Why Public Sector Unions Are a Bad Idea

[NatMorton]

In another thread idea of banning public sector unions was mentioned, so thought I would start a thread on it.

First off, those of us who do not belong to unions ought to understand that many of the employment benefits we enjoy come straight from the trade union movements dating back over a century ago. Weekends, health benefits, safe working conditions, and much more that we all take for granted as employees exists today because of what union organizers fought for and won long before our time. Those of us who work for a living are in their debt. Unions, on the whole, have been and remain a good thing.

Like FDR, however, I do have an issue with public sector unions because of the conflict of interest they create. What makes unions work in the private sector is that both sides of a labor negotiation are fairly represented: workers through their union leadership and the owners of the company through management. They meet. They haggle. They disagree. They compromise. They reach a deal that both sides can live with.

Public sector unions tip that balance when an elected official sits across the negotiating table from a union, and that same union’s endorsement is needed to keep that official in office. When it comes time to address a contentious issue, say pay raises, the public sector union is still in there swinging away for their members. The elected official, however, may be compromised. If union backing is key to winning that office he or she must face the unhappy possibility that the right thing to do for the taxpayers they represent is exactly what the endorsing union leadership does not want. This problem is further aggravated in one-party state like mine (Massachusetts) where, perhaps for all but gubernatorial candidates, party king-makers with control over the ballot have as much to do with who wins the next election as does the electorate.

Recognizing that public sector unions create an unhealthy environment in which to negotiate difficult issues does not make one anti-union. It just means that the problems unique to public sector unions may outweigh their benefits.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

In another thread idea of banning public sector unions was mentioned, so thought I would start a thread on it.

First off, those of us who do not belong to unions ought to understand that many of the employment benefits we enjoy come straight from the trade union movements dating back over a century ago. Weekends, health benefits, safe working conditions, and much more that we all take for granted as employees exists today because of what union organizers fought for and won long before our time. Those of us who work for a living are in their debt. Unions, on the whole, have been and remain a good thing.

Like FDR, however, I do have an issue with public sector unions because of the conflict of interest they create. What makes unions work in the private sector is that both sides of a labor negotiation are fairly represented: workers through their union leadership and the owners of the company through management. They meet. They haggle. They disagree. They compromise. They reach a deal that both sides can live with.

Public sector unions tip that balance when an elected official sits across the negotiating table from a union, and that same union’s endorsement is needed to keep that official in office. When it comes time to address a contentious issue, say pay raises, the public sector union is still in there swinging away for their members. The elected official, however, may be compromised. If union backing is key to winning that office he or she must face the unhappy possibility that the right thing to do for the taxpayers they represent is exactly what the endorsing union leadership does not want. This problem is further aggravated in one-party state like mine (Massachusetts) where, perhaps for all but gubernatorial candidates, party king-makers with control over the ballot have as much to do with who wins the next election as does the electorate.

Recognizing that public sector unions create an unhealthy environment in which to negotiate difficult issues does not make one anti-union. It just means that the problems unique to public sector unions may outweigh their benefits.

So you want to strip people of benefits because politicians may do something popular for all the folks who belong to that union, otherwise known as “voters.”

Okay then.

 

[NatMorton]

So you want to strip people of benefits because politicians may do something popular for all the folks who belong to that union, otherwise known as “voters.”

Okay then.

When I mention that your posts are often intellectually dishonest, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

 

[Cork]

In another thread idea of banning public sector unions was mentioned, so thought I would start a thread on it.

First off, those of us who do not belong to unions ought to understand that many of the employment benefits we enjoy come straight from the trade union movements dating back over a century ago. Weekends, health benefits, safe working conditions, and much more that we all take for granted as employees exists today because of what union organizers fought for and won long before our time. Those of us who work for a living are in their debt. Unions, on the whole, have been and remain a good thing.

Like FDR, however, I do have an issue with public sector unions because of the conflict of interest they create. What makes unions work in the private sector is that both sides of a labor negotiation are fairly represented: workers through their union leadership and the owners of the company through management. They meet. They haggle. They disagree. They compromise. They reach a deal that both sides can live with.

Public sector unions tip that balance when an elected official sits across the negotiating table from a union, and that same union’s endorsement is needed to keep that official in office. When it comes time to address a contentious issue, say pay raises, the public sector union is still in there swinging away for their members. The elected official, however, may be compromised. If union backing is key to winning that office he or she must face the unhappy possibility that the right thing to do for the taxpayers they represent is exactly what the endorsing union leadership does not want. This problem is further aggravated in one-party state like mine (Massachusetts) where, perhaps for all but gubernatorial candidates, party king-makers with control over the ballot have as much to do with who wins the next election as does the electorate.

Recognizing that public sector unions create an unhealthy environment in which to negotiate difficult issues does not make one anti-union. It just means that the problems unique to public sector unions may outweigh their benefits.

I really don't understand your stance on it. I do but it really makes no sense.

What's the difference between getting a pay raise and people who are running for office promise these same people that they'll get them healthcare or jobs?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

When I mention that your posts are often intellectually dishonest, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

The relief you seek is to abolish public sector unions. IF it’s not, then feel free to propose your solution(s). Lemme guess: you’re not actually charging anything, just sayin’ and wonderin’ and askin’.

Make better arguments. Shrug.

 

[NatMorton]

I really don't understand your stance on it. I do but it really makes no sense.

What's the difference between getting a pay raise and people who are running for office promise these same people that they'll get them healthcare or jobs?

Not sure what there is here to be confused about. Public sector unions can create scenarios where there's a conflict of interest for an elected official.

Imagine you hire a lawyer to represent you in some kind of settlement negotiation. Would it concern you to learn the very people with whom you are negotiating have enough influence to get your lawyer fired from his or her firm?

 

[NatMorton]

The relief you seek is to abolish public sector unions. IF it’s not, then feel free to propose your solution(s). Lemme guess: you’re not actually charging anything, just sayin’ and wonderin’ and askin’.

Make better arguments. Shrug.

I wouldn't ban them. I would simply grant government institutions the freedom to hire non-union workers.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I wouldn't ban them. I would simply grant government institutions the freedom to hire non-union workers.

So you want *those* folks to get less pay and benefits.

 

[Cameron]

If voters think that officials gave undue benefits to unions, they can vote the officials out of office. If they don't vote out those officials, that apparently means the majority is ok with the deals. I don't see why the solution should be preventing the creation of public labor unions. That is interference with the free market (in this case, the market for public sector employment).

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Not sure what there is here to be confused about. Public sector unions can create scenarios where there's a conflict of interest for an elected official.

Imagine you hire a lawyer to represent you in some kind of settlement negotiation. Would it concern you to learn the very people with whom you are negotiating have enough influence to get your lawyer fired from his or her firm?

Vs lobbying groups. Vs moms against drunk driving. Vs people who stay at Trump hotels.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Republicans run on the premise of government not working. How can they be trusted to not create scenarios in which government doesn’t work when in control of government?

We should ban Republicans from having roles related to government.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you want *those* folks to get less pay and benefits.

Nope, simply not more than private sector compensation.

According to CBO, government spends 17 percent more compensating its employees compared to the private sector. The disparities grow, however, depending on the employee’s level of educational attainment.

In total, federal employees with a high school diploma or less earn on average 53 percent more than their counterparts in the private sector, while federal workers with a bachelor’s degree received 21 percent more in compensation.

In contrast, total compensation costs for employees with a professional degree or doctorate were 18 percent lower than workers in the private sector, CBO said.

Latest study on federal compensation puts public, private pay gap at widest margin yet

In yet another study on federal employee compensation finds public sector workers, on average, earn 80 percent more than private sector workers.

federalnewsnetwork.com

 

[Gaius46]

So you want to strip people of benefits because politicians may do something popular for all the folks who belong to that union, otherwise known as “voters.”

Okay then.

Police unions are the single biggest obstacle to reforming police practices and getting bad cops fired or jailed.

 

[Gaius46]

Nope, simply not more than private sector compensation.

Latest study on federal compensation puts public, private pay gap at widest margin yet

In yet another study on federal employee compensation finds public sector workers, on average, earn 80 percent more than private sector workers.

federalnewsnetwork.com

It used to be that people accepted less money working for the government as a trade off for more job stability and people in the private sector accepted the risk of job loss as the price of higher incomes.

Now government both pay are and are more stable.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Police unions are the single biggest obstacle to reforming police practices and getting bad cops fired or jailed.

So you wish to do away with police unions?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Nope, simply not more than private sector compensation.

Latest study on federal compensation puts public, private pay gap at widest margin yet

In yet another study on federal employee compensation finds public sector workers, on average, earn 80 percent more than private sector workers.

federalnewsnetwork.com

Why?

 

[Gaius46]

So you wish to do away with police unions?

Yes.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yes.

I would not prefer that.

 

[chuckiechan]

In another thread idea of banning public sector unions was mentioned, so thought I would start a thread on it.

First off, those of us who do not belong to unions ought to understand that many of the employment benefits we enjoy come straight from the trade union movements dating back over a century ago. Weekends, health benefits, safe working conditions, and much more that we all take for granted as employees exists today because of what union organizers fought for and won long before our time. Those of us who work for a living are in their debt. Unions, on the whole, have been and remain a good thing.

Like FDR, however, I do have an issue with public sector unions because of the conflict of interest they create. What makes unions work in the private sector is that both sides of a labor negotiation are fairly represented: workers through their union leadership and the owners of the company through management. They meet. They haggle. They disagree. They compromise. They reach a deal that both sides can live with.

Public sector unions tip that balance when an elected official sits across the negotiating table from a union, and that same union’s endorsement is needed to keep that official in office. When it comes time to address a contentious issue, say pay raises, the public sector union is still in there swinging away for their members. The elected official, however, may be compromised. If union backing is key to winning that office he or she must face the unhappy possibility that the right thing to do for the taxpayers they represent is exactly what the endorsing union leadership does not want. This problem is further aggravated in one-party state like mine (Massachusetts) where, perhaps for all but gubernatorial candidates, party king-makers with control over the ballot have as much to do with who wins the next election as does the electorate.

Recognizing that public sector unions create an unhealthy environment in which to negotiate difficult issues does not make one anti-union. It just means that the problems unique to public sector unions may outweigh their benefits.

If voters think that officials gave undue benefits to unions, they can vote the officials out of office. If they don't vote out those officials, that apparently means the majority is ok with the deals. I don't see why the solution should be preventing the creation of public labor unions. That is interference with the free market (in this case, the market for public sector employment).

No you can’t vote them out of office. They are the office.
Public sector unions run California. Through “wink and settle” fights, the state pretends to argue, the corrupt press plays along, it goes quiet, and the unions get what they want, and campaign war chests get topped off with union money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why?

It’s not necessary to attract or retain qualified labor.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The real reason public sector unions are a terrible idea is the weaponize one set of voters against another set, so that a subset of the group obtains benefits that are expressly not available in the private sector but they all pay for it anyway.

And underline to this is public sector unions get to strongarm the voter, and it is damn near coercion these days.

 

[NatMorton]

So you want *those* folks to get less pay and benefits.

No, I want both sides in the labor negotiation fairly represented, don't you?

 

[NatMorton]

If voters think that officials gave undue benefits to unions, they can vote the officials out of office. If they don't vote out those officials, that apparently means the majority is ok with the deals. I don't see why the solution should be preventing the creation of public labor unions. That is interference with the free market (in this case, the market for public sector employment).

Generally speaking, monopolies aren't consistent with free market principles, and that's what most public sector unions create for themselves, a monopoly on labor.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

No, I want both sides in the labor negotiation fairly represented, don't you?

So you want me to accept your could be maybe shenanigans argument now as fact suggesting both sides aren’t fairly represented. I do not.

And: I always want labor to come out ahead. Always always always.

 

[NatMorton]

Vs lobbying groups. Vs moms against drunk driving. Vs people who stay at Trump hotels.

Nothing would prevent an organization representing government workers' interests from lobbying government.