Monday, March 09, 2015

Let's Hope A President Walker Will Sign Such A Law For *All* Americans

In fully half of US states, workers are not required to pay a union for the "privilege" of union representation:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a right-to-work measure Monday that makes his state the 25th in the nation with such a law. That effectively means that mandatory union membership and dues are banned at privately owned businesses — a move strongly opposed by unions, which say it restricts collective bargaining.

Shawn Johnson of Wisconsin Public Radio reports: "Walker signed the bill at an invitation-only ceremony Monday morning at Badger Meter, north of Milwaukee. He was surrounded by company officials and others who supported the divisive proposal, including Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald."

Before the signing, Walker, a likely Republican presidential candidate for 2016, said the law "sends a powerful message across the country and around the world"....

Monday's move comes four years after the governor signed a bill that all but ended collective-bargaining rights for most public sector unions. The right-to-work law goes into effect immediately.


maxutils said...

Find: every other comment I've mad on this issue


get an econ text book, and read about monopsony. N to misspelled.

I just …I don't know, Darren … I know how smart you are, and I respect how you're getting a real master's …but you keep refusing to learn the rationale for unions. I know you think you're right, but you aren't. If you'll do what I ask, I will be happy to debate the question with you. But, frankly, you continue to argue this issue from a completely uninformed point of view. Hell …go in to it assuming I'm wrong. I don't care. It's only one small part of an econ text.

Darren said...

Yet the world isn't collapsing in the 25 states wherein RTW is the law. Hmmm.

You like compulsion, Max. I don't. You think people should be forced to pay for unions, I don't. I think the cost of compulsion is *too high* compared to the mythical costs of union membership "benefit". Do you also support compulsion in purchasing health care?

maxutils said...

I don't like compulsion anymore than you do. Which is why I only support it in cases where it provides a better result than the alternative. You support it in a lot of instances, too: you pay taxes which support roads, national defense, police, fire, etc. --All of which would be underfunded were you not compelled to pay for them. And, you already have mandated health care -- try going to the DO and telling them that yo would rather have cad than their health care plan. Health care is a little bit different, though. In the case of a road, you know your neighbor wants a way to the highway as much as you do .. so you wait for him to pay. But he's thinking the same thing, and does the same thing. No road. Healthcare? If you tear up your knee skiing, I have no direct interest in whether you get it fixed or not. You do. So one would assume you would buy health insurance yourself … but if you don't, you show up at an ER and they fix you anyway, and if you don't have means to pay, it doesn't matter. But the cost must go somewhere, so it gets built in to the policies of those who do have insurance. So, yes, I favor mandatory health coverage -- unless we change the rules so that if you don't have it and can't pay cash, we literally wheel you into the parking lot and dump you there. I do not favor GOVERNMENT entering in to the market, except as a safety net for the poor … but we already had that in place. What I do favor is increasing competition and doing things which will lower cost. Which means, your employer doesn't choose your provider, you do, with a voucher for whatever they were previously paying; medical savings accounts; interstate competition; tort reform. Also, preexisting conditions must be covered, which is actually good for everyone, because you can shop for the lowest price, and insurance company can try to steal customers by being better.

In addition, a mandate is necessary because without it, the insurance industry is destined to fail. Here's why. Take a group of 11 people ranked from 1-11, sickest to healthiest. Each of them has a pretty good idea of their health; the insurance company does not … although they try (smokers pay ore, etc.) So they have to guess … and the smart move is to treat every one as a 6. Which means 1-5 pay to little, 6 pays exactly right; 7-11 pay too much -- but they know they're paying to much. So they don't buy and save the money instead. The insurance company now faces higher costs, because they only have the sickest …so they price it like everyone was 3.5. so 4-6 opt out. Repeat, until no one has insurance.

So here's the thing: you can not like the fact that compulsion to join unions makes them more efficient (caveat: provided that you don't have complacent members…that spoils the model) but whether or not you like it doesn't change the fact that it is true, and equally mathematically provable, although it's a bit more complicated. So I still find it frustrating that you, a mathematician, and a generally logical person, are prepared to argue about mythical benefits which you have no evidence to support except for your feelings. Does that sound like any other sort of political type to you? It does to me. So, again, I challenge you. Read about Monopsony in any economic text, although I would suggest Steven Slavin's "Economics'" and then come back at me. If you still think it's wrong, I can respect that.

maxutils said...

As a completely unrelated side note … did you spot the parse in Hillary's E-mail press conference today? It was worthy of Bill. I almost missed it.