We are all hard working and deserving not only of raises BUT OF JOBS. When there is no work in the private sector, you get laid off or let go, even when you are in a union. Why is it that the employees who work in government offices "have the right to jobs" when the rest of us don't and "have the right to raises" when the rest of us can't even keep or find jobs? My property taxes went UP for the first installment of 2010 payable this March. Why? The value of my home is BELOW the value of it when we bought it in 2003, yet the value for tax purposes has gone up. The burden of the failed economy has been born to a far greater extent on the shoulders of private sector working class middle Americans. I work the same type of job as I did a few years ago as a contract closer and delivery driver. I now earn 48% of what I used to earn per closing and I took a 25% pay cut in my other part-time job. I actually am required to perform part of that job for free now, a separate function that I used to get paid to perform. Yet I'm supposed to be able to afford to not only pay other people's salaries, but now I'm also required to pay them MORE when I can't even afford to pay my mortgage? There's something wrong with this picture when people who work in government jobs don't suck it up like the rest of us and do the right thing by sacrificing like so many of us who have no choice have had to do.

You are right, it simply isn't fair, and the unions acting like this in these tough financial times will bring about their own demise. It is now blatantly obvious that it needs to happen, and it will.

This is utterly ridiculous, I love the people that work for the city, but they aren't any more special than people working clerical in a law firm down the street, sorry :(

The fact that there is even a clerical union is preposterous. This is not 1920 where they are being forced to write and stuff papers until their hands are bleeding, if that was going on, fine, form a union and demand you not be forced to work until your hands bleed, but this is 2011, and we have workplace rules in effect right now that cover ALL workers, preventing unfair working conditions from occurring, so why is there a clerical workers union again???

This is why all government unions will be disbanded, because it is not 1920, and all the old grievances have been addressed, but the unions don't have the integrity to admit that, claim victory, and disband themselves.

How anyone thinks that that that is is ok for an employee to look at their employer, who has both of his pockets proverbially pulled out of his trousers, and demand a raise, while there is a line down the block of people wanting that job, willing to do the same or better work, for equal or lower pay, is beyond me.... ESPECIALLY when their employer is the group of people lined up outside wanting that job...... Think about it.....

Richard,
I agree with you about the continued necessity for the existence of unions & also believe that when non-union employees attempt to unionize, employers should not be allowed to misrepresent unions' impact on employees or intimidate employees. Employees should be allowed to vote without disclosing names. Middle class America thrived from '50s through the '70s because of unions. Deregulation & anti-unionism, sending jobs overseas, passing costs on to employees & consumers, etc. have all contributed to the demise of the middle class. Since '79, the bottom 60% in terms of net wealth now make a mere 95 cents to the $1.00 they earned '79. The next 20% earn a whopping $1.02 to the $1 they earned in '79. Meanwhile, the top 20% earn $1.53 to the $1 they earned in '79. Couple this with the high rate of foreclosures & we'll find the top 20% owning a greater disproportionate share of wealth in the future. The top 20% own 85% of the nation's wealth. Since '08 they lost on average only 11% of their net wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 80% have lost an average of 36% of their net wealth since then. The wealthy soon will own all the real estate and rent it to us. The point I was trying to make is that there is only so much people like me have left. I can't help myself & no one helps me. I certainly can't help anyone else. Reasonableness needs to be the order of the day for ALL. No one begrudges them their salaries, but are raises deserved or even wise right now? Probably not.

"Middle class America thrived from '50s through the '70s because of unions." Sorry, but that is a mis-statement. Middle class America thrived during that time period despite unions, due to a booming burgeoning economy. When we hit an economic downturn, did the unions work with the business' to keep the companies alive and stable? No. They demanded to get the same as they were previously getting and MORE.

Business' and governments are not static enterprises. They both go through periods of economic growth and periods of economic downturns, and need to be flexible to survive both. When you tie their hands in either situation, it can be and usually is disastrous. I don't think you could find one person that would be an opponent of hiring more people when there are market forces that demand it, but a certain portion of those same people can not see the necessity to fire people when that demand goes away. It's not an easy thing to do, and I don't think you will find one manger or owner who enjoys doing it, but reality is reality.

The same forces affect wages, when the market for talent is heating up, people with the skills to fulfill the need can demand more pay in order to be retained, but when the market cools, wages cool commensurate with the market conditions.

Continued Below.......

This is simple business 101. It should be taught in every High School in the country so we give our kids a fair chance to understand the realities they will face when they enter the workforce. Why isn't it? Oh that's right, I forgot who controls all of the teachers in this country.... Nevermind, guess they'll have to find out for themselves.... Sad...

The best thing you can do for yourself is work hard, and truly value the quality of work you produce, and when someone sees the value of your work, they will pay you for it, period.

The theory was that if they weren't "rewarded" for their "hard work" they would jump ship and move to other firms. Though that should have been considered in your words a "cool" in the market, those wages certainly didn't cool commensurate with the market did they? Oh, that applies only to the working stiff. And never mind that the income these investors make is taxed at a rate of 15%, a rate that applies to only the poorest of the poor, because that income is considered dividends and returns.

As far as the union issue goes, I wrestle with unions for public sector employees versus private sector. When the market is as bad as it is, government continues to function and government employees continued to get paid and continue to have jobs to go to every day. There appears to be little expectation, both in the private and public sector, that government employees have a "right" to their jobs. When I and millions of others lose jobs, I still have to pay my taxes AND watch them increase to ensure that government employees have the ability to continue to live their lifestyles and face very little loss. Union foremen receive bonuses to completing jobs ahead of schedule. Union employers compete for jobs in a bidding process. When there's no work, union members sit at home collecting unemployment at less than 40% of their net income.

Continued below

It's sad that you buy into the class warfare the progressives are pushing as a distraction to their utter failures regarding our economy.

Say for whatever reason you decide to move to Thailand, and you get paid the same as you are getting now here. If you did that, you would be in the top 5 percent of wage earners in that country. So, how much would you think would be fair for the government of Thailand to confiscate from your earnings? 90%? 80%? 50% or 15%? After all, by your logic, just that fact that you fit into some statistical income percentage requires you to essentially work for the government first, and live off of whatever they allow you second.

Continued Below

A union member's package, which includes funds for health insurance, wages, vacation pay, a portion of the dues, etc. is built into the bid. If the investor or organization that accepted the bid has the ability to pay union wages, why on God's green earth shouldn't those investors or organization, corporations, businesses, etc., pay those wages? Why shouldn't people who actually work for a living in all kinds of weather, in buildings that aren't heated or cooled, and risk death or severe injury be paid fair wages even if the market "cools"? Is it the union members fault that the market "cooled"?
In today's corporate and wealthy greed environment, the "cost of doing business" is never absorbed by the wealthy or the corporations, but is rather "trickled down" to be borne by the people at the lowest levels. When a frost killed Florida oranges, Tropicana shrunk its packages and increased the cost of the juice to keep its profits at the same level. God forbid the shareholders and CEOs take a little bit less on their end. When Aetna lost 0.5 million of its 19 million members by last November and ANTICIPATED losing 0.5 million more by this April, it took pre-emptive action by firing 200 employees just before Christmas in THIS ECONOMY though it posted third quarter profits of $497 million. It might have cost Aetna $1.2 million to keep these poeple on. But that bottom line is always much more important.

Continued

The business owner at the company I took the 25% pay cut continues to enjoy the life style he had before the economy collapsed. His family has gone on at least two extended vacations. He gets weekly massages, bought a huge house for pennies on the dollar. I worked hard before my pay was cut and I work harder now because I'm paid less and perform more work for less pay. I should have no right to expect that my pay should at least stay the same at a job I'm already in? Both of my part-time jobs require me to use my car to drive for the deliveries and to and from closings. When the cost of gas goes up, I can't pass that on to anyone. When the cost of paper and toner increases, I eat it. Why do I have to absorb costs, but corporations and wealthy don't? Finally, unions fell apart during the Reagan years of deregulation, after the 70s. How the heck to you think families lived on one income during the 50s, 60s and 70s? It was because they were earning decent wages. It was before corporate greed resulted in jobs being shipped overseas.

And this business about the top 1 percent is just another wedge issue to distract from governmental ineptitude and irresponsibility regarding being able to balance their budget. If they operated like a business, and had all their ducks in a row fiscally, you wouldn't hear a peep about all this class warfare garbage. The fact is they are pathetically ineffective, and they are out of cash. They have to grab more money from their people, and it much easier for them to pit 99% of the governed at 1% of the governed, rather than have 100% of the governed pitted against the governing.

There is 1 percent of everything, and 10 times out of 10 the top 1% always get paid the most, because being the best at what you do MEANS SOMETHING. How many "actors" are there in America? How many make a million per episode or film plus BONUS'... Ohhhh noooo, plus if their show tanks they get to keep their money!!! Those evil actors!

I hear ya regarding your boss, but answer me one question... Given what you have said, how do you think the government taking even more of his money is going to help the situation you are in?

You also stated that my comment about middle class America thriving in the 50s through the 70s because of unions was a "mis-statement." I gave you the source of my information. You responded by accusing me of buying into "class warfare" pushed by progressives instead of giving me reliable information or statistics that contradict those contained in Professor Domhoff's material. I didn't into buy into anything. I'M LIVING the "class warfare". I watched my father lose his job when he was nine years shy of being able to retire. His pension went up in smoke. He went to college then and graduated at the top of his class. No one would hire him because he had a family to support and insure. My mother worked at the same company for more than 35 years. The last year she was there, the company downgraded her position and cut her pay $3.00 per hour down to a little over $12.00 per hour. I get paid less to perform the same work. The title companies aren't charging lower closing and title fees to their customers, but I get paid 48% of what I made before. The cost of the meals I deliver has gone up and up over the last three years. The boss' profit hasn't gone down. Instead, my pay goes down. The order of the day in this country is greed, greed, greed and more greed. I don't "buy" into anything. I research and ponder and discuss. I don't need to tow any party lines. Never have and never will.

Holly - ""I commented on the original article because I'm disappointed, dismayed, disgusted that contract negotiations involving pay raises took place last year in spite of the fact that 10 to 20% of Americans are jobless or downgraded to part-time jobs and don't have the income to support governmental employee raises. It's also frustrating to read the alderman's quote that these people are hard-working and deserving of the raises. There are many hard-working and deserving people who lost jobs and income and who didn't get raises. Now is not the time for this.""

Agreed

If you spent years building your own business, assuming along the way all the risks and challenges that are inherent in doing that, I'm curious if you would feel the same way you do now. How did planning for your future, and being fiscally responsible become bad traits?

You say that they haven't lowered their closing and title fees, but now you get paid 48% less. How you make that statement as if you are comparing apples and apples amazes me. Let me venture a wild guess here. My guess is that "closings" have gone down in volume over 80% over the same time that your pay has gone down 48%. Assuming the company you work for operates out of an office, their rent is the same a it was previously, the electric, gas, garbage, insurance, and a multitude of their other costs are probably the same as well, but their revenue, or closings have gone down 80%*

I have a feeling you are a great person Holly, the fact that your company kept you on even through these trying times is a good sign of that. Best of luck to you, and hopefully our economy recovers soon, so we can return to happier times for all.

The title companies hired "contract closers" when business was great. Profits were way, way up. They hired contractors instead of employees so they didn't have to pay benefits. It was cheaper to pay me per closing than it was to pay me as an hourly employee. They and everyone in the real estate industry reaped rewards hand over fist. When business slows, there's no business for contractors. The last two title companies I worked for went out of business. So, I lost my jobs and had to find others. The company I work for now has one location instead of several offices, so those costs are pretty low. To the best of my knowledge they have no closers on premises and close no loans on premises. When the volume of loans is down, they lay people off and the contractors get no work. When the volume of business is up, they hire temps to fill on-site positions and the contractors get a little more work. So, this business is no different than any other corporation. The bottom line is to make as much profit for the shareholders as possible without regard for the lives or livelihoods of those who actually perform the work. Thanks to corporate America and its greed, I no longer have the luxury to plan for my future. I can't make it in the present. I would love to be fiscally responsible to the point where it actually helps me keep my home. Corporate America has given workers very few tools to work with in order to do those things.

Bush enacted free trade with China in 2001. Since then this country has lost over 26,000 manufacturing plants. Those corporations still have their executives and those executives probably earn more for having increased shareholders' profits in shipping business overseas. Bush enacted tax cuts for the wealthy based on the alleged premise that doing so would create jobs. We lost 8,000,000 jobs since then and extending those tax cuts isn't going to add jobs. Lenders loosened up lending guidelines because there was money to be made in giving out loans to any Tom, Dick or Harry whether it was risky or not because there was money to be made in the moment. Goldman Sachs advised their clients to invest in these mortgage backed securities they knew would fail because they were investing their own money in insurance in betting against the investments they encouraged their clients to make. At one point, those bets put them $10 BILLIONS dollars ahead of the game. This greed is what collapsed our economy and I'm one of the millions of Americans who had nothing to do with this collapse and made no money or income except perhaps through pension plans, unknowingly I might add, yet we're the ones bearing the entire weight of the collapse. Perhaps when you get a chance you can provide statistics to back up your opinions. In the meantime, best to you also.

Holly, Holly, Holly... There are so many mis-statements & incorrect theories posited by you in the last 2 responses, that I literally don't have time to correct them all. I don't necessarily blame you for most of them, because you see a few things that sound good to you here and there, and you choose to believe those things, rather than doing independent research and listening to both sides of all issues to form an independent opinion. It's easier not to. Unfortunately that is where most of America is today, but that mentality is going down in numbers by the day, as we are all starting to see that we must get back in the game in order to save this greatest nation on earth.

Just to be fair, I will dis-prove one of your statements below......

Quote "Bush enacted tax cuts for the wealthy based on the alleged premise that doing so would create jobs. We lost 8,000,000 jobs since then"
Here is a link to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics which breaks down total US employment from 2001-2011. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS12000000
You will see that job growth from 2001-2011 is up approximately 2,000,000.
Here's an additional article by The Washington Post which reports appx 0% increase from 2000-2010:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html?hpid=topnews

But getting back to the report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics... The absolutely most shocking thing to me, was that from the inception of the first set of Bush tax cuts, up to and including the day he left office, over 10,000,000 jobs were created over that period of time.... 10,000,000....
From the day Obama was elected, to today, over 8,000,000 jobs have been lost............ and that was no accident, and should come as no surprise. Obama campaigned as the anti-business candidate. He promised to punish business in every way he could, he repeated demonized the coal industry, the insurance industry, the oil industry, the banking industry, almost any profitable industry, he targeted for destruction, oh, and he promised to raise taxes, and enact onerous regulations across the board.
So what do you expect to happen when that guy gets elected? Business' are thrown into financial and regulatory turmoil, so they batten down the hatches and plan for the worst, and investors that were told that their taxes are going to go up, stop investing, and pull their money out of the markets to protect it against his policies... Whala.. Bank collapse...

This is a great article from The Heritage Foundation on Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation from testimony given before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the United States House of Representatives Delivered February 10, 2011

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2011/02/regulatory-impediments-to-job-creation

Oh, and one more thing regarding the number of jobs created... After implementing his (Obama's) solution to the jobs problem, spending over $800,000,000,000 (800 Billion) of our dollars (Stimulus), and seeing the continued slide of the jobs number, he finally capitulates to extending the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010, not cutting taxes, simply extending the existing tax cuts until the end of his term, and the number of jobs created immediately start to go up instead of down for the first time since he was elected.
In order to see this more easily, when you go to http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS12000000 , click the box labeled "include graphs" then click on the "GO" button. It's amazing to see visually....

Oh, and one last thing before I forget, that “professor" you referenced, first of all wrote that book in 1965, not 2005, but notwithstanding that, his only 2 other books he ever wrote were on dream analysis, so pardon me if I don't respect him as an authority on anything....

I checked your first link at http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS12000000 so I would be "informed" in my response. That first link is simply a table of numbers. It does indeed indicate that the number of people employed between April 2001 and April 2011 has risen by approximately 2,081,000. However, during that same period, U.S. Census data collected in 2000 and in 2010 indicate our population increased in that decade by 27.3 million people. The number of jobs allegedly "created" between 2001 and today means that a mere 7.62% of that increase in population is employed. In fact, when you compare rates of employment to the census reports, you'll find that 48.5% of the population was employed in July 2000 while only 45% was employed in July of 2010!
As for the Washington Post article, located at the second link you provided, that being http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196_2.html?hpid=topnews, the very first thing that jumped out at me was the title of the article - "Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers." The next thing that jumped out me was the chart beneath the article's title that stated, "There was ZERO NET JOB CREATION in the first decade of the new millenium, compared to healthy job growth in each of the previous six decades."

Finally, the chart that shows an increase in jobs between the time Obama "capitulated" to extending tax cuts and today is not amazing and doesn't appear to have anything to do with tax cuts. When you limit the time period to 2010 through today, you'll see that jobs "increased" by about 1,000,000 by April of 2010, then fell by 500,000 by July 2010, then rose by about 500,000 by September, then fell again by a little over 500,000 in November. It appears to have increased by a net of 500,000 between Apil 2010 and today. So, the number of jobs has gone up and down over the last year. Obama didn't "capitulate" to extending tax cuts because he kept seeing the number of jobs going down. He agreed to the extension because Republicans were refusing to extend unemployment benefits for workers who were left jobless as a result of the collapse of our economy due to Wall Street greed, which occurred long before Obama was elected, let alone took office. Take a peak at the very educational and illuminating information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis. If you read the article, albeit a rather lengthy own, you'll see that the true cause of the collapse of our economy had absolutely nothing to with Obama taking office and businesses and banks fearing his policies.

Mortgage Crisis? Review the history of The Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

I'm also glad you see the need to secure our border and prosecute cities that declare themselves "sanctuary cities" in clear violation of federal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._William_Domhoff

"Books
* Who Rules America? (1st ed. 1967, most recent edition 2009)
* Bohemian Grove and Other Retreats: A Study in Ruling-Class Cohesiveness (1974)
* Finding Meaning in Dreams (1996)
* The Scientific Study of Dreams (2003).

I actually agree with some things Domhoff states, such as:

Much closer to home, the Communists in the United States played a central role in creating the Progressive Party in 1948, even though they had insisted they were going to stay close to the labor unions within the Democratic Party. But when Moscow decreed in October, 1947, that all Communist parties must find ways to oppose the imperialistic Marshall Plan (massive financial aid for Western European countries), the American Communists decided that aiding a third party would be the best approach. Since they knew such a party could not win, and might cost the Democrats the election, it is likely that they were out to help the Republicans, whom they believed might reject the Marshall Plan because of their strong isolationist wing.

Full text: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/marxism.html