Public Sector Unions

[B-Large]

We were watching the Sunday roundtable this Sunday AM, and my wife asked what they big deal was in Wisconsin. I told her it was about the less of bargaining rights of public service employee Unions, and there was a recall of the man who made the changes....

 

 

Then she said...

 

 

"Why would government workers need a Union?

 

 

Honestly, I couldn't think of a reason why. Mining, I get it. Steel workers, sure. Other dangerous prfessions where there is safety in numbers, I think the ability to lobby for safety and compensation, why not.

 

Can anybody justify why a non-hazardous job environment would need a Union?

[ExiledInIllinois]

I never understood it either... I choose NOT to be in the union... But even so, I have to be in the bargaining unit.

 

I suppose it is a divide and conquer mentality with management. Seniority does not exist in the federal system. REALLY.

[meazza]

We were watching the Sunday roundtable this Sunday AM, and my wife asked what they big deal was in Wisconsin. I told her it was about the less of bargaining rights of public service employee Unions, and there was a recall of the man who made the changes....

 

 

Then she said...

 

 

"Why would government workers need a Union?

 

 

Honestly, I couldn't think of a reason why. Mining, I get it. Steel workers, sure. Other dangerous prfessions where there is safety in numbers, I think the ability to lobby for safety and compensation, why not.

 

Can anybody justify why a non-hazardous job environment would need a Union?

 

Lobbying power.

[KD in CA]

"Why would government workers need a Union?

I've been asking this for years and no one has ever come up with an answer that didn't essentially boil down to: "greed".

 

There is no counter-balance of "management" in public unions and as a result it is very easy to abuse the system via endless cycles of bribery/campaign contributions to public officials who in turn grant more union 'rights'. The only time there is any pushback at all is the rare instance of a guy like Walker who is willing to risk his political career to do the right thing -- and there certainly aren't many willing to do that.

 

Abolishing public unions would be a huge step in setting our country on a path toward fiscal sanity.

Edited June 11, 2012 by KD in CT

[B-Man]

After Walker victory, Indiana governor suggests public unions should go

 

Fox News

 

 

 

 

I also referenced this link in the "Wisconsin" thread.

 

The end is near for public-sector unions

 

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe

 

 

.

[GG]

Sometimes it takes people a few generations to recognize the obvious.

 

A view against public service unions from the uncompromising conservatives? Maybe not.

 

 

 

“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

 

That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

 

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

 

[dayman]

It's not necessarily that the jobs are "non-hazardous" but as others have hinted at when they strike they strike against the tax payers. They are the tax payers. "Management" in this instance is the government...and workers are citizen voters. So it's not really not really management v. workers bargaining for wages ... b/c the workers are all ready represented by the political process as voters. They can vote as they wish, and they can also lobby their fellow voters to persuade them that it's important to give x, y, and z conditions to public sector workers b/c they need to attract certain talent or whatever....Obviously that political representation is there and thus the public union is sort of "having it twice."

 

Now, at the same time it probably isn't fair (IMO) to ONLY have that "first level" political influence as a citizen ... b/c while it's not the traditional management v. worker relationship it still IS a management v. worker relationship (lol) ... so long story short I think they should have some ability to "collectively bargain" but it should be significantly downscaled and ultimately it shouldn't resemble what we think of as a union at all there really should just be some sort of internal process of sorts that is protected against political whims (perhaps built into the state level constitutions?) that allows for some reasonable give and take/dialogue over various benefits and interests that are within the feasibility of whatever the current budget limitations are as set forth by the state congress.

 

Long story short a traditional union would be having it twice. No protection is less than having it "one full time." Some lower-level bargaining power protected from political whims + the fact that they are voters will amount to a fair situation IMO.

Edited June 11, 2012 by TheNewBills

[KD in CA]

It's not necessarily that the jobs are "non-hazardous" but as others have hinted at when they strike they strike against the tax payers. They are the tax payers. "Management" in this instance is the government...and workers are citizen voters. So it's not really not really management v. workers bargaining for wages ... b/c the workers are all ready represented by the political process as voters. They can vote as they wish, and they can also lobby their fellow voters to persuade them that it's important to give x, y, and z conditions to public sector workers b/c they need to attract certain talent or whatever....Obviously that political representation is there and thus the public union is sort of "having it twice."

 

Now, at the same time it probably isn't fair (IMO) to ONLY have that "first level" political influence as a citizen ... b/c while it's not the traditional management v. worker relationship it still IS a management v. worker relationship (lol) ... so long story short I think they should have some ability to "collectively bargain" but it should be significantly downscaled and ultimately it shouldn't resemble what we think of as a union at all there really should just be some sort of internal process of sorts that is protected against political whims (perhaps built into the state level constitutions?) that allows for some reasonable give and take/dialogue over various benefits and interests that are within the feasibility of whatever the current budget limitations are as set forth by the state congress.

 

Long story short a traditional union would be having it twice. No protection is less than having it "one full time." Some lower-level bargaining power protected from political whims + the fact that they are voters will amount to a fair situation IMO.

 

But most people "have it" zero times because you can't vote against your private employer. As it is, the gov't is always going to be less concerned with the bottom line than a private enterprise so naturally they are already going to give gov't employees a better deal so they can attract the quality of people they want in the timeframe they want to get them. Plus, since they aren't held to strict fiscal demands a gov't employee is much less likely to get fired for poor performance than is a private sector employee. Therefore, they are already getting an easier deal even with no union at all in place.

[IDBillzFan]

Can anybody justify why a non-hazardous job environment would need a Union?

Public employee unions are nothing more than the finest money laundering scheme ever created. Period.

[dayman]

But most people "have it" zero times because you can't vote against your private employer. As it is, the gov't is always going to be less concerned with the bottom line than a private enterprise so naturally they are already going to give gov't employees a better deal so they can attract the quality of people they want in the timeframe they want to get them. Plus, since they aren't held to strict fiscal demands a gov't employee is much less likely to get fired for poor performance than is a private sector employee. Therefore, they are already getting an easier deal even with no union at all in place.

 

 

Most people would have it 0 if they are not unionized (which a fair enough people aren't) AND not skilled enough so that they are totally replaceable...but they "have it 1 time" by virtue of that union or by virtue of their individual negotiation if they are a skilled worker...

 

Everything else you said are reasons why they may not need a union as much as other workers (whether or not everything there is true is besides the point), but those don't address issue of bargaining power. "Do you have bargaining power?" and "Do you need bargaining power" are two different questions. Personally I think every employee group should have some reasonable ability to bargain for wages/benefits ... what is reasonable within different contexts is highly fact specific and as I said I think some limited internal process for this for public sectors protected from political whims would probably be enough...how limited?...pretty limited (but not totally lacking)

Edited June 11, 2012 by TheNewBills

[KD in CA]

Most people would have it 0 if they are not unionized (which a fair enough people aren't) AND not skilled enough so that they are totally replaceable...but they "have it 1 time" by virtue of that union or by virtue of their individual negotiation if they are a skilled worker...

 

Everything else you said are reasons why they may not need a union as much as other workers (whether or not everything there is true is besides the point), but those don't address issue of bargaining power. "Do you have bargaining power?" and "Do you need bargaining power" are two different questions. Personally I think every employee group should have some reasonable ability to bargain for wages/benefits ... what is reasonable within different contexts is highly fact specific and as I said I think some limited internal process for this for public sectors protected from political whims would probably be enough...how limited?...pretty limited (but not totally unlimited)

 

First, are you aware that only a tiny % of the private workforce in this country is represented by a union? Somehow tens of millions of people go to work every day and get paid fairly all on their own. It's called a free market.

 

Second, every employee does have reasonable ability to bargain for wages/benefits. It's called the freedom to go find another job any where and any time you want. The gov't is not in the business of taking advantage of employees so to suppose that an "employee group" is necessary for someone to get paid fairly by the gov't is absolutely ridiculous.

[IDBillzFan]

Everything else you said are reasons why they may not need a union as much as other workers (whether or not everything there is true is besides the point), but those don't address issue of bargaining power. "Do you have bargaining power?" and "Do you need bargaining power" are two different questions. Personally I think every employee group should have some reasonable ability to bargain for wages/benefits ... what is reasonable within different contexts is highly fact specific and as I said I think some limited internal process for this for public sectors protected from political whims would probably be enough...how limited?...pretty limited (but not totally lacking)

The only world where this even makes sense is the world where employment is guaranteed. Fortunately, that's not our world.

 

First, are you aware that only a tiny % of the private workforce in this country is represented by a union? Somehow tens of millions of people go to work every day and get paid fairly all on their own. It's called a free market.

 

Second, every employee does have reasonable ability to bargain for wages/benefits. It's called the freedom to go find another job any where and any time you want. The gov't is not in the business of taking advantage of employees so to suppose that an "employee group" is necessary for someone to get paid fairly by the gov't is absolutely ridiculous.

Nailed it.

[GG]

First, are you aware that only a tiny % of the private workforce in this country is represented by a union? Somehow tens of millions of people go to work every day and get paid fairly all on their own. It's called a free market.

 

Second, every employee does have reasonable ability to bargain for wages/benefits. It's called the freedom to go find another job any where and any time you want. The gov't is not in the business of taking advantage of employees so to suppose that an "employee group" is necessary for someone to get paid fairly by the gov't is absolutely ridiculous.

 

The view also perpetuates the myth that the only thing employers care about are wages and that all employees are replaceable at a drop of a hat, and there's no such thing as investing in new hires, learning curve, etc.

[DC Tom]

The view also perpetuates the myth that the only thing employers care about are wages and that all employees are replaceable at a drop of a hat, and there's no such thing as investing in new hires, learning curve, etc.

 

The funny thing is, that describes the federal government pretty well.

[dayman]

First, are you aware that only a tiny % of the private workforce in this country is represented by a union? Somehow tens of millions of people go to work every day and get paid fairly all on their own. It's called a free market.

 

Second, every employee does have reasonable ability to bargain for wages/benefits. It's called the freedom to go find another job any where and any time you want. The gov't is not in the business of taking advantage of employees so to suppose that an "employee group" is necessary for someone to get paid fairly by the gov't is absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

Of course I am and that's b/c unions are not necessary in modern times in most industries...however they still function in some. As for the rest of your comments about gov't workers...that is your opinion...you would have no mechanism by which they can engage in a dialogue as a group beyond the political process...so be it...the way I see it they should rely primarily on the political process but also have some limited internal mechanism that is protected from mere political whims. I'm sure the situation can vary from state to state/profession to profession but where I live if your profession is "teacher" or "fireman" or "policeman" ... you don't exactly have the traditional options of going to find another job/company anywhere/anytime you want...

Edited June 11, 2012 by TheNewBills

[KD in CA]

Of course I am and that's b/c unions are not necessary in modern times in most industries...however they still function in some. As for the rest of your comments about gov't workers...that is your opinion...you would have no mechanism by which they can engage in a dialogue as a group beyond the political process...so be it...the way I see it they should rely primarily on the political process but also have some limited internal mechanism that is protected from mere political whims.

 

Right, unions are not necessary, and that goes double for the gov't where abuses run rampant.

 

What 'political whims' are you worried about? That's a silly, protect-the-union straw man. There is no politics inherent in what the vast majority of federal employees do every day. As if someone is going to get away with (or even have the authority to) fire hundreds of employees in some federal dept for no reason. And even if they did, there is no protection in the private section from firing people for 'mere political whims' or any other kind of whims so why should gov't employees be treated any different?

[dayman]

I don't know what I've typed that makes you think I'm advocating for Public Sector Unions. As for political whims I'm not sure why that isn't fairly self explanatory...there are clear cut differing ideologies (at least in my state IDK where you live) about the compensation some of these jobs should receive...there are frequent elections...etc etc

Edited June 11, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Koko78]

One could make the argument that 50+ years ago, public sector employees needed to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, etc. (I wouldn't make that argument, but I'm sure someone would). There's always the old stories (which were largely true) of the teachers who had to take second jobs during breaks and summers just to make ends meet. That was a very long time ago.

 

Now teachers make on average (in NY at least) $56,000 per year to work 6 hours per day, 180 days of the year. I know of a teacher for a large school district who, after 25 years, made more in one day than I made working a 40 hour week at a factory. The guy was also a scumball goldbrick, but that's a different story.

 

Ultimately, public sector unions are a bad idea. It becomes the government negotiating behind closed doors with the government over the pay that the government gives to the government. The three biggest lobby groups in New York State are all public sector unions. They're all about getting more for doing less, and to hell with the taxpayers.

 

I would vote Cuomo for life if he showed the balls to do for NYS what Gov. Walker did for Wisconsin.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Koko78

[3rdnlng]

One could make the argument that 50+ years ago, public sector employees needed to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, etc. (I wouldn't make that argument, but I'm sure someone would). There's always the old stories (which were largely true) of the teachers who had to take second jobs during breaks and summers just to make ends meet. That was a very long time ago.

 

Now teachers make on average (in NY at least) $56,000 per year to work 6 hours per day, 180 days of the year. I know of a teacher for a large school district who, after 25 years, made more in one day than I made working a 40 hour week at a factory. The guy was also a scumball goldbrick, but that's a different story.

 

Ultimately, public sector unions are a bad idea. It becomes the government negotiating behind closed doors with the government over the pay that the government gives to the government. The three biggest lobby groups in New York State are all public sector unions. They're all about getting more for doing less, and to hell with the taxpayers.

 

I would vote Cuomo for life if he showed the balls to do for NYS what Gov. Walker did for Wisconsin.

 

 

I'm not too close to NYS politics anymore, but isn't Cuomo actually getting some control over the finances there?

[Koko78]

I'm not too close to NYS politics anymore, but isn't Cuomo actually getting some control over the finances there?

 

He's eying a White House run, so he's actually been fairly moderate and not completely screwing upstate. Certainly doing a lot better than that blind jackass Patterson.

 

This state still needs a major enema to flush the downstate turds out of Albany.