Gingrich Dreams of State Bankruptcy

[Edi]

Source

Newt Gingrich's bankruptcy dreams
The real goal behind a plan to allow states to default: Crushing public sector unions once and for all
By Andrew Leonard

Mary Williams Walsh begins a page one story in Friday's New York Times with the following sentence:

Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

As Felix Salmon heatedly explains, this is a tricky story to do, because the very mention of the idea that states might default on their bond obligations sends bond markets into a big tizzy, which results in higher interest rates, which makes borrowing more expensive and ends up putting state finances in an even lousier situation. And such a scenario is already underway, as municipal bond yields have started rising ever since chatter about the possibility of a nuclear bankruptcy option to solve state financial woes started being discussed.

Newt Gingrich should be proud, because, as Walsh reports near the end of her article, he started the bankruptcy groundswell while giving a triumphalist post-midterm election speech at the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas. But if you actually read the speech, (something I don't recommend for any liberal who wants to sleep well for the next month), you will discover that Gingrich is hardly at all concerned with the problem of helping states "get out from under crushing debts." His primary goal is to break public sector unions, pure and simple. The entire speech is a monument to partisanship, epitomized by his quotation of Reagan's famous answer to the question "What's your vision of the Cold War?"

"We win, they lose."

As in conservatives win, liberals lose. Period. End of story.

I think, for example, you can solve much of the post office's problems if you simply start hiring new postal workers at a market wage and you find the market wage easy. You advertise for vacancies and find out what people show up for and you'll find out it's about a third of the current cost. And I think we just have to be honest and clear about this and I also hope the House Republicans are going to move a bill in the first month or so of their tenure to create a venue for state bankruptcy, so that states like California and New York and Illinois that think they're going to come to Washington for money can be told, you know, you need to sit down with all your government employee unions and look at their health plans and their pension plans and frankly if they don't want to change, our recommendation is you go into bankruptcy court and let the bankruptcy judge change it, and I would make the federal bankruptcy law prohibit tax increases as part of the solution, so no bankruptcy judge could impose a tax increase on the people of the states (applause).

You can't spell it out any more clearly. The purpose of state bankruptcy is to break government employee unions. House Republicans win. Labor loses.

Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.

That's more bluntly and more accurately put than the NYT article states. There was some more juice there, so I'll post that article as well and it just shows how absolutely insane Gingrich is. Main thrust: Allow state bankruptcy and prohibit tax increases as a method of addressing insolvency. They don't have even a passing acquaintance with reality anymore.

[Edi]

The NYT article:

A Path Is Sought for States to Escape Their Debt Burdens
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
Published: January 20, 2011

Policymakers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.

But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.

Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout. Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors.

“All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,” said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton administration.

For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe. No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possiblity in a hearing this month.

House Republicans, and Senators from both parties, have taken an interest in the issue, with nudging from bankruptcy lawyers and a former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, who could be a Republican presidential candidate. It would be difficult to get a bill through Congress, not only because of the constitutional questions and the complexities of bankruptcy law, but also because of fears that even talk of such a law could make the states’ problems worse.

Lawmakers might decide to stop short of a full-blown bankruptcy proposal and establish instead some sort of oversight panel for distressed states, akin to the Municipal Assistance Corporation, which helped New York City during its fiscal crisis of 1975.

Still, discussions about something as far-reaching as bankruptcy could give governors and others more leverage in bargaining with unionized public workers.

“They are readying a massive assault on us,” said Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “We’re taking this very seriously.”

Mr. Loveless said he was meeting with potential allies on Capitol Hill, making the point that certain states might indeed have financial problems, but public employees and their benefits were not the cause. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report on Thursday warning against a tendency to confuse the states’ immediate budget gaps with their long-term structural deficits.

“States have adequate tools and means to meet their obligations,” the report stated.

No state is known to want to declare bankruptcy, and some question the wisdom of offering them the ability to do so now, given the jitters in the normally staid municipal bond market.

Slightly more than $25 billion has flowed out of mutual funds that invest in muni bonds in the last two months, according to the Investment Company Institute. Many analysts say they consider a bond default by any state extremely unlikely, but they also say that when politicians take an interest in the bond market, surprises are apt to follow.

Mr. Maco said the mere introduction of a state bankruptcy bill could lead to “some kind of market penalty,” even if it never passed. That “penalty” might be higher borrowing costs for a state and downward pressure on the value of its bonds. Individual bondholders would not realize any losses unless they sold.

But institutional investors in municipal bonds, like insurance companies, are required to keep certain levels of capital. And they might retreat from additional investments. A deeply troubled state could eventually be priced out of the capital markets.

“The precipitating event at G.M. was they were out of cash and had no ability to raise the capital they needed,” said Harry J. Wilson, the lone Republican on President Obama’s special auto task force, which led G.M. and Chrysler through an unusual restructuring in bankruptcy, financed by the federal government.

Mr. Wilson, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for New York State comptroller last year, has said he believes that New York and some other states need some type of a financial restructuring.

He noted that G.M. was salvaged only through an administration-led effort that Congress initially resisted, with legislators voting against financial assistance to G.M. in late 2008.

“Now Congress is much more conservative,” he said. “A state shows up and wants cash, Congress says no, and it will probably be at the last minute and it’s a real problem. That’s what I’m concerned about.”

Discussion of a new bankruptcy option for the states appears to have taken off in November, after Mr. Gingrich gave a speech about the country’s big challenges, including government debt and an uncompetitive labor market.

“We just have to be honest and clear about this, and I also hope the House Republicans are going to move a bill in the first month or so of their tenure to create a venue for state bankruptcy,” he said.

A few weeks later, David A. Skeel, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, published an article, “Give States a Way to Go Bankrupt,” in The Weekly Standard. It said thorny constitutional questions were “easily addressed” by making sure states could not be forced into bankruptcy or that federal judges could usurp states’ lawmaking powers.

“I have never had anything I’ve written get as much attention as that piece,” said Mr. Skeel, who said he had since been contacted by Republicans and Democrats whom he declined to name.

Mr. Skeel said it was possible to envision how bankruptcy for states might work by looking at the existing law for local governments. Called Chapter 9, it gives distressed municipalities a period of debt-collection relief, which they can use to restructure their obligations with the help of a bankruptcy judge.

Unfunded pensions become unsecured debts in municipal bankruptcy and may be reduced. And the law makes it easier for a bankrupt city to tear up its labor contracts than for a bankrupt company, said James E. Spiotto, head of the bankruptcy practice at Chapman & Cutler in Chicago.

The biggest surprise may await the holders of a state’s general obligation bonds. Though widely considered the strongest credit of any government, they can be treated as unsecured credits, subject to reduction, under Chapter 9.

Mr. Spiotto said he thought bankruptcy court was not a good avenue for troubled states, and he has designed an alternative called the Public Pension Funding Authority. It would have mandatory jurisdiction over states that failed to provide sufficient funding to their workers’ pensions or that were diverting money from essential public services.

“I’ve talked to some people from Congress, and I’m going to talk to some more,” he said. “This effort to talk about Chapter 9, I’m worried about it. I don’t want the states to have to pay higher borrowing costs because of a panic that they might go bankrupt. I don’t think it’s the right thing at all. But it’s the beginning of a dialog.”

[Akhlut]

It is so very hard right now to not indulge in a long, internet tough guy rant about this, so I'll try to be curt on something else.

Do Gingrich and his cohorts not realize that by cutting off pensions to these people that they're cutting off a very important lifeline for people who can't work anymore and who require that money to survive? Or do they just not give a shit? I can't decide if they're just ignorant or if they're actively monstrous creatures and the only thing that's human about them is the shape.

[ShadowDragon8685]

It is so very hard right now to not indulge in a long, internet tough guy rant about this, so I'll try to be curt on something else.

Do Gingrich and his cohorts not realize that by cutting off pensions to these people that they're cutting off a very important lifeline for people who can't work anymore and who require that money to survive? Or do they just not give a shit? I can't decide if they're just ignorant or if they're actively monstrous creatures and the only thing that's human about them is the shape.

... It's the second option. They're


Also, absolutely incompetent. Do they not realize that if they did this, the public sector would grind to a halt? This wouldn't crush the Unions, it would put them on the fucking war-path. Immediate strikes in all sectors of public employment, from police to sewerage officials to secretaries to...

Basically, everybody but the politicians would say "hell no, we're not working."

Also, is not the point of declaring bankruptcy to say that you're incompetent at managing yourself, and your assets get liquidated and sold off for whatever can be gotten in exchange for forgiving any debts outstanding at the end of the firesale? So what assets are going to be hocked, exactly? Municipal buildings? State lands? The contents of the Guard armories? Public infrastructure?

[K. A. Pital]

They're not "actively monstrous". They're just monstrously callous and indifferent. As henchmen and spokesmen of the oligarchy should be.

[Keevan_Colton]

Interesting logic, I suggest slashing the pay of politicians and taxing contributions and other such stuff through the nose. Perhaps then we might find out the market wage for assholes. I suspect that it's far less than the basic $174,000 that they're getting at the moment.

[JME2]

Also, absolutely incompetent. Do they not realize that if they did this, the public sector would grind to a halt? This wouldn't crush the Unions, it would put them on the fucking war-path. Immediate strikes in all sectors of public employment, from police to sewerage officials to secretaries to...

Basically, everybody but the politicians would say "hell no, we're not working."

Doing this would be economic and political suicide. The reaction wouldn't be a solar flare, it'd be a fucking supernova.

Sadly, Gingrich seems insane and callous enough to push forward.

[Broomstick]

It is so very hard right now to not indulge in a long, internet tough guy rant about this, so I'll try to be curt on something else.

Do Gingrich and his cohorts not realize that by cutting off pensions to these people that they're cutting off a very important lifeline for people who can't work anymore and who require that money to survive? Or do they just not give a shit? I can't decide if they're just ignorant or if they're actively monstrous creatures and the only thing that's human about them is the shape.

... It's the second option. They're

No, hon, they're indifferent. They don't care. They don't give a shit. The "people" don't even enter into their equations. If the people who will suffer are brought up they'll simply say those people were foolish for relying on others for their retirement and deserve what suffering comes - if they had been responsible they would have provided for their own retirement needs just like successful rich people do.

Also, is not the point of declaring bankruptcy to say that you're incompetent at managing yourself, and your assets get liquidated and sold off for whatever can be gotten in exchange for forgiving any debts outstanding at the end of the firesale? So what assets are going to be hocked, exactly? Municipal buildings? State lands? The contents of the Guard armories? Public infrastructure?

Illinois has been selling off its tollways, its parking in big cities, public lands.... Mostly to foreign interests. Which is swapping local control for foreign control, which I've long thought is stupid and foolish and worse but hey, no one in power listens to the likes of me.

[aerius]

On the other hand why should public sector pensions be guaranteed? If I worked in the private sector and my company goes bankrupt, there's a chance that my pension is going to take a sizable loss, the best example would be what happened to the airline workers after 9/11 when the airlines went bankrupt. Active workers had their future pensions sliced in half or worse and even retired workers took cuts in their pensions cheques. Does it suck? Sure. But if the money isn't there then cuts will need to be made, and if the choice comes down to cuts that'll fuck the State right now or cuts that'll fuck'em next month or next year, they'll rob the future to get through today.

Also, absolutely incompetent. Do they not realize that if they did this, the public sector would grind to a halt? This wouldn't crush the Unions, it would put them on the fucking war-path. Immediate strikes in all sectors of public employment, from police to sewerage officials to secretaries to...

Sure, and there's 20 million unemployed people waiting to take their places. The public sector workers want to strike? Fine, fire them all and hire their replacements the next day, there's more than enough unemployed or underemployed workers who are willing and able to take over their jobs.

The longer this recession drags on the more resentment there will be against public sector workers. The private sector is losing shitloads of jobs, taking pay cuts, working more hours, and losing benefits while the public sector is seen as sitting pretty. If you think the people will support the unions, you're wrong, they'll be hoping for the union workers to get shitcanned so they can finally get some jobs.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Illinois has been selling off its tollways, its parking in big cities, public lands.... Mostly to foreign interests. Which is swapping local control for foreign control, which I've long thought is stupid and foolish and worse but hey, no one in power listens to the likes of me.

At the very least, you can always re-nationalize something you've sold off to a foreign interest and what are they gonna do with it? Still shitheaded moves, but...

On the other hand why should public sector pensions be guaranteed?

Because they're in writing, especially the ones being paid out to people who are already retired; they've put in their time for society, it's time for their dues to be paid to them.

If I worked in the private sector and my company goes bankrupt, there's a chance that my pension is going to take a sizable loss, the best example would be what happened to the airline workers after 9/11 when the airlines went bankrupt. Active workers had their future pensions sliced in half or worse and even retired workers took cuts in their pensions cheques. Does it suck? Sure. But if the money isn't there then cuts will need to be made, and if the choice comes down to cuts that'll fuck the State right now or cuts that'll fuck'em next month or next year, they'll rob the future to get through today.

Because the Public sector is not the private sector. Saying "fuck you, we're just not gonna pay you" is the very last thing a government should do. American Airlines can't levy a tax or a tarrif or a toll on a captive audience - a government can do that.

Letting your workers go unpaid to allow the rich to be taxed even less is a recipie for unrest.

Also, absolutely incompetent. Do they not realize that if they did this, the public sector would grind to a halt? This wouldn't crush the Unions, it would put them on the fucking war-path. Immediate strikes in all sectors of public employment, from police to sewerage officials to secretaries to...

Sure, and there's 20 million unemployed people waiting to take their places. The public sector workers want to strike? Fine, fire them all and hire their replacements the next day, there's more than enough unemployed or underemployed workers who are willing and able to take over their jobs.

You are an idiot, Aerius? How much of your signature have you been hitting up today?

You can't just fire all the public sector workers. That only "works" in unskilled labor positions like dockhand or longshoreman! If you fire all the police, who's going to police the city while the new non-union police are trained and sworn in? If you fire all the firemen, who the hell is going to fight fires while the new, non-union fire brigade is being raised? If you fire all the city secretaries, who the fuck knows where anything is!?

A strike grinds everything to a halt. Firing everyone and bringing in joe-off-the-street, in addition to being a monumentally bad idea (just who exactly do you suppose will be applying for a job as a policeman when the old police were all fired for striking because their pensions were destroyed?,) will grind everything to dust!

The longer this recession drags on the more resentment there will be against public sector workers. The private sector is losing shitloads of jobs, taking pay cuts, working more hours, and losing benefits while the public sector is seen as sitting pretty. If you think the people will support the unions, you're wrong, they'll be hoping for the union workers to get shitcanned so they can finally get some jobs.

Unions don't need the support of "the people," they need solidarity amongst their ranks. You can't run a state with just a legislature and the United States Postal Service. You can not.

[Pelranius]

Wait a moment, exactly how many retired public sector employees vote Republican? I'm just asking because a lot of teabaggers are retirees.

[aerius]

On the other hand why should public sector pensions be guaranteed?

Because they're in writing, especially the ones being paid out to people who are already retired; they've put in their time for society, it's time for their dues to be paid to them.

Doesn't matter. How do you pay them if the money does not exist? Hand out IOUs? Magic some money out of thin air?

Because the Public sector is not the private sector. Saying "fuck you, we're just not gonna pay you" is the very last thing a government should do. American Airlines can't levy a tax or a tarrif or a toll on a captive audience - a government can do that.

So because they can tax, they must pay? You realize that several of these states can't close the budget hole no matter how much taxes are raised. That even if they raised taxes & cut services they'll still have a gaping hole in the budget, a hole that can only be closed by cutting pensions & social security obligations.

You can't just fire all the public sector workers. That only "works" in unskilled labor positions like dockhand or longshoreman! If you fire all the police, who's going to police the city while the new non-union police are trained and sworn in? If you fire all the firemen, who the hell is going to fight fires while the new, non-union fire brigade is being raised? If you fire all the city secretaries, who the fuck knows where anything is!?

A strike grinds everything to a halt. Firing everyone and bringing in joe-off-the-street, in addition to being a monumentally bad idea (just who exactly do you suppose will be applying for a job as a policeman when the old police were all fired for striking because their pensions were destroyed?,) will grind everything to dust!

I live in a city of 5 million people. A couple years back all the city workers went on strike for nearly 2 months. Other than garbage pickup we managed just fine without all those useless overpaid assholes. That's plenty of time to replace every worker, emergency services will be harder to deal with but it's not like police or ambulance strikes haven't happened before.

Unions don't need the support of "the people," they need solidarity amongst their ranks. You can't run a state with just a legislature and the United States Postal Service. You can not.

Again, I live in a city of 5 million which is larger than some of your States. See above. One more thing. You're not going to have union solidarity for long when their members are living on strike pay and getting their homes foreclosed. They will take the pay cut & pension hit and they will love it. Take a 30% hit on both or get zero. They'll cave or be replaced.

[aerius]

The big problem that they don't go into here is that many State pension funds were and/or are chronically underfunded or poorly managed. They assume an 8% annual growth rate in the size of the fund along with certain worker retirement & death rates. 8% gains forever ain't gonna happen, and on top of that some States fudged the numbers on their pension fund contributions to balance their budgets or make the numbers look better, then had to find the money later and put it back. Bottom line is the funds don't have as much money as they should and can't payout what's needed to current and future retired workers so the government needs to makeup the difference, except the State governments can't since they're fucking broke and running deficits, and some of those deficits can't be closed unless the pension obligations are reduced.

So that leaves 3 options; borrow money on the bond market until that runs dry, take bailouts from the Federal government, or default. The last I've been told is not legal for some reason, so that leaves borrowing and bailouts until that gets shut off, then illegal or not, it's a default.

[bobalot]

I would love to see aerius explain how she would quickly replace public sector police, fire fighters, nurses, doctors, teachers, specialized utility workers, road and bridge maintenance workers and others without the state collapsing into anarchy. Even the specialized bureaucrats (such as those who work in the Land's Department or the American equivalent) that are required to keep a state functioning are not easily replaced. There is also the institutional knowledge that would be lost.

I never thought I would actually agree ever with ShadowDragon, but that is the most retarded idea I have heard of.

[Simon_Jester]

... It's the second option. They're evil

No, hon, they're indifferent. They don't care. They don't give a shit. The "people" don't even enter into their equations. If the people who will suffer are brought up they'll simply say those people were foolish for relying on others for their retirement and deserve what suffering comes - if they had been responsible they would have provided for their own retirement needs just like successful rich people do.

Is this not a form of evil?

Illinois has been selling off its tollways, its parking in big cities, public lands.... Mostly to foreign interests. Which is swapping local control for foreign control, which I've long thought is stupid and foolish and worse but hey, no one in power listens to the likes of me.

The last time I can think of this happening, selling off what amounts to the power to levy taxes and earn properties off state property to foreign interests, it was during the age of colonialism: something the victim-governments (like the Mughal Empire) did to raise short-term cash, selling this sort of concession off to foreigners (like the British Empire that ended up swallowing the Mughals alive).

Letting your workers go unpaid to allow the rich to be taxed even less is a recipie for unrest.

From a somewhat less dramatic and somewhat more historically literate viewpoint, it is also a recipe for corruption, which is arguably worse for the society in the long run. When public sector jobs aren't financially secure, public sector workers start worrying about how they're going to feed their families, and about their retirement... at which point taking bribes becomes a lot more appealing.

To make matters worse, that can happen whether or not we get a general public-sector strike as you expect.

[Broomstick]

Also, absolutely incompetent. Do they not realize that if they did this, the public sector would grind to a halt? This wouldn't crush the Unions, it would put them on the fucking war-path. Immediate strikes in all sectors of public employment, from police to sewerage officials to secretaries to...

Sure, and there's 20 million unemployed people waiting to take their places. The public sector workers want to strike? Fine, fire them all and hire their replacements the next day, there's more than enough unemployed or underemployed workers who are willing and able to take over their jobs.

You are an idiot, Aerius? How much of your signature have you been hitting up today?

No, Shadow YOU are the idiot. You are pathetically naive as to how the world actually works.

You can't just fire all the public sector workers.

Yes, actually you can.

In fact, for many public sector workers strikes are illegal. Not only can they be fired for that, they can be fined or potentially even jailed for striking.

That only "works" in unskilled labor positions like dockhand or longshoreman! If you fire all the police, who's going to police the city while the new non-union police are trained and sworn in?

No problem - there are tens of thousands of laid off police officers across the nation. They're already trained. They have experience. Just swear 'em in and issue GPS units to those from out of town.

If you fire all the firemen, who the hell is going to fight fires while the new, non-union fire brigade is being raised?

First of all, not all fire departments are union. In fact, the fire department that covers my area is all volunteer. Not only do the have no unions, they have no salaries either.

On top of that - municipalities have been laying off firemen, too. So there are plenty of already trained and experienced firemen who are out of work that you could hire to replace any firemen so foolish as to strike in today's economy.

If you fire all the city secretaries, who the fuck knows where anything is!?

Then you hire people like me, with 20+ years of secretarial experience for 1/3 the union wage because for us it would be a step up, and we happily put in extra hours digging through the files and back rooms.

Unions don't need the support of "the people," they need solidarity amongst their ranks. You can't run a state with just a legislature and the United States Postal Service. You can not.

In the Great Depression the railroads went on strike using that logic. The PotUS brought in the army to get the trains running again.

Again, you are naive. Unless the unions do have the support of the majority of the population the elites in power will just do an end run around them, utilizing the millions of desperate unemployed. There's a certain group of ideologues out there who are salivating over the current situation as a means to implement their social engineering and devil take the hindmost.

[aerius]

I would love to see aerius explain how she would quickly replace public sector police, fire fighters, nurses, doctors, teachers, specialized utility workers, road and bridge maintenance workers and others without the state collapsing into anarchy. Even the specialized bureaucrats (such as those who work in the Land's Department or the American equivalent) that are required to keep a state functioning are not easily replaced. There is also the institutional knowledge that would be lost.

Like it's never happened before. I point you once again to the the city of Toronto strike a couple years back where all the city workers sat out for nearly 2 months. The city did not fall apart. Aside from garbage pickup you would not even know there was a strike going on. We've had city strikes, we have a teachers' strike every single fucking time their contracts come due, we've had nurses & hospital workers strikes, again, the city doesn't fall apart when that happens. If emergency services workers want to strike we pass back to work legislation on them and make them work while their contracts are sorted out, and the same thing can be done for all other workers if required. And we've done that in the past.

[aerius]

Again, you are naive. Unless the unions do have the support of the majority of the population the elites in power will just do an end run around them, utilizing the millions of desperate unemployed. There's a certain group of ideologues out there who are salivating over the current situation as a means to implement their social engineering and devil take the hindmost.

Yup, unless the union workers have the public's support, are truly irreplaceable or the employer has no backbone, the union will lose. In today's economy, public sympathy for government workers is something that's in short supply and falling by the day. The workers are mostly replaceable so the only thing they have going for them is a government that's sympathetic to them or afraid to call their bluff.

Hell, I'm a unionized government worker and I know that there are plenty of people who can and will take my job if given half the chance. We're not special, a trained monkey could do most of our jobs, and I'm on the record as stating that a trained chimp could do my job.

[mr friendly guy]

Like it's never happened before. I point you once again to the the city of Toronto strike a couple years back where all the city workers sat out for nearly 2 months. The city did not fall apart. Aside from garbage pickup you would not even know there was a strike going on. We've had city strikes, we have a teachers' strike every single fucking time their contracts come due, we've had nurses & hospital workers strikes, again, the city doesn't fall apart when that happens. If emergency services workers want to strike we pass back to work legislation on them and make them work while their contracts are sorted out, and the same thing can be done for all other workers if required. And we've done that in the past.

Just for interest, which professions did go on strike and how severe (in terms of what they actually did). Because in my experience with my country's health system, the Doctors never go on strike, the nurses strike in such a way that there is always some stuff on to give care, but limits the hospitals ability to take in too many patients, sometimes forcing the Doctors to do things normally done by nurses etc. This type of strike is obviously less effective than say, the strikes done by Wharfies who actually not only did not turn up to work, but prevented new workers from turning up.

[bobalot]

I would love to see aerius explain how she would quickly replace public sector police, fire fighters, nurses, doctors, teachers, specialized utility workers, road and bridge maintenance workers and others without the state collapsing into anarchy. Even the specialized bureaucrats (such as those who work in the Land's Department or the American equivalent) that are required to keep a state functioning are not easily replaced. There is also the institutional knowledge that would be lost.

Like it's never happened before. I point you once again to the the city of Toronto strike a couple years back where all the city workers sat out for nearly 2 months. The city did not fall apart. Aside from garbage pickup you would not even know there was a strike going on. We've had city strikes, we have a teachers' strike every single fucking time their contracts come due, we've had nurses & hospital workers strikes, again, the city doesn't fall apart when that happens. If emergency services workers want to strike we pass back to work legislation on them and make them work while their contracts are sorted out, and the same thing can be done for all other workers if required. And we've done that in the past.

What you are proposing is not the temporary suspension of services. You are proposing firing hundreds of thousands of workers and replacing them basically over night. This is not a localized strike you would be facing, where services could be brought in from other regions. You would be facing nationwide strikes.

And all for what? Stealing people's pension money so they will live in poverty when they can no longer work?

Hell, I'm a unionized government worker and I know that there are plenty of people who can and will take my job if given half the chance. We're not special, a trained monkey could do most of our jobs, and I'm on the record as stating that a trained chimp could do my job.

What makes you think that every government jobs is like yours?

I'm a government worker and it took me 5 years (4 years of study and 1 year industrial experience) to get an engineering degree that is required for this job. My sector (private and public) requires a few years of additional learning and training to specialize within an area. For example, electrical engineers specializing in signalling must go through a formal course and pass a difficult final exam with a 80% minimum pass mark.

[aerius]

Just for interest, which professions did go on strike and how severe (in terms of what they actually did). Because in my experience with my country's health system, the Doctors never go on strike, the nurses strike in such a way that there is always some stuff on to give care, but limits the hospitals ability to take in too many patients, sometimes forcing the Doctors to do things normally done by nurses etc. This type of strike is obviously less effective than say, the strikes done by Wharfies who actually not only did not turn up to work, but prevented new workers from turning up.

Every time emergency or other essential services workers try to strike they're immediately hit with back to work legislation and end up doing work to rule until their contracts get sorted out. It's happened in the past with police, nurses, hospital workers, and I think doctors & paramedics got hit with it too. That's if they can even strike in the first place since we have laws for essential services workers. I went through it when I first started working at the airport our contract ran out and when we tried to strike we were nailed and forced back to work.

With the city strike a couple years back, every single city worker went on strike, clerks, road crews, maintenance, garbage pickup, everything. Police, fire, and ambulance are on a separate contract so they were still on the job, they're essential services anyway so they can't really strike and if they tried to walk off the job they'd get hit with back to work legislation along with some serious fines & legal stuff.

[weemadando]

Even in the government jobs which I've worked, there mightn't be any particular qualification required, but you're still looking at at least 6 months to learn the systems, legislation and intricacies involved to get to even a passable level of competency.

So for 6 months that branch of gov't doesn't work. That'll go down a treat.

[bobalot]

Just for interest, which professions did go on strike and how severe (in terms of what they actually did). Because in my experience with my country's health system, the Doctors never go on strike, the nurses strike in such a way that there is always some stuff on to give care, but limits the hospitals ability to take in too many patients, sometimes forcing the Doctors to do things normally done by nurses etc. This type of strike is obviously less effective than say, the strikes done by Wharfies who actually not only did not turn up to work, but prevented new workers from turning up.

Every time emergency or other essential services workers try to strike they're immediately hit with back to work legislation and end up doing work to rule until their contracts get sorted out. It's happened in the past with police, nurses, hospital workers, and I think doctors & paramedics got hit with it too. That's if they can even strike in the first place since we have laws for essential services workers. I went through it when I first started working at the airport our contract ran out and when we tried to strike we were nailed and forced back to work.

With the city strike a couple years back, every single city worker went on strike, clerks, road crews, maintenance, garbage pickup, everything. Police, fire, and ambulance are on a separate contract so they were still on the job, they're essential services anyway so they can't really strike and if they tried to walk off the job they'd get hit with back to work legislation along with some serious fines & legal stuff.

You think that disrupting record keeping, road/rail maintenance, various inspectors (food, safety, etc), regulators (environmental, food, etc) and others for large parts of a nation for months (if not years) is actually feasible because one city had a 2 month strike?

Have you seen the state of America's infrastructure? The shitty upkeep of their bridges is a prime example.

[aerius]

What you are proposing is not the temporary suspension of services. You are proposing firing hundreds of thousands of workers and replacing them basically over night. This is not a localized strike you would be facing, where services could be brought in from other regions. You would be facing nationwide strikes.

And all for what? Stealing people's pension money so they will live in poverty when they can no longer work?

You don't get it do you? The money to pay those pensions does not exist, period, and no amount of budget juggling will make it exist unless you're willing to cut essential services right now. And by that I mean a large chunk of police, fire, and hospital workers get laid off right now along with a bunch of teachers, clerks and other city workers. The choice is a failed State tomorrow or a bunch of starving retired public sector employees. Take your pick. Amputate your arm or let the gangrene get to your body and kill you dead. Hell of a choice. But that's what some States will be facing.

[bobalot]

What you are proposing is not the temporary suspension of services. You are proposing firing hundreds of thousands of workers and replacing them basically over night. This is not a localized strike you would be facing, where services could be brought in from other regions. You would be facing nationwide strikes.

And all for what? Stealing people's pension money so they will live in poverty when they can no longer work?

You don't get it do you? The money to pay those pensions does not exist, period, and no amount of budget juggling will make it exist unless you're willing to cut essential services right now. And by that I mean a large chunk of police, fire, and hospital workers get laid off right now along with a bunch of teachers, clerks and other city workers. The choice is a failed State tomorrow or a bunch of starving retired public sector employees. Take your pick. Amputate your arm or let the gangrene get to your body and kill you dead. Hell of a choice. But that's what some States will be facing.

I'm sure you can provide evidence for this instead of simply stating it?