Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________ So Mr. Treumann supports the idea that public employees should take what the fat cats will give them? Lets remind folks what this issue is about. Its about a collective bargaining process that resulted in the current system. Now a new sheriff is in town in the persona of Mr. Bell and Mr Pawlenty. They want to take everything back that was negotiated in the past. If this isn't a valid argument for a union, I don't know what is. I do understand the issue Mr. Treumann raises. However, to prevent an employee from withholding his or her services because they provide a public service opens the door for much more political employee abuse then there currently exists now. Mike Fratto Payne Phalen
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/11/2004 9:28:59 AM >>> Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________ I support 100% the right to strike by people who work in private industry. They know that if they push too hard and too far that the company they work for will go bankrupt, and some other company will provide the services while they strike. A private sector strike is between the owner(s) and the employees. They both have a lot at risk and they both know it. The employees union creates a needed balance against the power of ownership. Public employee strikes are different. Public employees generally provide a service that can't be purchased elsewhere. There is only one metro bus system. There are no "owners" of the system taking home the profit. A public employee strike pits the employees against the customers. Public employees wield a lot of political power because through the ballot box they get a chance to hire their own bosses. (I was surprised to see this exact claim made in an AFSCME newsletter recently.) In all conflicts, people will put their own interests first, so I understand why the union wants the public to pay for their health costs. We all want that. Its called national health insurance, and if Transit employees get a special public health subsidy not available to Taxi drivers and bicycle shop employees, it will not get us any closer to national health insurance. Employers have absolutely no control or responsiblity for the cost of health insurance. As long as we accept that health insurance should be provided by the employer we will never solve the bigger problem. Transit workers should stop their strike against their customers and put their energy into supporting health care for all. Progressives should not support this strike just because it exists. Unions will always represent the immediate interests of their members, but there is no reason to assume that meeting union demands is good public policy. We need to break the link between ones place of employment and ones level of health care subsidy, not strengthen it by awarding more special benefits to a group with the power to shut down an essential public service. Bob Treumann Como Neighborhood _____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ _____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
