158

[Howard Dittrich]

Bob,

You have a valid question, I‘m referring to the question that started this thread. You asked “I would like opinions as to why, under a benevolent government, public service unions would be necessary?”. The only answer has to be that a union would not be necessary.

The reality is that there is no “benevolent government” and that is why we have public service unions. Like everything in life there are good government entities and bad government entities (there are also good and bad unions).

Public service unions originated for the same reasons as they did in private industry; mistreatment of employees with respect to living wage, working conditions, health care, pensions, etc.

Today unions are more prevalent in the government than in private industry. I believe that has more to do with politics than economic. We have many pro union politicians in St Paul and Washington. What elected official would support breaking up an union that helped put them in office? Private industry does not have to worry about collecting votes in the next election the way our elected official do. I share your concerns with possible excesses in governments. Also believe that the best way to control those excesses is with an informed active public, governmental entities that work with unions and non-union employees to provide the best service at reasonable cost to the tax payer.

The biggest hurtle to removing governmental waste is the lack of a consistent and uniformed goal. In private industry the goal is to make money and that goal is for the most part agreed to by all. In the public arena the goal changes greatly depending on whom you ask.

[Bob Jentges]

...The reality is that there is no “benevolent government” and that is why we have public service unions. Like everything in life there are good government entities and bad government entities (there are also good and bad unions)....Public service unions originated for the same reasons as they did in private industry; mistreatment of employees with respect to living wage, working conditions, health care, pensions, etc....Today unions are more prevalent in the government than in private industry. I believe that has more to do with politics than economic.

I find little, if anything, to disagree with in your entire post#70, but I isolated just a few issues that I want to highlight as being in complete agreement with.

I wish you had became involved in this thread sooner---it would have eliminated much reactionary, irrelevant back and forth. It took someone with reason to think through what I was getting at when I started this post i.e. ..."there is no 'benevolent government'...", just like there are very few, if any, benevolent private employers any more.

The way I see it government sees it's goal as growing in order to make people more dependent, and private industry sees its goal as making a profit. To much of either usually is not benificial, because it makes pawns out of we the people. But if I had to choose between the two, I would take the latter.

[Howard Dittrich]

Bob,

Please forgive me as I stray off the thread a bit, but I believe something you said eluded to what I’m about to share. During my working career I have been fortunate to work for several different private companies. They all where/are privately held and the owners kept an active role in everyday operations. In all three cases the owners knew me and took a personal interest in my life and family. They shared with me the joys life gives us and supported me through the sorrows as well.

I’m sure they did this because they felt it was the right thing to-do and not because it would lead to greater profits for them. It did help them in as far as I believe I became a better employee because of their kindness, but it was not the driving reason for their actions. I have never felt the same loyalty towards any of the large multi leveled organizations that I have worked for. They have proven themselves incapable of generating that kind of loyalty from me.

[Dan Conner]

I find little, if anything, to disagree with in your entire post#70, but I isolated just a few issues that I want to highlight as being in complete agreement with.

I wish you had became involved in this thread sooner---it would have eliminated much reactionary, irrelevant back and forth. It took someone with reason to think through what I was getting at when I started this post i.e. ..."there is no 'benevolent government'...", just like there are very few, if any, benevolent private employers any more.

The way I see it government sees it's goal as growing in order to make people more dependent, and private industry sees its goal as making a profit. To much of either usually is not benificial, because it makes pawns out of we the people. But if I had to choose between the two, I would take the latter.You've just stated the difference between you and me. I think it is a distorted view of "government," as an entity creating dependence? Come on! That's silly. Also, I think you forget one important element...the government is us! I think you are confusing the conglomerated decision of us all, as part of some conniving plot to manipulate all of us. Government is us. Like anything, it too changes over time to accommodate the will of the people. If your point is to alert us to the "incompetencies" of government, then I think you have to look at each of our "incompetencies." However, you also need to look at the multiple "incompetencies" of business. Recently, illustrations of that are WallStreet, banks, GM, Chrysler, etc.

If a plurality wants universal health care, then that is what they should have. That's good government. Responding to the wishes of the people. If people distrust their government, then they should be more active to change it and make it more honest.

The totalitarian government doesn't give the people what they want or need. It dictates to the people what they will have. Regardless, of what they want. The health care debate should have always focused on what the plurality of people want, not what a minority feel they should have. It is too bad that there has been such a violent response to the decision by the majority. If the minority argues over whether the current bill was a minority decision they are wrong. The majority voted for it. Polls don't vote. Also, if the majority was respected then health care reform with national single-payer or public oiption would have been enacted.

It is amazing that a regular by-line of Republicans has been to get government out of people's lives, yet they want to regulate such personal decisions as abortion. Then, they want to deny others health care for people who can not afford it. I think too often the phrase "of, by, and for the people" is disregarded. The government isn't here to shield personal wealth at the threat of life to its citizens. Too many things are done by people, for our country, without a pecuniary motivation.

Our lack of concern about the lives of our own citizens make us hypocrits about what we demand as international behavior by others. We need to endeavor to walk-the-talk. Most of all, government needs to function democratically. That has always been majority rule. The minority has considerations in the mechanism of Congress. I think the minority needs to move on and start doing the people's business. Heaven knows, there is a lot of work left to do.

[Bob Jentges]

...If a plurality wants universal health care, then that is what they should have. That's good government. Responding to the wishes of the people. If people distrust their government, then they should be more active to change it and make it more honest....

The totalitarian government doesn't give the people what they want or need. It dictates to the people what they will have. Regardless, of what they want. The health care debate should have always focused on what the plurality of people want, not what a minority feel they should have. It is too bad that there has been such a violent response to the decision by the majority. If the minority argues over whether the current bill was a minority decision they are wrong. The majority voted for it. Polls don't vote....

It is amazing that...Republicans...want to regulate such personal decisions as abortion.

As you know, the United States of America is a Representative Republic. I think people vote for representatives who they believe have principles similar to their own. When representatives are elected by a majority of the voters I think those voters expect they will follow through, for the most part, supporting policies in line with the principles of the majority of the people they represent. The way I see it that did not happen with the recently passed health care reform bill. That would seem to be the main reason for the T-Party movement.

When you refer to the "majority" and "minority" it is not clear whether you mean the majority/minority of the people or the majority/minority of those presently in Congress. With regard to the health care issue there is a big difference, and based on that difference I think what happened was more totalitarian than Democratic/Representative Republic.

I agree that most Republicans are probably Pro-Life, but even more than that believe abortion laws should be left to the respective States, not the Federal Government.

[Dan Conner]

As you know, the United States of America is a Representative Republic. I think people vote for representatives who they believe have principles similar to their own. When representatives are elected by a majority of the voters I think those voters expect they will follow through, for the most part, supporting policies in line with the principles of the majority of the people they represent. The way I see it that did not happen with the recently passed health care reform bill. That would seem to be the main reason for the T-Party movement.

When you refer to the "majority" and "minority" it is not clear whether you mean the majority/minority of the people or the majority/minority of those presently in Congress. With regard to the health care issue there is a big difference, and based on that difference I think what happened was more totalitarian than Democratic/Representative Republic.

I agree that most Republicans are probably Pro-Life, but even more than that believe abortion laws should be left to the respective States, not the Federal Government.My representative voted exactly as I wanted and as I believe the majority of people wanted. I think you too often confuse yourself with the majority opinion here. I know you never voted for Walz, and you were definitely in the minority there, so it only follows he did exactly as the majority wished, if you in the minority did not wish it.

You can tout the tea party all you want...all 2500 of them. They hardly represent anything even fractionally close to a majority. First, I refer to the majority in the Congress. They were elected by majorities. Walz did what his majority wished. Second, a clear majority favored health care reform. And new polls show more support for the new Health care bill than disapprove of it. To me, that makes a pretty strong case for voting for the bill. In fact, the clear national majorities actually wanted far stronger health care reform via government option or even single-payer.

I think you have to get over the hyperbole. Totalitarian?? Come on! That sounds like sour grapes. That's what many peole would call a poor loser. I admire the Democrats for enduring the elitist arrogance of the Bush Admiistration, who claimed to have a public mandate, even though elected by a minority. With that minority he rammed through legislation using reconsiliation. I can never remember a Democrat howling totalitarianism. Your Republican Congressmen need to get over the Armegeddon socialist fear tactics. I think the Republican whining sounds like it is coming from very spoiled people who have had their way too long. Our country needs a refreshing change.

Bob, I think you have to stop making statements about what most people feel. I don't think you know what the majority of the people want. You aren' in the majority. In fact, your minority is slowly shrinking, I don't think you are a good judge of what most peopel want. You make thoise statements as if to give you gravitas, but most of the time it isn't true. You only surmise, without evidence.

It is a mighty foolish argument to now push abortion decisions down to the states, but then it would only benefit pro-choice people because people would travel to states that allow abortion procedures. I think your state rights are wrong, and frankly foolhardy. All of these decisions were made at the Federal level for very good reasons.

[Bob Jentges]

My representative voted exactly as I wanted and as I believe the majority of people wanted....I know you never voted for Walz, and you were definitely in the minority there, so it only follows he did exactly as the majority wished,...

Walz did what his majority wished....And new polls show more support for the new Health care bill than disapprove of it....


It is a mighty foolish argument to now push abortion decisions down to the states,...I think your state rights are wrong, and frankly foolhardy.

The "majority of people" did not favor the Democrat health care reform bill before it was passed and the "majority of people" do not support the law signed by the President. Check the polls. I discussed them in post #32 of the "Huge Health Insurance Rate Increases" thread. Other than the USA Today/Gallop poll which was one I cited, if you have other polls to support your position name them.

To suggest that because Walz received a majority of votes in the election his votes supporting the Democrat Health Care Reform bill represent the wishes of the majority of U.S. citizens, or even the wishes of a majority of District One voters, does not track with the polling. But more importantly, such thinking would mean one believes that once elected a representative has free reign to do whatever he/she pleases without considering what the majority of citizen want. I suppose they could, but I doubt it would bode well for them in the next election.

Abortion issues should always have been left with the respective States, pursuant to Article I Section 8. and Amendments IX and X. Remember it is the States thad delegated limited authority to the federal government through the Constitution---not visa versa. I beleive it is pretty well accepted that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, constitutionally. Will it ever be overturned---I do not know, but I think public opinion is changing on unlimited abortion.

[Bob Jentges]

News over the past few day's has been that public sector employee pension funds are greatly under funded. What, if any, concessions should the unions consider to help resolve the problem?

Should defined benifit retirement programs be phased out---are retirement programs too generous when compared with those in the private sector---should there be changes to when employees qualify for full retirement benifits, etc., etc., etc?

[Howard Dittrich]

For a long time many of the public sector employee pension funds have been poorly managed (by those voted\appointed to oversee them) and regulated (by the government). Just like social security, they are in trouble due to incompetence and short sightedness at almost all levels.

Generally I do not blame the public sector employees as they have little to no control over the pension funds, but they might have a big part in fixing the situation. Most likely the retirement benefits will need to be lowered and the retirement eligibility age raised (like they have been doing with SS) as part of the fix to the situation. I used “might” because in the past these type of changes impact the next generation of workers and not the currently employed (future recipients of the pension funds).

One specific public sector pension fund has made some changes that will affect the currently employed as well as the currently retired (I believe it to be a good change). My understanding, it the annual cost of living increases will be capped and based on inflation the funds ability to pay for the increase.

[Howard Dittrich]

The way I see it government sees it's goal as growing in order to make people more dependent, and private industry sees its goal as making a profit. To much of either usually is not benificial, because it makes pawns out of we the people. But if I had to choose between the two, I would take the latter.

Some may say your point of view is to cynical, but like you I believe that there are some elected members of our government that do “see it’s goal as growing in order to make people more dependent”.

Additionally, we have public sector employees that feel that the work they do is important and beneficial (reality maybe not agree with them, but that is a whole different topic). They feel that with just a little more tax money they could accomplish so much more. Add to this those public sector employees that are just out to build their own personal empires.

Complete the mix with poor over sight and management, no proper checks and balances and you have the situation we currently find ourselves in.

[Bob Jentges]

Howard, I think the overwhelming majority of union members are good people. But I do not necessarilly feel the same about union leaders. The way I see it often they have too much power, and power corrupts.

[Howard Dittrich]

To Bob,

True, and the problem is exacerbated by short sightedness on the part of many union leaders and corporate managers. An individual need not look to far back in recent history to find examples of what you are saying.

[Bob Jentges]

Steve Malanga of the Manhattan Instute has an article out titled: "How public-sector unions broke California". Could serve as a warning.

It is a lengthy article, but a worthwhile read if you have some time on your hands.

http://city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html

[Bob Jentges]

Steve Malanga of the Manhattan Instute has an article out titled: "How public-sector unions broke California". Could serve as a warning.

It is a lengthy article, but a worthwhile read if you have some time on your hands.

http://city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html

If you did not find/take time to read the lengthy Manhattan Institute quoted above, here is an editorial from today's edition of the Washington Times titled:
"Public-sector unions bankrupting America".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/23/public-sector-unions-bankrupting-america/

[Bob Jentges]

No replies to my previous two posts nso here is an article from The Weekly Standard titled: "The New Fat Cats--The indefensible pensions of public service employees."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/new-fat-cats

[Bob Jentges]

Article in US News & World Report by Mort Zuckerman: "The Crippling Price of Public Service Employee Unions".

Long but interesting commentary. If you choose not to read the entire article I think parts of the final two paragraphs tell a lot eg "...government was developed to serve it's citizens. Today the citizenry is working in large part to serve the government. It is always hard to shrink government spending. It is particularly difficult when public service unions have such a unique lever of pressure....We have to escape this cycle or it will crush us...."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2010/05/14/the-crippling-price-of-public-service-unions.html?PageNr=3

[Bob Jentges]

Article in the Atlantic by Megan McArdle titled: Public Pensions Headed for Disaster.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/public-pensions-headed-for-disaster/57103/

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting article in Forbes about public sector pay, benifits, retirement, and unions compared with those of the private sector.

http://forbes.com/digitalrules/2010/06/the-millionare-cop-next-door/

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting article from todays Politico: "Pols turn on labor unions".

According to the article some of the "Pols" are Democrats!

To perk your interest, here is one of the early paragraphs: "Spurred by state budget crunches and an angry public mood, Republicans and some Democratic leaders are focusing with increased intensity on public workers and the unions that represent them, casting them as overpaid obsticles to good government and demanding cuts in their often-generous benifits."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38183.html

[Bob Jentges]

And the beat goes on---"The enormous cost of public unions"

Another bailout on the horizon?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/11/the_enormous_cost_of_public_unions105935.html

[Bob Jentges]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/24/government_pensions_face_the_music_106076.html

It the tax payers are required to bailout these government employees it had better be at a drastic compromise (.50c on the dollar) and be accompanied with a restructuring of all government service employees union contracts!:mad:

[Bob Jentges]

I think the article: "My Shaky Government Pensions" points out the problems as "unsustainable" and offers some possible solutions.:)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/my_shaky_government_pensions.html

[Bob Jentges]

Article: "The Case for Federal Government Compensation Reform"

Is the party almost over?;)

http://townhall.com/columnists/EdFeulner/2010/07/09/the_case_for_federal_employee_compensation_reform