Should Government Employees Be Unionized?

[The_Patriot]

A simple question to spark a discussion.

I, myself, do not believe that public servants should be able to unionize. They are to serve the people on the whims of the people. By having a union, this places the servant into the position of the master and able to dictate to the people their demands.

 

[Gabriel]

They are employed and their employer should be subject to the same rules as any other employer.

 

[molten_dragon]

No. I think unions are an outdated concept and unnecessary in today's world.

 

[Slartibartfast]

They are employed and their employer should be subject to the same rules as any other employer.

I pretty much agree, except in cases where public safety is a factor, such as the military, police, air traffic controllers , etc.

 

[The_Patriot]

They are employed and their employer should be subject to the same rules as any other employer.

How is their employer just like all of the other employers?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

No they get double representation.

Completely unfair to the rest of us.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Government employees have every freedom to form a union if they like, under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom to associate.

Under no circumstances should the federal government restrict it's hiring pool to only those in a goonion.

Under no circumstances should goonion members be protected from permanent replacement if they refuse to work.

Goonion members should get no special advantages over other employees for their choice to be in a goonion.

Goonions should not be allowed to influence public policy of their employing organization.

It should not require an act of Congress and five years of lawsuits to fire a goonionster from the public payroll.

 

[MaggieD]

Well, I voted yes because many of them are already unionized.

The problem isn't the unions, folks. It's the namby-pamby milquetoasts who give in to their outrageous demands.

I always remember the air traffic controllers. They struck. Reagan ordered them back to work invoking the 'whatever act' re public safety. They refused. He fired every last one of them. They tried to get their jobs back, but were unsuccessful. That was a different time. That was a time when presidents actually had a set.

Aside: Can someone reply here and tell me if they are also seeing a duplicate last line of all posts lately??

 

[jamesrage]

Yes they should be allowed to unionize. But at the same just as Scarecrow Akhbar mentions they should be treated no different than non-union employees, they should have no say in policy of their employers, the employer should not be restricted to only hiring union employees, they should not be be able to coerce anyone into joining a union, they shall be fired just like a non-union employee and if they refuse the work then they shall be fired just like a nonunion employee. Despite the abuses the unions have committed they are still needed and will always be needed.

 

[The_Patriot]

Government employees have every freedom to form a union if they like, under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom to associate.

Under no circumstances should the federal government restrict it's hiring pool to only those in a goonion.

Under no circumstances should goonion members be protected from permanent replacement if they refuse to work.

Goonion members should get no special advantages over other employees for their choice to be in a goonion.

Goonions should not be allowed to influence public policy of their employing organization.

It should not require an act of Congress and five years of lawsuits to fire a goonionster from the public payroll.

I counter with the fact that military servicemembers have their rights abridged when they work for the government. There is no reason why other government positions cannot do the same.

Well, I voted yes because many of them are already unionized.

The problem isn't the unions, folks. It's the namby-pamby milquetoasts who give in to their outrageous demands.

I always remember the air traffic controllers. They struck. Reagan ordered them back to work invoking the 'whatever act' re public safety. They refused. He fired every last one of them. They tried to get their jobs back, but were unsuccessful. That was a different time. That was a time when presidents actually had a set.

Aside: Can someone reply here and tell me if they are also seeing a duplicate last line of all posts lately??

No, the problem is with the unions to begin with. They make unreasonable demands and strike that puts everyone in jeopardy like the air traffic controllers strike. Government employees should be serving the people not forcing the people to serve them.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I counter with the fact that military servicemembers have their rights abridged when they work for the government. There is no reason why other government positions cannot do the same.

Expound.

I say military service is different. First off, the Army can't be allowed to go on strike. Period. Secondly, it's non union and everyone who enlists either knows this ahead of time or is an idiot.

Then again, no reason why a bunch of clerks at the Patent and Trademark Office can't form their own goonion. it should just be made plain that if they do decide to strike, they're jobs aren't terribly important or terribly hard to teach others, so they may not have a job when they decide to come back, and in the mean time, since Congress sets the wage scales, their best bet is to lobby congress as any voter can, and keep working.

There's always private industry. If some clerk wants better pay or whatever, he can always look elsewhere for a job. If he finds what he wants, he moves on, otherwise, he's already being paid the most that he's worth.

There's absolutely no reason the civil service should be treated as some shrine. It's a damn job, and it shouldn't treated any differently than any other.

 

[The_Patriot]

Expound.

I say military service is different. First off, the Army can't be allowed to go on strike. Period. Secondly, it's non union and everyone who enlists either knows this ahead of time or is an idiot.

Then again, no reason why a bunch of clerks at the Patent and Trademark Office can't form their own goonion. it should just be made plain that if they do decide to strike, they're jobs aren't terribly important or terribly hard to teach others, so they may not have a job when they decide to come back, and in the mean time, since Congress sets the wage scales, their best bet is to lobby congress as any voter can, and keep working.

There's always private industry. If some clerk wants better pay or whatever, he can always look elsewhere for a job. If he finds what he wants, he moves on, otherwise, he's already being paid the most that he's worth.

There's absolutely no reason the civil service should be treated as some shrine. It's a damn job, and it shouldn't treated any differently than any other.

No, the military is no different then the Patent and Trademark office. Both serve a vital role in the government and they should not be allowed to form a union. Everyone that is employed by the government must forfeit their right to join a union since they are supposed to be serving the people not forcing the people to serve them in their unreasonable demands.

 

[jamesrage]

I counter with the fact that military servicemembers have their rights abridged when they work for the government. There is no reason why other government positions cannot do the same.

The policemen,firefighters, air traffic controllers, teachers or any other tax payer funded employees do not require the same discipline and order as the military. It would be disastrous to allow those in the military the same constitutional rights as other Americans. They would be mouthing off to everybody in their chain of command(I know I wanted to tell a NCO and a commissioned officer to go **** himself many times), they would be going on strike to avoid field training, go on strike to avoid going to war,go on strike to avoid KP,Go on strike to avoid police call, go on strike to avoid staff duty,go on strike to avoid guard duty, go on strike to avoid company piss tests, go on strike to not have to not have to return stuff in exactly immaculate or better condition(some people in CIF can be pretty anal when it comes to gear being returned),go on strike because the food in the chow hall sucks ass, go on strike because field chow taste worse than the MREs or any other reasons soldiers would use a strike,freedom of speech or any other reason for. The thing about teachers, policemen, firefighters, garbageman and other civilian tax payer funded employees is that there is no shortage of people to take those jobs.

Someone in the military is not easily fired. Usually disciplinary problems will result in article 15s, loss of pay, reduction in rank, extra duty and any other punishments.

 

[TurtleDude]

government unions like the postal workers or the scummy AFSCME do not guarantee good work or teach a trade (unlike real unions like the carpenters, IBEW or pipefitters). Government unions are nothing more than collective bargaining units that drive up the taxpayers' costs and protect lousy workers.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No, the military is no different then the Patent and Trademark office. Both serve a vital role in the government and they should not be allowed to form a union. Everyone that is employed by the government must forfeit their right to join a union since they are supposed to be serving the people not forcing the people to serve them in their unreasonable demands.

Wrongo.

The defense of the nation is not something that can be allowed to rest on the whim of shop stewards, it's the top national priority assigned to the Congress and the President.

The issuance of patents and trademarks is something assigned to Congress much later in the Constitution, and it's not anything that can't wait a while for striking non-workers to be replaced with new employees.

As I said, people can form unions, if they're not in the military, and do anything they damn well please, so long as they 're perfectly aware that the job their striking from doesn't belong to them and may be permanently assigned to the next person willing to do it.

The military can't unionize because they're under contract to obey orders from their superior. They always have the option to not re-enlist when their contract expires, individually.

 

[digsbe]

I say unionize them and allow the government to get a taste of its own medicine.

 

[TurtleDude]

I say unionize them and allow the government to get a taste of its own medicine.

why do you think the Postal Service leaked about 3 billion last year?

 

[The_Patriot]

Wrongo.

The defense of the nation is not something that can be allowed to rest on the whim of shop stewards, it's the top national priority assigned to the Congress and the President.

The issuance of patents and trademarks is something assigned to Congress much later in the Constitution, and it's not anything that can't wait a while for striking non-workers to be replaced with new employees.

As I said, people can form unions, if they're not in the military, and do anything they damn well please, so long as they 're perfectly aware that the job their striking from doesn't belong to them and may be permanently assigned to the next person willing to do it.

The military can't unionize because they're under contract to obey orders from their superior. They always have the option to not re-enlist when their contract expires, individually.

You might want to check the Constitution then because Patents and Trademarks are listed as Clause VIII while the military is Clauses XII and XIII in Article I Section VIII.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You might want to check the Constitution then because Patents and Trademarks are listed as Clause VIII while the military is Clauses XII and XIII in Article I Section VIII.

Hmmm....the Preamble says "Provide for the Common Defense".

That seems to come before any clause in any subsequent article.

"Securing Patents"....that's not in the Preamble, is it?

 

[The_Patriot]

Hmmm....the Preamble says "Provide for the Common Defense".

That seems to come before any clause in any subsequent article.

"Securing Patents"....that's not in the Preamble, is it?

Preamble doesn't have the force of law. Did you want try again? If you cite Article I Section VIII Clause I, I will refute it by saying that it's a statement of intent and not a grant of power. Patents and Trademarks will still come before defense.

 

[Ahlevah]

How is their employer just like all of the other employers?

They're paying for labor?

 

[MaggieD]

No, the problem is with the unions to begin with. They make unreasonable demands....

So does a 3-year-old. ;-)

 

[The_Patriot]

They're paying for labor?

Except the people actually paying for it are the masters.

So does a 3-year-old. ;-)

:lamo OMG you made me spit out my tea when I read that!!

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Preamble doesn't have the force of law. Did you want try again? If you cite Article I Section VIII Clause I, I will refute it by saying that it's a statement of intent and not a grant of power. Patents and Trademarks will still come before defense.

Yeah, meanwhile, can you name any rational person that puts filing a patent claim on the same level of national significance as maintaining the army necessary to protect the patent clerks from rude foreigners?

 

[The_Patriot]

Yeah, meanwhile, can you name any rational person that puts filing a patent claim on the same level of national significance as maintaining the army necessary to protect the patent clerks from rude foreigners?

Given the fact that we're not supposed to have a standing army, do you want me to answer this honestly? :lol: