Dr Fate, you completely missed my point-maybe it was not clear. Policemen and firemen receive the benefits of unions while being against them. No way without union representation would they be getting the large wage packages and benefits that they get, yet they do not like unions. If we applied the free market to wage and benefit packages for police and firemen they would be getting a lot less money. They should demand drastic cuts in their pay and benefits so that they can be in accord with their free market principles.

freeman2 wrote:(frankly I have not seen too many teachers who are making huge salaries or getting huge pensions--.

Really? You should try looking at my district. Average salary is $77,000. We have a large number that make over $100,000 when you include extras such as coaching sports teams. And we are even the highest paying district in the area.

freeman2 wrote:Dr Fate, you completely missed my point-maybe it was not clear. Policemen and firemen receive the benefits of unions while being against them. No way without union representation would they be getting the large wage packages and benefits that they get, yet they do not like unions. If we applied the free market to wage and benefit packages for police and firemen they would be getting a lot less money. They should demand drastic cuts in their pay and benefits so that they can be in accord with their free market principles.

It seems like you are against the democratic rights of policemen and firemen. In most cases they are forced to join these unions by law. Then they are forced to pay dues to these unions. Are we also going to take away their right to vote?

By the way, would you also agree that Warren Buffett should pay taxes at the pre-2001 higher rates because that is what he is advocating?

Ray, it's clear to me that Freeman is opposing the hypocrisy of people who moan about unions for others but accept the benefits of their own union membership. The Police Federation over here are just as bad, frankly. Still, now that the police are being targeted by the cutters and it's feeding through to the quality and effectiveness of the force, I'm not going to snub them because of their lack of solidarity in the past. Let them learn by positive experience why the way they behaved during the Miners' Strike was wrong - show them what they could have done.

I stand by my argument that it tends to be the senior ranks that get the perks and featherbedding., and also that policing and firefighting are among the est and most dangerous jobs out there - particulalrly in the public sector. They should get generous pensions and healthcare because the careers can be cut short and they have to be fit, with the job a risk to that. If we want good services we have to pay for them.

Yes, mining and construction and other sectors are also hard and dangerous, but rather than a 'race to the bottom', we should surely be protecting those who have good cover and using them as an example to other areas to build up to. Ricky's comments strike me as the kind of divide-and-rule stuff you get from the bosses.

And I would say that Buffett should be paying similar tax rates to what he was before, but why should he if his contemporaries are not? It's for the government to set taxes and collect them, not individuals. Not that it's a good analogy.

danivon wrote:Ray, it's clear to me that Freeman is opposing the hypocrisy of people who moan about unions for others but accept the benefits of their own union membership. ...
And I would say that Buffett should be paying similar tax rates to what he was before, but why should he if his contemporaries are not? It's for the government to set taxes and collect them, not individuals. Not that it's a good analogy.

I know that's what Freeman is saying. I'm saying that they don't have a choice on whether to join the union or not. They do have a choice on how they vote. Why is htat hypocrisy? Give them a choice on whether to join the union; otherwise, how can they be hypocrits?

I don't see why it is a bad analogy at all. In both cases an individual is expressing his right to an opinion on an issue, and following the benefits of the law which is not in accordance with their opinion. I'm okay with the conduct of both Buffett and the unionized police and fire, by the way. I do have more sympathy for the police and firemen who really don't have a choice on whether to join the union.

Are all police forces closed shops over there? I've already made plain my objection to forced membership. Still, it's always very enlightening when we see people who object to state handouts for others suddenly finding that it also might mean hitting them.

Suddenly they realise that it's not so easy to demarcate the 'deserving' from the 'non-deserving'. But it is still a form of hypocrisy to bemoan something that you yourself benefit from. It's pretty much the definition of the word.

dr. F

If you don't like the system, reform it. What you will find is a lot fewer people willing to do dangerous jobs without guarantee of a decent pension. That's okay, maybe some oompa-loompas will do it for Skittles.

The applications for the fire and police services are always over subscribed. Because the positions are considered to be well paid, and because an awful lot of people find themselves able to meet the qualifications. They aren't particularly high. You don't need a masters degree in criminology.....or a PHD in fire Mechanics.
The actual stresses and dangers are generally exagerated. (Which the good doctor illustrates.)
The one thing that has kept police pay and fire pay high, is strong, united unions or associations AND the alignment of politicians to constantly rewarding police and fire with protections within municipal and state budgets.... Its a safe issue that "More cops on the street" rote...
It is not true that people will not do dangerous jobs without a guarantee of a decent pension. If this was true there would be few miners, loggers etc. Very few window washers on skyscrapers. People will do dangerous jobs, for little reward, when the only choice is starving.
People will try to get the best job they can, with their qualifications.... Thats why police and fire departments rarely find themselves advertising for positions gone wanting... The positions are well rewarded and the works better than an awful lot.

Archduke, I think it can be argued that there is more constant stress involved in teaching than in fighting fires. I think it is also pretty clear that the jurisdictions that have really professionalized the approach to teaching and reward teachers abundantly get the best results . (Finland being #1 in the world). It can also be argued that by investing in good teaching there will be less crime in the community in subsequent years . I'm not so sure about whether a similar professionalization would lead to the same kind of benefit in fire fighting....
I suspect that if fire fighters had their pay frozen for the next five years, there would still be line ups when the open positions at the Fire Academy are advertised. Its still a pretty good job, without the rigour of a lot of occupations. And the ladies like the image... all those calendars of studly firemen.
We value Police and fire as an occupation because of a romantic image of the occupations. Its not wrong to do so, all i'm saying is that as public employees go - that sector has always been very well treated. In almost every NA jurisdiction.
In a tough economic time, they should expect that their pay and benefits deserve scrutiny and realignment. And especially their pensions.

Are all police forces closed shops over there?

I think so; perhaps there are a few exceptions?

But it is still a form of hypocrisy to bemoan something that you yourself benefit from. It's pretty much the definition of the word.

Doesn't that describe Buffett? You are really confusing me this morning.

Well, Buffett is actively campaigning for change to the system and doing so with the clear and honest point that he benefits from the current system. He's doing more than just voting and muttering.

If the police and firemen were actively campaigning to change the system to reduce their own benefits or union power, they would be comparable to Buffett. They would not have to voluntarily take cuts (any more than Buffett should volunteer to overpay his taxes) in order to reduce the appearance of hypocrisy.

I think Danivon is right that the analogy is not quite apt. There has always been a defect in Republicans' criticism of Buffett in saying that if he believes he should pay more taxes he should go ahead and do so. Buffett is arguing that the group he belongs to (the rich) should pay more taxes, he is not advocating that he alone should take that hit since it would have a negligible effect and he alone would be treated differently as compared to all of the rich who would not pay higher taxes.

Anyway, Buffett is advocating changing policy position A (low taxes on capital gains which disproportionately benefits the rich), said policy which benefits him. There is nothing hypocritical in his saying I would agree to pay more taxes as long as everyone in my income group does so as well. It is certainly not immoral for him to gain advantage of the tax system as it currently stands. A policeman, on the other hand, is benefiting from policy A (unions) but advocating against policy A (unions) for others. That would be like Buffett saying the capital gains rate of 15% should only apply to him but a higher rate for others.

RJ is arguing, I think, that the reason the two situations are analogous is both Buffett and a policemen are in the same boat because they are advocating for the change in a policy, but they cannot change the policy, and there is nothing wrong in benefiting from the policy until it is changed.
On that very narrow ground you can say the two positions are analogous. The distinction is that Buffett wants to change a policy that he thinks is unfair (even it benefits him) and a policeman wants to only change a policy that benefits him for others

Now, you could say that actually because a policeman is forced to join a union that a policeman or fireman could be advocating the elimination for all unions, including his own. However, as Danivon points out, there is scant evidence of any police or firemen of advocating the dissolution of their own unions. If the membership of police unions is more than 50% against unions why can't they vote to get rid of the union? The reality is that police and firemen are against other unions because they see those unions getting more for their members than they are entitled to, but they are happy to take the benefits of thei ownr unions for themselves. If a person is anti-union, I don't see how they can justify benefiting from belonging to a union. You can attempt to get rid of the union or you can join a small non-unionized police force somewhere. Bemoaning unions but then pocketing a 95% (of your average salary over your last three year) pension is hypocritical behavior.

Bemoaning unions but then pocketing a 95% (of your average salary over your last three year) pension is hypocritical behavior.

after how many years service and received at what age?

After 30 years of service.

Freeman:

Now, you could say that actually because a policeman is forced to join a union that a policeman or fireman could be advocating the elimination for all unions, including his own. However, as Danivon points out, there is scant evidence of any police or firemen of advocating the dissolution of their own unions. If the membership of police unions is more than 50% against unions why can't they vote to get rid of the union? The reality is that police and firemen are against other unions because they see those unions getting more for their members than they are entitled to, but they are happy to take the benefits of thei ownr unions for themselves. If a person is anti-union, I don't see how they can justify benefiting from belonging to a union. You can attempt to get rid of the union or you can join a small non-unionized police force somewhere. Bemoaning unions but then pocketing a 95% (of your average salary over your last three year) pension is hypocritical behavior.

I think that you are being terribly unfair. If someone wants to be a cop, I would venture that in most parts of the country there aren't alternatives to being in a union. The guy or gal may hate unions because they promote seniority vs. competence, or because he feels that other officers are slowing down the line, or perhaps he doesn't want to pay union dues, or perhaps in the past he had a bad experience with unions. But if you want to be a cop, and you can do the job, then for heaven's sake, let the guy be a cop, and let them have any view they want on the political spectrum. None of your or my business who they vote for or what they advocate, if they do their job. By the way, their lives are probably challenging enough that they don't have Buffett's time to pursue their own political agenda.

If my interests were with getting Republicans elected I'd encourage leftists to loudly proclaim police and firefighters to be selfish hypocrites!

danivon wrote:Are all police forces closed shops over there?

Most public unions are forced joining because the union dues are deducted from the pay check by the municipal agency and then directly deposited into the Union's bank accounts.

Often a public union employee is allowed to "quit" the union. However, they will still have 80% of the dues deducted from their paycheck. The justification for that is the individual is gaining the benefits of the union so they should have to pay something to it. What I find rather telling is that part of Walkers changes in Wisconsin was to end auto-deducting union dues. Teacher Union membership dropped from 62,000+ all the way down to around 28,000.