Charles, we have a very, very gerrymandered state. That's the only reason O'Brien won his squeaker of a race.

> The Governor will VETO the so called right to work
> bill if [it] lands on her desk.

No need -- it will never make it through the House. It will come out of committee marked "Inexpedient to Legislate".

Bragdon is just helping to turn the Senate Democratic in the next election.

Charlie, that is just anti-union GOP Rhetoric. If you look at all of the contract, public and private in New Hampshire over the last decade you will see you own, ridiculous story if false. State employees have given back 50 million in the last two years alone. Teachers have gone without raises to keep healthcare costs down. Same for Police/Fire.

Keep you anti-union, anti-worker rhetoric to yourself until you can prove otherwise.

The reality is that politicians negotiate contracts that put much of the promised compensation off in future pensions. Then the politicians under-fund the negotiated pensions for decades and finally fight to steal back the benefits promised by complaining there is no money.

We could end the unions tomorrow if we could trust politicians to pay an honest wage, but we all know that's never going to happen.

Charlie: We elect business people who are Republicans into the Legislature every year. Would you mind telling me that somehow it is ok for them to be sitting at the table with Unions but not a Democrat?

Also let's remember something else. State Employees pay taxes just like everyone else. Furthermore the notion that removing Collective Bargaining will lead to more ethical practices is rather absurd. World History has proven that countries that have outlawed organization of employees have been corrupt. Adolf Hitler being a good example, along with others, and surely he wasn't ethical.

Furthermore, this past election proved that money that the GOP gave to their candidates with their PAC's, outspent the unions HANDILY. However that was ok, but not the unions.

While I have agreed with you in the past, the argument you give runs more on rhetoric and less on fact based substance.

NH Labor News: I would like to suggest response to Charlie is misleading. Memory serves me right in Nashua, in 2008, they were picketing City Hall for their contract. I am sure that they did get some form of raise at that time (during the recession...). Also, I would find it a little misleading that the Firefighter's Union had such a short termed CBA.

Don't get me wrong.....I am not against the N.F. & R, but I don't think that all unions in Nashua, for that matter in New Hampshire all gave back from their CBA's...

I have said nothing about either partisan side......
I have not even said that ending collective bargaining is the correct thing to do....
What I have illustrated is that our current system promotes a quid pro quo where by fostering corruption.
I would put forward that NH Labor News Network has an agenda and it is to protect this relationship hence the attack on me rather than offering any honest way to stop the potential to defrauding of the tax payer. Neither the Unions nor their representatives are even remotely interested in looking at the issue; can you blame them? But is it fair?

So "NH Labor News Network" your answer is prove or keep your mouth shut?

I have done nothing but illustrate an example of how corruption can enter our government and this is your response?

No care and concern for an ethical government or even a negotiation with someone actually representing all of the tax payers?

Makes sense I guess.......

First of all I have a lot better things to do than to reply to attacks in a comment thread. Some people do have to work.

Second, your argument is ridiculous. The money that unions donate to campaigns is insignificant in comparison to the amount of money shelled out by corporations and billionaire backers. They shell out money 9-1 to break down the unions. Why because the corporations want to line their pockets with more of our hard earned money.

I think we should enact new campaign finance laws and remove the citizens united ruling. Go back to grass roots fundraising.

@NH Labor New Network, so rather than try to figure out how to bring ethics to the government and get the tax payer represented in government you would rather dismiss this with the excuse that unions are out spent anyway. If this were a drug user intervention that would be called a diversion. Not once have you addressed the fact that our current system fosters corrupted government. The system itself is broken and since you are just about openly admitting it with your justifications as opposed to solutions how can anyone take you seriously?
This is not an attack on unions it is an attack at government corruption and a system that fosters and legitimizes public officals to NOT work for the public interest. You see it as a union attack; maybe you should think of this as a tax payer, as an American Citizen rather than as a union member. This system is not fair to the tax payer.

Charlie, Believe whatever you want. If you truly believe there is corruption in your government, then vote for someone else.

Unions are working to make your homes safer, they are working to teacher your children better, they are pushing for funding for new firetrucks, police cars, training, safety regulations and more.

If we really had bought and paid politicians why would unions be under attack?

Lastly, I AM A TAXPAYER. I do not forget it and neither should you!

"If we really had bought and paid politicians why would unions be under attack? "

Because it is being done with a system that does not represent all tax payers. This system fosters our politicians to act against the the citizens at large. I'll ask again, who represents the tax payer when the union and union supported politician are negotiating how much money the the campaign contributions / compensation package the tax payers are on the hook for?

I fully support private sector unions, and I fully support a fair competitive wage package for public sector unions. I do not support the way we currently negotiate the deals as it is fundementally stacked against the tax payer. This is an instance where government fails to represent the people and rather represents a subset at the expense of the whole. It is un-ethical at best and fraudlent at its worst. You have still yet to offer any other solution that is alternative to removing collective bargaining; why is that?

Charlie, this is my last comment on this here.

If you support unions, you cannot clarify that with public or private. The workers are the same, the unions are the same. The bargaining process is very complex and you are trying to say that it is corrupt. I disagree, so I do not believe we need a change (hence no suggestion otherwise). Collective bargaining agreements happen at every level of government. Teacher negotiate with school boards at city level, police and fire with town council or mayor, State employee negotiate with an appointed representative of the state. All of these contracts are then reviewed by others agreed to by voting on both sides, then enacted.

Even in your hypothetical, it is a false assumption that a union would pay to elect a politician then directly negotiate with that person. It does not happen that way. You are correct that unions are heavily involved in election process to try to elect people that support the collective bargaining process among other things. Unions support people who support them in what they do every single day, not once every two years or longer.

I am done talking about you hypothetical idea that unions and politicians are all corrupt. That is simply not true and I will no longer try to explain that to you because as you know I will not change my position, I know you will not change yours

Well at least you admint you like the flawed process just as it is and I would expect that to be the case given the nature of how you benefit from it. Good to see a spade recognize they are the spade they are.

I am not union bashing at all; in fact they are a valuable movement in America. But the fact remains that our system of public sector unions and how labor contracts are negotiated fosters corruption. I have not made any comment towards or about the pensions or other aspects of public sector union compensation packages as those issue are outside the scope of my issue with how things are current done. Read my posts above.

@Dan,
Fact 1: Public sector unions contribute organizing and funding to politicians to run for office.
Fact 2: Politicians control negotiations with public sector unions regarding labor contract compensation packages.
Fact 3: Those compensation packages provide the funding to support activities from fact 1

So in essence the politician has a vested interest in seeing the most union favorable compensation package possible be awarded to the public sector union so that the public sector union has the ability to continue and support the politicians election efforts.

The very system we have promotes the politician to work in an effort that could be contrary to public interests. I am not nor will I engage in the validity of any individual contract as I am not the one who should be deciding what is fair or what is not fair, and nor should I be; that is why we elect officials to make these decisions on behalf of the public as there is a lot of information needed to arrive at with these issues. The fact remains that the politician should be solely representing the public and in this system we actually have incentive to do the contrary.

Look at it this way;
If this happens with any other government contract it is demonized and if the politician personally profits from it, it is completely illegal. But with the case of public sector unions the politician does directly benefit and not only is it not illegal it is championed.

Another option would be to allow a different legislative body control the public sector union contracts; maybe judicial. That would leave in tact the right to collectively bargain or force all public sector unions to pay dues. But no one wants to even suggest or look at another option and I would put forward that as evidence that the public sector unions are interested in keeping things the way they are as this system certainly can be manipulated to yield a better deal when in reality the deal should not be any different regardless of which partisan is in office as the labor in and of itself is the same with either.

Charlie that is already part of the process. It is called MEDIATION and ARBITRATION. That is when you cannot agree and you need a neutral third party to help solve the differences or make a ruling in favor of one side or the other. You cannot negotiate with someone who is not part of the agreement. They have no reason to negotiate. Also Politicians do not directly negotiate with unions in most contracts. The state negotiations are handled by a team of negotiators on both sides. School contracts are done by the school board (no-partisan). I do not think you understand the process yet you continue to say that unions and politicians are corrupting the process. Those are the true FACTS, not your misguided myths about bargaining.

"That is when you cannot agree" --Well that should be the start of the process as my issue is with what happens when they do agree.
"You cannot negotiate with someone who is not part of the agreement." -- Our current process puts the politician in a difficult ethical position and as such is compromised. Who represents the tax payer in these negotiations? I would argue that you are not negotiating with a public representative with the current system.
"The state negotiations are handled by a team of negotiators on both sides."--who appoints those negotiators and who are they accountable to? (they are nothing more than a proxy for the politician)
"School contracts are done by the school board (no-partisan). " --School boards are even worse as they often have even more conflicts of interests than the one I am bringing up and they almost always are partisan, just not advertised as such.

Why not have both sides start negotiations in the judicial branch and let a judge decide. not perfect I know but I think the way things are headed fically in this country we can agree that many of these contracts are going to end up there anyway. Doing so would atleast remove the spectre of improprity that you soundly reject as even being the case. If fact removing this spectre would help validate the very contracts negotiated in that way. But, alas this is just my suggestion, in the end you seem content and even adamant that things continue as they are even under the spectre of impropiety, the interests of society at large and fair and ethical government be damned.

I am referring to any elected official who has power over the negotiation process.