Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights

[zipity]

Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights

MADISON, Wis. — Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Republican legislators in Wisconsin have proposed cutting union rights for most state government workers and making them pay more for benefits. Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, Iowa and other states with Republican governors are considering similar laws.

Thousands gathered in Madison for an eighth day to protest Walker's plan. Rallies were also held in Columbus, Ohio, Des Moines and Montpelier, Vt.

"Most people ... mistakenly think worker rights come from collective bargaining," Walker told USA TODAY Tuesday. He said his plan would not remove union workers' protections from wrongful termination or inappropriate discipline or hiring. "When you alter collective bargaining, it doesn't alter workers' rights," he said.

Walker wants union members to pay more for their health care and pension benefits, moves he and other Republicans say would save $300 million over the next two years as the state faces a projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall.

Fourteen Democratic legislators have left the state for the past week to keep the Senate from having a quorum needed to vote on the bill. Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives also stayed away from their Capitol on Tuesday as unions protested Republican-backed labor bills.

Almost two-thirds of those polled say their states face budget crises, but respondents oppose or are split on potential solutions, from tax hikes to spending cuts.

Key results:

— 71% oppose increasing sales, income or other taxes while 27% are in favor that approach.

— 53% oppose reducing pay or benefits for government workers while 44% are in favor.

— 48% opposed reducing or eliminating government programs while 47% were in favor of cuts.

"This underlines the difficulty of solving these problems," Jeffrey Jones of Gallup says. "It's hard to find a consensus on what to do."

Despite the opposition to tax hikes or spending cuts, those surveyed agreed overwhelmingly that their state was facing a budget crisis.

Sixty-four percent said their state was in financial crisis while only 5% said it wasn't. The rest were unsure.

The poll found people were divided on whether public employee unions were a good thing. A slight majority of 46% said unions were generally more harmful to states while 45% thought they were helpful.

Still, this mixed view did not extend to supporting changes in pay, benefits or bargaining rights.

Republicans supported limiting bargaining by a 54%-41% margin. However, only 18% of Democrats favored restrictions while 79% were opposed. Independents were against bargaining restrictions by a 31% to 62% margain.

Jones says that public support for unions has been strong for decades, although it has dropped in the last few years. Still, he says the poll shows Americans are reluctant to take away something that unions have already.

[zipity]

The poll found people were divided on whether public employee unions were a good thing. A slight majority of 46% said unions were generally more harmful to states while 45% thought they were helpful.

Interesting that the poll found most Americans support collective bargaining rights even though a slight majority find unions "generally more harmful to states". Sort of the way I feel, I don't necessarily like the unions but I don't support the use of these tactics to strip them of their rights.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

The problem with public employee unions is the huge conflict of interest between the parties, ie: the unions and the govt negotiators.
Public employee unions "own" both sides of the negotiating table.

[privateinvestor]

Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights


Ok but do most Americans favor Dem legislators going AWOL instead of voting for bills they don't like or support? Do most Americans think that state workers need to make concessions and pay more for their health insurance costs and pensions costs...??

Your poll doesn't really address all of the issue that each state has to deal with because of the high costs of state workers health care, and pensions. In all due respects I think we all know that most Americans favor collective bargaining but the state workers contribute megabucks to the same legislators that their union representatives are collectively bargaining with for their salaries and benefits each year and that is not done in the private sectors

Arnold Schwarzenegger got zero, zilch, nada from the state workers unions and when their negotiations fell apart, Arnold tried to cut their wages. Jerry Brown got tons of cash from the state workers unions and he has not negotiated with them yet but has given them everything they wanted when he dealt with them as a governor in the 70s and we don't know what he will do with the state workers unions now that the state is about to go bankrupt because of the state workers pensions costs that are the highest in the 50 states.. But Brown may not want to eliminate the collective bargaining judging by his cozy relations with the state unions..IMHO

[deziloooooo]

Feb 23, 2011 11:30:49 GMT -5 zipity said:

Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights

MADISON, Wis. — Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Republican legislators in Wisconsin have proposed cutting union rights for most state government workers and making them pay more for benefits. Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, Iowa and other states with Republican governors are considering similar laws.

Thousands gathered in Madison for an eighth day to protest Walker's plan. Rallies were also held in Columbus, Ohio, Des Moines and Montpelier, Vt.

"Most people ... mistakenly think worker rights come from collective bargaining," Walker told USA TODAY Tuesday. He said his plan would not remove union workers' protections from wrongful termination or inappropriate discipline or hiring. "When you alter collective bargaining, it doesn't alter workers' rights," he said.

Walker wants union members to pay more for their health care and pension benefits, moves he and other Republicans say would save $300 million over the next two years as the state faces a projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall.

Fourteen Democratic legislators have left the state for the past week to keep the Senate from having a quorum needed to vote on the bill. Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives also stayed away from their Capitol on Tuesday as unions protested Republican-backed labor bills.

Almost two-thirds of those polled say their states face budget crises, but respondents oppose or are split on potential solutions, from tax hikes to spending cuts.

Key results:

— 71% oppose increasing sales, income or other taxes while 27% are in favor that approach.

— 53% oppose reducing pay or benefits for government workers while 44% are in favor.

— 48% opposed reducing or eliminating government programs while 47% were in favor of cuts.

"This underlines the difficulty of solving these problems," Jeffrey Jones of Gallup says. "It's hard to find a consensus on what to do."

Despite the opposition to tax hikes or spending cuts, those surveyed agreed overwhelmingly that their state was facing a budget crisis.

Sixty-four percent said their state was in financial crisis while only 5% said it wasn't. The rest were unsure.

The poll found people were divided on whether public employee unions were a good thing. A slight majority of 46% said unions were generally more harmful to states while 45% thought they were helpful.

Still, this mixed view did not extend to supporting changes in pay, benefits or bargaining rights.

Republicans supported limiting bargaining by a 54%-41% margin. However, only 18% of Democrats favored restrictions while 79% were opposed. Independents were against bargaining restrictions by a 31% to 62% margain.

Jones says that public support for unions has been strong for decades, although it has dropped in the last few years. Still, he says the poll shows Americans are reluctant to take away something that unions have already.

"He said his plan would not remove union workers' protections from wrongful termination or inappropriate discipline or hiring. "When you alter collective bargaining, it doesn't alter workers' rights," he said."
---------------------------------------------------------

The governor is a very smart man and he knows that is not true,

"Collective bargaining " is so much more then negotiating "dicipline and hiring".
The more I read his desiginiouse yadda , yadda , the more I fall out of favor with him.

Collective bargaining is the right to negotiate on so many issues, beyond pensions, salary's and as he says "discipline and hiring".

There are work safety rules and problems, safe places of employment, staffing, responsibilities of..and on and on...so many, I could go on for hours..

Basically if there are employee concerns , it is the way to broach them to management.
That doesn't mean that their complains , thoughts , concerns are settled in the employees favor , just that they are brought up to management as concerns of the employees and discussed.

[safeharbor37]

"He said his plan would not remove union workers' protections from wrongful termination or inappropriate discipline or hiring. "When you alter collective bargaining, it doesn't alter workers' rights," he said."

The governor is a very smart man and he knows tha is not true, "collective bargaining " si so much mire then negotiating diciplin and hiring. The more I read his disingenuouse yadda , yadda , the more I fall out of favor with him.

What the Governor says is precisely true.
Civil Service Laws in every state assure all the rights in question. Union representation is redundant and that is one of the questions which needs to be [but isn't] being addressed in the current political climate.
For most of our history Civil Service was considered service and not a means to extort the tax payers. Liberalism in general [collectivism, socialism, communism, etc.] attempts to take the operation of government away from the voters and place it in the hands of an unelected power elite ~ in this case union organizers who see the opportunity to increase their power at the expense of the people.
Some of us believe that the government should be responsive to the voters, not special interest groups like labor unions.

[privateinvestor]

Indiana Dems went AWOL to Illinois because of the labor and education bills that they don't like..so it is not just collective bargaining in this walk out by Dems .... One has to wonder if it is more than just the so called "Collective Bargaining" that has so many Dems going AWOL instead of debating, and voting in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana..??

This reminds me of the school yard kids who took their bats and balls and went home because they were not allowed to play in the positions they wanted..

[b2r]

48% Back GOP Governor in Wisconsin Spat, 38% Side With Unions

www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2011/48_back_gop_governor_in_wisconsin_spat_38_side_with_unions

[vl]

This reminds me of the school yard kids who took their bats and balls and went home because they were not allowed to play in the positions they wanted..

Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=3784#ixzz1EnrQgvfZ

Reminds me of people doing everything they can to hang on to what's left of our liberties and freedom. Time to broom the GOP out of America for good. No one I know voted Republican and that includes a LOT of Republicans.

[privateinvestor]

Feb 23, 2011 12:12:51 GMT -5 b2r said:

48% Back GOP Governor in Wisconsin Spat, 38% Side With Unions

www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2011/48_back_gop_governor_in_wisconsin_spat_38_side_with_unions

And the longer this drags out and state workers are laid off; those who back the GOP Governor in Wisconsin will go higher but what good does a poll do when there are NO concessions by either of the warring parties??

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Indiana Dems went AWOL to Illinois because of the labor and education bills that they don't like..so it is not just collective bargaining in this walk out by Dems .... One has to wonder if it is more than just the so called "Collective Bargaining" that has so many Dems going AWOL instead of debating, and voting in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana..??

It is a willful subversion of the democratic process. The legislative process provides for chamber debating. This is how our system of govt is set up.
The dems in these states are making a mockery of the system.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Reminds me of people doing everything they can to hang on to what's left of our liberties and freedom. Time to broom the GOP out of America for good. No one I know voted Republican and that includes a LOT of Republicans.

Wisconsin has a population of roughly 5.6 million. The gov is protecting the rights of 98% of the states population.

[privateinvestor]

Feb 23, 2011 12:34:23 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Indiana Dems went AWOL to Illinois because of the labor and education bills that they don't like..so it is not just collective bargaining in this walk out by Dems .... One has to wonder if it is more than just the so called "Collective Bargaining" that has so many Dems going AWOL instead of debating, and voting in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana..??

It is a willful subversion of the democratic process. The legislative process provides for chamber debating. This is how our system of govt is set up.
The dems in these states are making a mockery of the system.

It is a new political term called "AWOL Fillibustering".... ;D

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

I think the repubs should be taking notes here. I wonder if the congressional Repubs can just bail out of DC and refuse to address and vote on Obama's budget. Same in the Senate. Both chambers would be without a quorum.
Seems like a slippery slope.

[rockon]

Not sure why a Democrat would put any credibility in what the "dumb" people think. They said they didn't pay any attention to the polls when they showed the majority don't support Obamacare.

[workpublic]

maybe they should hold special elections in their district if they're out for 30 days. that'll git them rascals back to WI.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 23, 2011 12:03:56 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

"He said his plan would not remove union workers' protections from wrongful termination or inappropriate discipline or hiring. "When you alter collective bargaining, it doesn't alter workers' rights," he said."

The governor is a very smart man and he knows That is not true, "collective bargaining " is so much mire then negotiating discipline and hiring. The more I read his disingenuous yadda , yadda , the more I fall out of favor with him.

What the Governor says is precisely true.
Civil Service Laws in every state assure all the rights in question. Union representation is redundant and that is one of the questions which needs to be [but isn't] being addressed in the current political climate.
For most of our history Civil Service was considered service and not a means to extort the tax payers. Liberalism in general [collectivism, socialism, communism, etc.] attempts to take the operation of government away from the voters and place it in the hands of an unelected power elite ~ in this case union organizers who see the opportunity to increase their power at the expense of the people.
Some of us believe that the government should be responsive to the voters, not special interest groups like labor unions.

I read your response, mulled it over and have a idea, think you might like it.

As you said Safe..."For most of our history Civil Service was considered service", with that in mind..how about a State "Selective Service "..some professionals as administrators, say like the Professional Officer Corps...set up a State run academy, think West Point, Annapolis , the service academys..need the leadership, but then draft the populace, so many years, State sets the rules, salaries...Problem of "not special interest groups like labor unions" solved .

What do you think?? ;D

[privateinvestor]

Feb 23, 2011 13:29:12 GMT -5 workpublic said:

maybe they should hold special elections in their district if they're out for 30 days. that'll git them rascals back to WI.

What about the voters in Wisconsin starting the "recall" process to get rid of the state dems who are AWOL??? They elected dem legislators and not dem runaways...

[handyman2]

Dezi Worker safety and safe places to work etc does not come under collective bargining. That is mandated by law through OSHA an NISH for all employees union or not.

[rockon]

handy, that point has been made numerous times in recent days but apparently they are only available to comment part time since they seem to carefully avoid the full truth.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 23, 2011 14:53:13 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Dezi Worker safety and safe places to work etc does not come under collective bargining. That is mandated by law through OSHA an NISH for all employees union or not.

I believe it is also brought up at times in collecting bafgaining talks..I read that recently, hear it on the radio, not sure where, but will try to google and see if I can find it...

Preety much everything can be brought up when two parties are talking I would think, however understand what you are saying....but ok, will give a look

handy--- that didn't take long, many links, but heres one I have:
www.afscme.org/legislation-politics/15941.cfm

[deziloooooo]

No comments on my idea?? I thought it was a good one, solving a lot of problems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I read your response, mulled it over and have a idea, think you might like it.

As you said Safe..."For most of our history Civil Service was considered service", with that in mind..how about a State "Selective Service "..some professionals as administrators, say like the Professional Officer Corps...set up a State run academy, think West Point, Annapolis , the service academys..need the leadership, but then draft the populace, so many years, State sets the rules, salaries...Problem of "not special interest groups like labor unions" solved .

What do you think??

[zipity]

National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted February 18-19, 2011
By Rasmussen Reports

1* How closely have you followed news reports about the Wisconsin governor’s effort to limit collective bargaining rights for most state employees?

2* Does the average public employee in your state earn more than the average private sector worker in your state, less than the average private sector worker in your state or do they earn about the same amount?

3* Should teachers, firemen and policemen be allowed to go on strike?

4* In the dispute between the governor and the union workers, do you agree more with the governor or the union for teachers and other state employees?

5* Would you favor or oppose reducing your state government payroll 1% a year for 10 years, either by reducing the number of state employees or by cutting the pay of state workers?

Fair and balanced polling by Rasmussen. Notice that the first question is the only question that mentioned collective bargaining and there it only asks if the respondent has been following the reports. From there it asks about their earning and their right to strike. So far in WI, I don't believe the subject of strike vs no strike has even been raised. This poll is apples to oranges with the OP.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

This message has been deleted.

[safeharbor37]

..how about a State "Selective Service "..some professionals as administrators, say like the Professional Officer Corps...set up a State run academy,

You're going toward a "professional" civil service. We do not want a "government class." That's part of the problem now. The situation is not altogether different from the Military in some countries which exert disproportionate power. Egypt, e.g., is not a good example to emulate.

3* Should teachers, firemen and policemen be allowed to go on strike?

Of course. Then they should be replaced without compensation by someone who actually wants to do the job. It is not a question of "being allowed" to strike, but whether government employees should be rewarded for failing to do their job and perhaps putting the public in danger. If they don't want to do the job, they have every right to find other employment.
Some countries allow collective bargaining and union representation for their military. They have the right to do that. I don't think it's a good idea.
The problem seems to be that some people can't distinguish between needs and wants, between hardship and carrying their share of the load. The People are the employers of those who work for the government. Ours is supposed to be "of, by and for the people," not of, by and for those who are given special privilege by the government. It boils down to whether the boss is the people or the government and, if you haven't figured it out yet, the government is the people employed by the government. Who's the boss?

[vonnie6200]

Feb 23, 2011 18:39:55 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

..how about a State "Selective Service "..some professionals as administrators, say like the Professional Officer Corps...set up a State run academy,

You're going toward a "professional" civil service. We do not want a "government class." That's part of the problem now. The situation is not altogether different from the Military in some countries which exert disproportionate power. Egypt, e.g., is not a good example to emulate.

3* Should teachers, firemen and policemen be allowed to go on strike?

Of course. Then they should be replaced without compensation by someone who actually wants to do the job. It is not a question of "being allowed" to strike, but whether government employees should be rewarded for failing to do their job and perhaps putting the public in danger. If they don't want to do the job, they have every right to find other employment.
Some countries allow collective bargaining and union representation for their military. They have the right to do that. I don't think it's a good idea.
The problem seems to be that some people can't distinguish between needs and wants, between hardship and carrying their share of the load. The People are the employers of those who work for the government. Ours is supposed to be "of, by and for the people," not of, by and for those who are given special privilege by the government. It boils down to whether the boss is the people or the government and, if you haven't figured it out yet, the government is the people employed by the government. Who's the boss?

Well said!

[deziloooooo]

Feb 23, 2011 18:39:55 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

..how about a State "Selective Service "..some professionals as administrators, say like the Professional Officer Corps...set up a State run academy,

You're going toward a "professional" civil service. We do not want a "government class." That's part of the problem now. The situation is not altogether different from the Military in some countries which exert disproportionate power. Egypt, e.g., is not a good example to emulate.

3* Should teachers, firemen and policemen be allowed to go on strike?

Of course. Then they should be replaced without compensation by someone who actually wants to do the job. It is not a question of "being allowed" to strike, but whether government employees should be rewarded for failing to do their job and perhaps putting the public in danger. If they don't want to do the job, they have every right to find other employment.
Some countries allow collective bargaining and union representation for their military. They have the right to do that. I don't think it's a good idea.
The problem seems to be that some people can't distinguish between needs and wants, between hardship and carrying their share of the load. The People are the employers of those who work for the government. Ours is supposed to be "of, by and for the people," not of, by and for those who are given special privilege by the government. It boils down to whether the boss is the people or the government and, if you haven't figured it out yet, the government is the people employed by the government. Who's the boss?

well you need some professionals as managers Safe , thus the academys, like our Professional officers from the service academy's, but as far as the grunts ion the ground..just basically draft them, say four years, no volunteering, just the selective service way, pay them of course but no bargaining, as a draftee..little say, put their time in then we get more in, by the time they are in the third year, they know everything but think how cheap it would be and they would get all that serving their state feeling, idea came to me from your post,

"For most of our history Civil Service was considered service and not a means to extort the tax payers."

Your words...serve the society, the State, salarues, benefits, retirement..all those hings that your saying theiworkers today are extorting from the majority, the tax payers.{Do state employees pay taxes..are they considered tax payers too mmmmm}

[sesfw]

'Ok but do most Americans favor Dem legislators going AWOL instead of voting for bills they don't like or support? Do most Americans think that state workers need to make concessions and pay more for their health insurance costs and pensions costs...??'

IMO these lawmakers are on unauthorized leave/vacation and their paychecks need to be stopped. If they are not doing their jobs, then they don't get paid. Actually I like the idea of firing them and holding special elections (job applications) in their districts. Of course the present lawmakers would be in-eligible to run for office again.

Hmmmm, that means they would need to find jobs in the private sector. Sounds better every time I think about it.l

Back to OP .... Unions are needed to keep the workplace decent and have the workers treated like human beings. However in the last couple of decades they have demanded too much, and the companies have gone elsewhere without the high demands. So the Unions have lost big time in the long run. Time to start over .......... smarter.

[safeharbor37]

dezi,
It's a choice. Do you want a free society or socialism? Just as the Constitution provides for civilian control of the military, the principles of our society provides for civilian control of all government functions, however necessary.
Frequently, on these boards, the military is used as an example: Is the military socialistic? [Answer: Yes] And, like the military, certain functions of government [local, state, federal] require special preparation, particularly in light of the increased power and reach of, especially, the federal government. Police are required to be lawyers and firemen are required to be EMT's. Some of this is inevitable, but it is not necessarily without drawbacks.
People are either free to live their lives or they are free to live their lives only as the government sees fit. Unfortunately, taxation is the tool with which the government is able to control its citizenry and, with that taxation, it can employ an "army" of employees to enforce its edicts.
The subject of the current discussion is the unionization of government. That is the power of an organization or organizations to take over the government which we like to think of as "ours," not the property of entities which may or may not have the best interest of the nation in mind and, in any case, do not represent all the people. It is easier to "go with the flow [floe]" and not rock the boat or swim against the tide, but we should remember: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. The question is, Who are the good men? and, What should they do something about? rather than "Let sleeping dogs lie."