Public employee unions on the defensive

[DEDixon 39]

From one of the comments left on the page of the original article:

Peter, I wish you would have done some research. Those employees you cite in your article are NOT union employees, you freaking idiot! Those are ALL managers. They are not covered by any union contract at all. Those people are not in collective bargaining either. If you would have pulled your head out of your posterior, you would have realized that anyone who is a supervisor, manager or other executive level employee is under either an employment contract or subject to the fire at will doctrine. The average rank and file employee (remember Peter...the employees who do all of the hard work) have an average retirement of 28000 a year, hardly the windfall nitwits like you believe is happening. And now, lets talk about the tax-free status you people in the non-profit sector have. If you want to talk about a scam, lets talk about that.

i think this is true and false. managers are not covered while on the job, however it seems true that managers are benefiting from pension rules that give managers, once retired, super nice pay. it seems these rules are somehow designed by the unions. i think Peter's complaint stems from the rules which are being manipulated in the last few years of one's employment to get huge pension payments for life.

[DEDixon 39]

I'm terribly sorry, not to have replied sooner.

It was some shock of a day for me, to watch it live on C-Span, my belief systems were shattered, I could not concentrate so much.

But I did make some notes about it, whilst watchiing. I too, was looking and listening for the 'why are they doing this?' tag.

The major preface, for an hour, from each of the labor union leaders that were talking - was -

[my words, general paraphrase]

'let's get our brothers and sisters legal in this country, they live under social injustice for so long'

But that doesn't answer the question of 'why'.

and I'm sorry, I wish I had some longer answer for you ...

thanks! i'm kind of shocked that this is so difficult to figure out (i mean the exact reason).

for the unions to support illegals, it actually seems like a backroom deal was made. logically, it just doesn't make sense. like Booyah said, the unions in AUS are behind and in full support of workplace raids which is enormously logical.

[Texanadian 10]

You are joking. The biggest opponents of them in AUS are unions. More often than not, they are behind raids on construction sites that use them. Not that this is anywhere near the US's problem of course but still.

How ###### stupid can American unions be to not realize illegal aliens suppress their wages and displace their workers. Who is going to use a NYC union wanker and not use an illegal alien? NYC unions, their demands and their extortion are downright ridiculous as it is.

You understand the answer. It's 99% your answer anyways.

Of course unions are going to support legalization of illegals, for the very reason that illegals undermine the wage rates of unionized workers. Once legalized, they are subject to minimum wage laws (which unions always want raised) as well they can then be advertised to to become new union members. The final answer being that unions would no longer have to compete against illegals.