Fox News Poll On Restricting Unions

Fox news is presently conducting a poll on their home page (www.foxnews.com) to determine how people feel about placing restrictions on public sector unions. Keep in mind that depending on the news cast 35% or more of the viewers are D's. Since they are not controlling the demographic to achieve balance it is not a scientific poll. However about 15 min ago 94% approved removing unions from the public sector or "severely" restricting them. This would indicate that the public is predominately anti union re: the public sector. In the private sector employees lead in all areas except pay. To show the disparity, public employees pay as little as 4% of the cost of health care. In private industry employees pay an average of 39% of the cost and many pay 100%

There are now 9 states actively working on bills, from preparation to having been voted on, designed to reduce union control of taxpayer funds. A few others are watching closely. Since only 22 states have collective bargaining laws and but a few employees in the federal sector have representation there is not too far yet to go.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

I agree with the restrictions on public sector unions; however, I am not convinced this is the most pressing issue in maintaining budgets and stopping unconstitional burdens on the states and the entire nation. Although it is significant.

I do disagree with a "bull-in-the-china-shop" approach towards civil worker pay. They do have it good - that is true. But if one limits or ends public unions, it should be done in the most favorable manner to the actual workers. It has not been the teacher, prison guard, police officer, etc who has caused all of the mismanagement through the years at the State level. To cause their households to suddenly, in one year, to have such significant payout expenses towards their healthcare and/or retirement (and not distribute in the the changes) is not very compassionate [compassionate conservatism?]. Sadly, I would not be surprised if many people are viewing the current Republicans as a bunch of real jerks.

As Gov. Christie of NJ told a teacher who called in whining about paying more for her Medical coverage. "We're broke...."

In my state it is the teacher, police officer and fireman who helped greatly in bringing about this crisis. They paid at most three and a half percent into their pensions. They could retire with as little as 20 years and paid only about two percent of their health care cost. That is not sustainable. The state has a major liability as these people retire. They have fought any significant changes in their pensions or health care. I live next door to a retired teacher and get his views on this subject.

I paid well over three times that amount in pension and health care. My retirement was minimum 25 years (55% of final pay) and maximum of 42 years (100% of final pay) I now have the "junker" insurance plan while police fire and teachers still have the cadillac plan. The proposal here would include "right to work" and address tenure.

The plan here is to extend retirement age similar to SS and negotiate Medicare advantage HC plans. They plan to contract any service that someone is willing to bid on. Those ideas are non negotiable. Displaced employees will have the opportunity to work for the contractor.

An 8 B shortfall is bankruptcy material.

Indiana is a different animal. My sister and brother in law are retired teachers. Both have "unfunded" pensions and he has late stage lymphoma. Both worked 40 years to get the maximum pensions. Both took early SS too. Indiana is doing well in other areas but the teachers union prevented any action being taken on pensions and HC. If this is not addressed quickly even those now retired will face a substantial risk with their retirement income. I believe tenure is subject to change also.

None of this is as bad as the unions would have one believe but there are massive changes coming. I doubt that union public sector employees will be any worse off than those who were never unionized. States have to compete everywhere for employees and if the private sector wage is low, such will be the government employees wage.

The biggest union concern is "right to work" and in Indiana Mitch Daniels put that in place with an executive order.

What the unions did as the D's stalled passage of that bill would make you sick at your stomach. They forced plans that villages, cities, counties and townships can not sustain and there will be no state or federal money to help them. Thus the infrastructure will fail from the bottom up!

I see that some Calif communities are now laying off up to half of their employees. Garbage collection and water are critical. Garbage attracts rats and most people would not want to wait in line to get their water in buckets from the back of a truck. Not all could afford to bathe with bottled water.

This poll would indicate that people see through the union claims. No one I know wants to see public employees chastised. They do want them to get honest pay for honest work and to pay their fair share for their benefits.

This is unions Vs. taxpayers. Not unions Vs govt.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

A new poll is being conducted by Fox today. The results with the first 10K plus responses was 97% for restricting unions and 2% for maintaining the status quo.

Slàinte,    

Patch