It's time for getting rid of municipal union pensions

Plain and simple. The unions have sucked at the taxpayers' money for so long and for such huge wages that they broke the golden egg that built America's cars. Now they are crying in their welfare checks, free cell phones, free medical care and free food stamps. Only the unions get pensions. Pensions paid by taxpayers. But the rest of the working people have to use IRAs - not nearly as profitable for the workers. Sure the police, fire and paramedics preform an important job and thy should be paid a good salary. BUT they should pay for their health care like other non-government workers do. And they should only have IRAs not pensions. Pensions have gone out of use for decades for everyone but politically connected unions. That is not fair and unions do not pay their fair share when they expect huge pensions at 50% tp 95% of their last three years salary. That is "stealing" from the taxpayers. Unions had the reason to be back before world war II. But as union salaries and pensions rose over the decades union pay and union pensions have become the source of more bankruptcies than anything else. It's not about busting unions. It's about unions getting in step with the rest of the working people.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford.


Common Sense Economics: What E (Google Affiliate Ad)


Economics 101 Bumper Bumper Sticker (Google Affiliate Ad)



Rediscovering Values (Google Affiliate Ad)

Minimum wage

On the issue of low prices - How do you think any business can provide low prices? It's by keeping costs low. And the biggest cost is labor. No getting around this cost. As wages go up, prices go up. There is no other magic way to have lower prices without having lower costs.

Minimum wage is supposed to be for young, new employees - not for a middle age person to support a family. Minimum wage is paid while young people learn what working is and what work's responsibilities are.

If the economy is roaring and prices are stable, business margins leave room for increase wages. However, anyone who has lived more than 30 years will now that there are always recessions between the good times; most not as bad as the recession we are now in. So increasing wages in good times usually leads to letting go of a few employees in bad times. That is just the facts of the business world.

When the unions press for higher wages during bad economic times, they know that some employees will lose their jobs. The only issue with the unions is:  it is all about union dues and not about benefiting the union workers unless the unions can increase the union dues.

An example of unions pushing too far: The Chicago Teachers Union demanded a major wage increase saying it was about the students. _Pure BS but they got their raises. Then the City of Chicago realized they had a negative gap in their budget. So they closed 52 of the worst preforming schools. Schools with 50% attendance. Schools with students failing.

The idea was both to make up the budget deficit caused by the unions extra-ordinary raise and to consolidate students into other schools. The result would be the letting go of 52 time about 25 to 35 teachers, 52 principles and 52 vice-principles, 52 counselors, 104 secretaries and 52 janitors. Over 1700 union jobs were lost and the City of Chicago balanced their budget.

So the unions now demanded that the schools be re-instaed - again saying it was all about the students. Again - PURE BS. Ir was all about union dues. You see, after a strike, unions usually raise union dues. But this time they lost over 1700 union dues payments per month. Even with the tens of thousands of union teacher raises, the unions budget will not grow as planned. This is the main focus on the unions. Their budget and the increase in union dues. And let us not forget about the raises the union bosses get
when they win a union raise.

Unions in many case have now reached the "peter principle". They are fighting a battle that was won 40 years ago. Yet they continue to stir their members about getting raises and getting better benefits.

Let is not forget who pays for these increased salaries and benefits. YOU AND I PAY FOR THESE UNION SALARIES AND PENSIONS AND BENEFITS WITH OUR REAL ESTATE TAXES OR STATE TAXES.

If you are not a union member, what pension do you have? Will it provide you the same high benefits that union members get. My thought is that it is now time to stop these unions from bargaining with

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford.

Union Rock journal (Google Affiliate Ad)

Nonconformists Union, Local 404 Official Log Book journal (Google 

Affiliate Ad)


Our Union journal (Google Affiliate Ad)

Unions are busting our states' budgets.

The unions have wormed their way into the IL State's congressional members and the City of Chicago negotiating billions of dollars in pensions where the union members hardy pay anything into their pensions. Also, the corruption at all levels is so high that 3 of the last 5 IL governors have gone to prison. Between the corruption and the union demands, the State of IL is Billions in debt.  An example of union crap. They had a strike to get huge teacher raises, including low cost health care and increased pensions. OK they got that. Then the city of Chicago (in trying to balance the bulging budge with the increased teacher's pay and benefits) decided to close 50 of the poorest preforming schools with the fewest number of students. Now the teachers union is complaining that the students will be hurt and demand that they keep these 50 horrible schools open at any cost. That is how unions operate in Chicago and IL. IL has the worst debt of all 50 states and the worst union problems in all 50 states with the possibility of the long-shoremen unions. The only way this is going to correct itself is for the State of IL to go into bankruptcy --- if it is allowed. Then all union pensions can be cut by 85% and the teachers' salaries can be brought down to the average teacher salary and the CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) bus and train drivers' salaries can be brought down to the average bus & train salaries from all over the US. And we need to brake the connection with the unions ability to negotiate with government. It is your tax money (and part of your rent money) that pays for these union pensions. I do not get a pension. Do You? Do you want to pay for other peoples pensions? I do NOT!!! Let union members contribute to an IRA like I had to do.
That's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford.

Samsung Galaxy Tab 2, 8GB, Silver GT-P3113TSYXAR (Google Affiliate Ad)Samsung Galaxy Tab 2, 16 GB GTP5113TSYXAR (Google Affiliate Ad)Google Nexus 7 32GB Tablet NEXUS7ASUS- (Google Affiliate Ad)Samsung Galaxy Note WiFi 32GB, Gray GTN8013EAVXA (Google Affiliate Ad)Google Nexus 7 32GB Tablet (Google Affiliate Ad)Samsung Galaxy Tab 2, 8GB, Garnet Red GT-P3113GRSXAR (Google Affiliate Ad)10.1 Samsung Galaxy Note 16GB Tablet - Grey (Google Affiliate Ad)Acer A200 Iconia Tablet, 16 GB, Titanium Gray XE.H8QPN.001 (Google Affiliate Ad)

REALITY CHECK

The government cannot guarantee you any benefits
or services
WITHOUT FIRST TAKING IT AWAY FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

Plain and simple. It is a zero sum game.
The government has only the money it can take from citizens.

And the debt is just an elaborate way to to pretend the government has money.

That is the basis of socialism. Socialism takes from some to give to other.
But as we saw in the brief history of communist Russia, some people get more than others.

Socialism can be seen as the plunder from some to give to others. But the others usually are not the productive citizens. They are the takers of the system. They offer nothing in return for their taking.

Maybe it would be a great time to read ANIMAL FARM.
A short, great book that is fun to read and has a deep meaning - specially now.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford.

Proofs Unions do NOT care about its menbers

Boeing7,000 technicians have voted to strike because they do not want to have their pension funds transferred to an IRA - just like most other wage earners. OK - I can se the self interest in their wishes.
But the other 15,000 Boeing workers who voted for the plan will also be hurt if the 7,000 techs strike.

Then there is the ability of Boeing to become profitable. This is absolutely important. If Boeing goes out of business than all 22,000 Boeing workers will be out of work.

By striking, these 7,000 Boeing union workers will cause financial problem for Boeing. And Brazil's luxury jets or France's Air Bus will replace the orders that were given to Boeing. Gone will be the profits for Boeing. So even if the 7,000 tech union workers win and keep their pensions, they will not get anything contributed into the pensions because there will be no Boeing profits for several years.

The 7,000 tech workers and the 15,000 other Boeing workers would be better served if they just accept what almost all workers (including office workers) have for their retirement savings - the IRA.

 I also believe that as part of the negotiated package, that executives making more than 100,000 have their salaries cut by 5%; and those making over 175,000 have their salaries cut by 10%; and everyone making more than 250,000 have their salaries cut by 15%; And everyone making more than 500,000 have their salaries cut by 20%. Now something like this would be fair to all since it is the company that needs bailing out and "sacrifice should be shared by all workers - union members and executives alike."

Additionally, The executive pensions need to be converted to IRAs at the same time all the other workers have their pensions transferred to IRAs.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford.

Union's dis0incentive to work

Let's say you want to build something. If the unions get involved, you have to buy materials from
union companies. When hiring, you have to hire union workers. If a worker is a specific tradesman
such as carpenter or plumber or electrician, you can't ask them to do something easily done if it is
outside their "trade". So you have to WAIT for a particular TRADESMAN to show up and do the simple job. You can't even do the job yourself and save the money. That is not the union way.

The
union way demands featherbedding. That means having more people to do the job then is necessary.
And you can't have anyone on the job that is not  union worker - even though they might be better at their work than any union worker and faster at their work than any union worker.  And even though you are financing the project, you can't fix a problem yourself. Your have to again WAIT for a specific tradesman to arrive and do the simple work for which they get paid a rich wage and then the
project they were pulled from has to wait until that tradesman gets back to their area.

And have you ever travelled on the highway during construction season. You will see groups of construction workers standing about doing nothing while one or two other union people are doing the work. That is what unions are about too.

Unions have outgrown todays world where there are too many people for two few jobs. The law of supply and demand needs to be at work and that means unions must accept lower expectations. It is the union pensions that are bankrupting almost all the states and many of the cities in the USA. Take away
the union pensions and all the states have a balanced budget and the same foe all the cities.

And I have to remind you once again who pay for these pensions. It is you and me in our Federal,
State and sales taxes.

 The solution is easy. Let the States go bankrupt and dissolve the union pensions at 10¢ to maybe 25¢ on the dollar. By the way, that would still give union workers over 50% return on the money they contributed.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford.

More Union Logic

Today, I saw a picket of three men on a small building project.
There are usually never more than 4 or 5 people on the job.
it is a slow project with limited funds.

But these three men were stopping deliveries of building supplies.
So the building supplies were never delivered. The company that
delivered the supplies could not make any money but cost them
money for the deliver. - money lost.

The workers could not get paid because they had nothing to work
with and were sent home. - money lost

But the union continued to stop deliveries to this small project.

WHY? I ask. What harm does this one small non-union project
cause to the unions? It's about power, leverage and payoffs. OK,
when I say payoffs, I mean union dues. Money the union can use
to do whatever it wants - usually to bribe congresspeople to vote
in favor of union wants.

This is a cycle that has to stop. It does not help anyone. The 4 or 5
workers will not get any better wages. They are already paid more
then union wages. They are all part-time workers - like most
construction workers. And they are skilled in more than one function,

Therefore, one week a laborer might be installing iron and the next week
 they might be installing dry wall and the next month electricity. All
certified by city officials as "up to code."

But in a union workplace, the iron workers would get one wage and only
work for a few days. They would be replaced by dry wall labors and
the electricians would do their work as the dry wall persons go home.

That to me does not make sense. I would rather have a few good all around
workers on the job from start to finish when doing a small project like
the one I'm talking about. Then use those same workers on the next project.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford.