Should Government Employees Be Unionized?

[Ahlevah]

Except the people actually paying for it are the masters.

Slavery officially ended in America in 1865. Today, if someone pays a worker for his labor, that makes the someone an employer. I found it interesting that, with all the libertarians on this board, so many people voted in favor of a governmental prohibition of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively simply because the workers are in the public sector.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Slavery officially ended in America in 1865. Today, if someone pays a worker for his labor, that makes the someone an employer. I found it interesting that, with all the libertarians on this board, so many people voted in favor of a governmental prohibition of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively simply because the workers are in the public sector.

Current union laws don't allow freedom of association for the employers.

For me to work for the railroad, I have to join a union.
There is no opt out option.
Same for most others.

Edit: Not to mention that it allows them to have double representation in government.
Completely unfair.

 

[The_Patriot]

Slavery officially ended in America in 1865. Today, if someone pays a worker for his labor, that makes the someone an employer. I found it interesting that, with all the libertarians on this board, so many people voted in favor of a governmental prohibition of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively simply because the workers are in the public sector.

I'm not a libertarian. The government in the US is set up on the principle that the people have all the power while the government has none inherently. The people are the masters while the government is the servant. It has nothing to do with slavery.

 

[Ahlevah]

I'm not a libertarian. The government in the US is set up on the principle that the people have all the power while the government has none inherently. The people are the masters while the government is the servant. It has nothing to do with slavery.

Well, if you believe the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to secure the natural rights of man. Presumably, one of those rights is the right to one's own labor. Citizens shouldn't have to surrender basic liberties simply because they choose to sell their labor to the public.

 

[The_Patriot]

Well, if you believe the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to secure the natural rights of man. Presumably, one of those rights is the right to one's own labor. Citizens shouldn't have to surrender basic liberties simply because they choose to sell their labor to the public.

Working for the people should be a reward unto itself and a part of one's civic duty. That is how it was viewed back in colonial times.

 

[Ahlevah]

Working for the people should be a reward unto itself and a part of one's civic duty.

If you were a wealthy planter or lawyer during the colonial period, you could afford to donate a few years of public service as part of your "civic duty." If you're a working stiff in 2010 America, "civic duty" doesn't pay the light bill or the mortgage. But I sympathize with your sentiment. I wish more executives found it part of their civic duty to pay better wages to their peons.

 

[Ahlevah]

Current union laws don't allow freedom of association for the employers.

For me to work for the railroad, I have to join a union.
There is no opt out option.
Same for most others.

Edit: Not to mention that it allows them to have double representation in government.
Completely unfair.

Can you elaborate on these? I'm not following you here.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Can you elaborate on these? I'm not following you here.

The employer has to respect the existence of the union.
I cannot fire all the union members, the union can shut down all work and the company can't do much except negotiate with the union.
They should be able to fire them without resorting to the union rules.

They lobby the government directly through the union as well as being able to vote their personal influence.
That effectively gives them double representation in government.

 

[The_Patriot]

If you were a wealthy planter or lawyer during the colonial period, you could afford to donate a few years of public service as part of your "civic duty." If you're a working stiff in 2010 America, "civic duty" doesn't pay the light bill or the mortgage. But I sympathize with your sentiment. I wish more executives found it part of their civic duty to pay better wages to their peons.

Are you done confusing private industry with public service? Working for the government, in any capacity, should be done out of love for their fellow citizens and for their country. It should not be about bending the citizens over and screwing them for all that they were worth. Unions allow this to happen. Unions also make it impossible for the public servant to be held accountable to the people when they screw up. Also, not everyone that worked in the government back in the colonial period were rich. In fact, the bulk of the government workers were working class individuals.

 

[Ahlevah]

The employer has to respect the existence of the union.

Right. And why shouldn't it? The workers are the employers' "greatest asset," and the employer has agreed to bargain with the workers collectively in good faith, right? At least that's what it tells us when its lips are flapping.

I cannot fire all the union members, the union can shut down all work and the company can't do much except negotiate with the union. They should be able to fire them without resorting to the union rules.

We're talking about public sector unions here, but, as a practical matter, if a company doesn't want to negotiate with a union in good faith it doesn't have to. A union can be certified and then the company can close or relocate a plant, in essence firing everybody, or it can just gradually weed out the "trouble makers" while it drags its feet on negotiaiting a contract. Concerning union rules, presumably, once a company signs a contract it agrees to follow the terms. A company should be obliged to honor a contract it signs. That's the democratic way, isn't it?

They lobby the government directly through the union as well as being able to vote their personal influence.

Corporations hire lobbyists, PR firms, consulting firms, and investment banks and then complete the full court press in a box at a Knicks game. When it comes to politics, the people with the real influence are the ones who write the checks, principally corporations and wealthy individuals. Ask anyone who's run for Congress recently. Like a free press, unions as an institution serve as a counterweight to corporate influence, something of value to people who say they believe in freedom.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Right. And why shouldn't it? The workers are the employers' "greatest asset," and the employer has agreed to bargain with the workers collectively in good faith, right? At least that's what it tells us when its lips are flapping.

Not always.
The union can organize the work place without the consent of the owner of the work place.
They are forced by law to negotiate with them.

If the demands are greater than the realistic payments they should receive then the workers are not a good asset.

We're talking about public sector unions here, but, as a practical matter, if a company doesn't want to negotiate with a union in good faith it doesn't have to. A union can be certified and then the company can close or relocate a plant, in essence firing everybody, or it can just gradually weed out the "trouble makers" while it drags its feet on negotiaiting a contract. Concerning union rules, presumably, once a company signs a contract it agrees to follow the terms. A company should be obliged to honor a contract it signs. That's the democratic way, isn't it?

Not always.
It can't just close the plant, the union can in twine them in long legal disputes.

They shouldn't be forced to even deal with a union if they don't want to.
Freedom of association and all that.

Corporations hire lobbyists, PR firms, consulting firms, and investment banks and then complete the full court press in a box at a Knicks game. When it comes to politics, the people with the real influence are the ones who write the checks, principally corporations and wealthy individuals. Ask anyone who's run for Congress recently. Like a free press, unions as an institution serve as a counterweight to corporate influence, something of value to people who say they believe in freedom.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
Unions are fine as long as they are reasonable, since the law allows them to be unreasonable, I don't support their existence.

 

[Ahlevah]

Are you done confusing private industry with public service?

Only if you're done confusing civic duty with public employment. I tend to equate the word "civic" with "citizen." I mean, if EVERY capable citizen who enjoyed the protections and freedoms accorded to him by society decided that teaching a classroom with thirty brats or manning a fire station or joining the military is a duty he has to the commonweal, then I'd be all for it. I would even let the Donald Trumps drive the fire truck and put the little Ivankas in charge of a squad of Marines in Afghanistan. Since that's not likely to happen because many people are too busy making money and view their civic duty as extending no further than the taxes they pay, I'm fine with just hiring people to perform these services. Personally, I don't think too many people go into something like teaching at a public school for the money anyway. If they do, they probably don't last long. And if you look at a jurisdiction where public-sector unions wield little influence, they definitely don't. Here in Mississippi, the base salary for a teacher with a master's degree is about $34,000 a year. A doctorate gets an addition two grand. Whoopee. Policemen start at about thirty grand as well, which is fat city compared to what they made a few years ago. I don't know too many Donald Trumps who would be willing to potentially forfeit their lives for thirty grand. Do you?

Working for the government, in any capacity, should be done out of love for their fellow citizens and for their country. It should not be about bending the citizens over and screwing them for all that they were worth. Unions allow this to happen. Unions also make it impossible for the public servant to be held accountable to the people when they screw up. Also, not everyone that worked in the government back in the colonial period were rich. In fact, the bulk of the government workers were working class individuals.

You know, even during the American Revolution members of volunteer militias had to feed their families, so when planting season loomed many of them deserted or left at the first possible moment once their enlistments expired. One of George Washington's biggest headaches was finding and keeping suitable volunteers. That's why he sought funding from Congress to field a regular, paid professional army. Public service is all well and good, but people still need to eat and put a roof over their heads.

 

[The_Patriot]

Only if you're done confusing civic duty with public employment. I tend to equate the word "civic" with "citizen." I mean, if EVERY capable citizen who enjoyed the protections and freedoms accorded to him by society decided that teaching a classroom with thirty brats or manning a fire station or joining the military is a duty he has to the commonweal, then I'd be all for it. I would even let the Donald Trumps drive the fire truck and put the little Ivankas in charge of a squad of Marines in Afghanistan. Since that's not likely to happen because many people are too busy making money and view their civic duty as extending no further than the taxes they pay, I'm fine with just hiring people to perform these services. Personally, I don't think too many people go into something like teaching at a public school for the money anyway. If they do, they probably don't last long. And if you look at a jurisdiction where public-sector unions wield little influence, they definitely don't. Here in Mississippi, the base salary for a teacher with a master's degree is about $34,000 a year. A doctorate gets an addition two grand. Whoopee. Policemen start at about thirty grand as well, which is fat city compared to what they made a few years ago. I don't know too many Donald Trumps who would be willing to potentially forfeit their lives for thirty grand. Do you?

Source for salaries? Are including all of the benefits or just monetary compensation? One of the responsibilities a citizen has is to be part of the militia upon the age of majority. This is part of their civic duty. I view serving the people as a civic duty as did the founding fathers. As such, these are civil servants and are not entitled to having a union. The key word is servant in the job description. Servants have to obey the wishes of the master, which is the people.

You know, even during the American Revolution members of volunteer militias had to feed their families, so when planting season loomed many of them deserted or left at the first possible moment once their enlistments expired. One of George Washington's biggest headaches was finding and keeping suitable volunteers. That's why he sought funding from Congress to field a regular, paid professional army. Public service is all well and good, but people still need to eat and put a roof over their heads.

Yes, they do, but do they need multi-million dollar compensation packages that will indebt the people for generations because the union demands it?

 

[The Mark]

Personally, I would say the following, in reference to unions in general:

Unions should, at most, be locally organized only. State or national/international level organizations are, effectively, just as much a monopoly as the monopolies anti-trust laws try to prevent.

Now, state or national/international level associations, as in, “hey, how are things going in your local (insert job here) union?” are a different story.

But if a union is nationally/internationally organized, they could effectively dictate the wages their profession received. Much like a corporate monopoly could dictate the prices people paid for their product(s).

--------

As to the organization of the unions themselves, the “secret ballot” is one requirement.

As to the employer – union relationship, employers should be allowed to hire anyone they wish, within employment laws of course.

The purpose of a union should be to both provide the employees and employers with an easy contract negotiation method, and to protect the employees from extreme levels of unreasonable wages and the like.

As an example, if X employer wanted to pay it’s employers Y wages, wherein Y = 50% of the normal wage paid to such employees for the job in question.

If a union were formed to negotiate wages on par with others in the field, most employees would likely join, given that the wage differential is enough to warrant it.

On the other hand, if the union demanded 200% of the normal wage, the employer would have the option of denying them and hiring non-union workers for, say 110% of the average wage for such a job.

Any union setup that does not allow non-union employees to enter is unacceptable in my book.

However, I can see a potential for non-union workers being offered far less than average for that job, and accepting the job due to other factors, such as the economic issues atm.

/shrug…

As to government unions... much the same, but with limitations on striking depending on the importance of the job (in terms of functionality of the national/state/local infrastructure, etc.)

 

[deltabtry]

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

I agree and I assume you must remember the 70's and perpetual ATC strikes, Reagan finally put a end to that B/S..

 

[Ahlevah]

Source for salaries? Are including all of the benefits or just monetary compensation?

Salaries for teachers are available here. I'm not sure what portion, if any, of their cash compensation goes toward benefits, but my guess is some does. As for the police salary figure, I didn't use any specific source other than my recollection from reading articles in my local newspaper. However, you can do the math if you want:

The annual salary for the Mississippi Highway Patrol is $3000 to $4000 higher than many surrounding departments, drawing in a large number of recruits.... Highway patrolmen are required to attend an 18 to 20 week academy, during which the average salary is approximately $14,000. New Highway Patrol recruits are paid a reduced salary due to the fact that they are provided with food and housing during their stint in the academy. Once they complete their training and become full-fledged patrolman, the salary is increased to approximately $34,000 to $38,000, depending on education and prior experience. Officers with advanced degrees such as Bachelor's or Master's degrees are paid slightly more, as are officers who have had prior law enforcement experience.

What Is the Job Salary for Mississippi Highway Patrol Officers? | eHow.com

Yes, they do, but do they need multi-million dollar compensation packages that will indebt the people for generations because the union demands it?

I have yet to see a teacher who got rich by herding brats. Considering the amount of education they're required to obtain (generally at least a bachelor's degree plus a fifth year), they're worth whatever they make. If they attended an expensive school and are stuck with tens of thousands of dollars worth of student loans, they're probably having second thoughts about their career choice. But I really have to wonder about the priorities of a society that deems it perfectly appropriate to pay someone who trades oil futures $100 million for one year's work while questioning the salary of a person who will mold the minds of their children. If the Donalds of America don't like it, then they can move to a right-to-work state where they can pay their public workers peanuts or elect politicians who will negotiate firmly with bargaining units. I don't envision them volunteering at their local fire station or school in order to save tax money on salaries. As for the military as a form of public service among elites in this country? Forgitaboutit. Those people are increasingly rare in this country. I wonder how many graduates of Choate or Philips Exeter are enlisting in the Marines this year. Keeping Faith: A Father-Son Story ... - Google Books

 

[Ahlevah]

The union can organize the work place without the consent of the owner of the work place.

One doesn't have to be a genius to guess the likely answer he would get if an employer were asked for permission to unionize its work force.

They are forced by law to negotiate with them.

Well, the National Labor Relations Act says they're supposed to. That doesn't mean they can't hire lawyers and "union busting" consultants to help them drag their feet while they work to have the union decertified.

If the demands are greater than the realistic payments they should receive then the workers are not a good asset.

When you say "realistic payments they should receive," what you really mean is "the crumbs management would toss them if they didn't have an advocate to negotiate on their behalf."

It can't just close the plant, the union can in twine them in long legal disputes.

If a company wants to close a plant, the plant will close. Just ask the former UAW workers at New United Motor Manufacturing in Fremont, California.

They shouldn't be forced to even deal with a union if they don't want to.

Well, that's your opinion. I believe that if workers want an advocate to represent them when negotiating salaries and benefits with their employer, they should have that right.

Unions are fine as long as they are reasonable, since the law allows them to be unreasonable, I don't support their existence.

About the only leverage a worker has with management is the ability to withhold his labor. If he can't do that in concert with other workers, then, short of threatening to quit, he really has no leverage at all. The employer is holding most of the cards in that instance. Contrary to appearances, I'm no particular fan of unions. I think one reason we have a growing transplant auto industry here in the South is due to unions in non-right to work states. But I also don't think that going back to the labor unrest we experienced before the National Labor Relations Act was passed would be good for the country, either. Once companies felt they had a green light to run roughshod over workers I'm sure they would do it. Just the threat of an NLRB election tends to keep them honest.

 

[ronpaulvoter]

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.

Not just no, but HELL NO!!!!Nearly all public employees are overpaid and don't need to be mooching off the taxpayers who earn a lot less. They should NEVER belong to a mooching organization like a union.

Salaries for ALL public employees, including people in political office, should NEVER be increased without approval in a referendum by the people.

 

[bicycleman]

Government employees are unionized if they have been successful at obtaining at least 30% of their bargaining unit, the total number of employees elibible to be represented by a union, to sign a petition expressing interest in being represented, at which case an election is then held.

 

[liblady]

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.

sure they should, if that's what they want.

 

[Camlon]

Public sector unions are bad. Because governments can't go bancrupt and there is no competition. If a private sector union demands too high pay, then a different company will beat them out of the market. In public sector, they just take money from the taxpayers. And if they don't give them money, then the party will get less votes.

The easiest solution would be to allow public companies to hire anyone they like. That will slowly kill the public sector unions, because they can hire people that are willing to work for less. Also, they should privatize many public services. They should stil fund them, just allow companies to compete against each other. Then the company that doesn't hire expensive unionized workers will do a lot better.