CT Unions Vote For Layoffs

CT Unions Vote For Layoffs

Mike Shedlock
GlobalEconomicAnalysis.blogspot.com
June 26, 2011

I am constantly in awe of the blatant incredulity of rank-and-file public union workers. In Connecticut, AFSCME and other public unions voted down a proposal negotiated over many months that contained a "no layoff" clause for 4 years in return for a pay freeze for 2 years.

That was an amazingly generous offer. The state was silly to offer it. Nonetheless, Union Deal Shot Down; Malloy Pledges To Cut Close To 7,500 State Workers.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said Friday that he was moving "full steam ahead'' with plans to lay off 7,500 state employees, as leaders of the AFSCME union announced that their members had officially rejected a savings and concession deal that would have given them layoff protection for four years.

The administration has ruled out a renegotiation with the unions because the multi-faceted agreement took months of intense negotiations and compromises to complete. Malloy said he and his budget team intend to release layoff notices "as soon as possible" to balance the budget.

"I have a big job to do, and we're going to do it," Malloy told reporters Friday. "Listen, I don't want to be laying off 7,500 people or more. I think it's bad for the economy. I think it's bad public policy."

Reflections on Good Public Policy

Malloy was elected governor primarily on the back of votes from labor unions. That explains the sweetheart deal offer. Union stupidity explains why the deal was rejected.

A good deal for taxpayers in Connecticut would be to get rid of unions, not guarantee no layoffs for 4 years.

Malloy says "Listen, I don't want to be laying off 7,500 people or more. I think it's bad for the economy. I think it's bad public policy."

Mish says laying off 7,500 public union workers is good public policy and good for the economy. Indeed, firing 100% of them would be the ultimate in good public policy.

There is not a darn thing that public unions workers can do cheaper or better than private industry. Taxpayers foot the bill for the difference.

Mike Shedlock wrote:I am constantly in awe of the blatant incredulity of rank-and-file public union workers.

It blows my mind that these public union workers actually think their union bosses are looking out for them. Even given a sympathetic governor and one hell of a good deal (particularly in this economy), they march like lemmings to their ultimate termination! Now they are without a job in an economy with 9+ unemployment no less!

I'm with the writer, we should outlaw all public-sector unions in the country! They are a criminal waste of taxpayer money and operate like money laundering operations taking private sector tax dollars and funneling to their Democratic political allies who offer them sweetheart wage, pension and health care packages to keep that union money flowing into their coffers. If you are a Republican, Independent or Libertarian, your tax dollars are being spent to elect Democrats. Tell me how this is even remotely fair.

dblboggie wrote:If you are a Republican, Independent or Libertarian, your tax dollars are being spent to elect Democrats. Tell me how this is even remotely fair.

That's it in a nutshell. There's no way to explain it away either.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:If you are a Republican, Independent or Libertarian, your tax dollars are being spent to elect Democrats. Tell me how this is even remotely fair.

That's it in a nutshell. There's no way to explain it away either.

No there is not.

If we can't get rid of public sector unions, they should at least be prohibited from contributing to ANY politician or political party or action group! This isn't a free speech issue, this is a misappropriation of money that private sector taxpayers are FORCED to pay. You don't have a choice as a taxpayer not to pay state taxes - said taxes then going as wages to public sector union members who then are forced to pay union dues (with taxpayer money) with said dues (still taxpayer money) then going right back into Democratic politician election coffers.

At least when a private sector business donates to a politician, they get their money from consumers who voluntarily buy their products. If consumers don't like the politicians a given business donates to, they are free to buy that product from a competitor or to just not buy it at all. They are not FORCED to buy any product from any specific private sector business.

The same goes for businesses with private sector unions. Those dues come from wages earned in the private sector when consumers buy products from those businesses - so those unions are free to spend them on the political candidates or parties of their choice.

But public sector unions are an entirely different animal. I don't want my tax dollars going to fund the campaign of a politician I vehemently disagree with - but I don't have any choice in the matter! It needs to be outlawed!