• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Public Sector Unions Are a Bad Idea (1 Viewer)

Cameron said:
That’s what I’m saying though. There is no reason governments have to hire union workers other than perhaps a mandatory policy which can be undone. If they can’t find any applicants willing to go around the union that is not a problem of monopoly, it just means they must be proposing very unfair terms. I don’t think there has ever in history been an example of a union controlling the entire labor pool. Seems impossible.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely on giving government the option to hire non-union labor, but that is far more easily said than done. Have you seen the battle over charter public schools?
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Why yes, yes I do.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you try a turn in a public union environment where any extra effort you make, or added value you create, goes unrewarded.

I understand why people would gravitate toward the security a union environment can create, but the one thing that doesn't happen there is adequate reward for one's actual contributions.
 
NatMorton said:
Then I suggest you try a turn in a public union environment where any extra effort you make, or added value you create, goes unrewarded.

I understand why people would gravitate toward the security a union environment can create, but the one thing that doesn't happen there is adequate reward for one's actual contributions.
Click to expand...

But I already told you I work in the private sector. Been there, done that. Didn’t stop experiencing that until I went into shop for my damn self.
 
NatMorton said:
Public sector unions simply wield too much political influence, especially (though not exclusively) over the Democratic party. Those ultimately paying for public labor (i.e. us) cannot be fairly represented at the bargaining table when their representative is beholden to that union.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a political argument for electing Republicans instead of Democrats, not a reason to bar public employees from collective bargaining.

I'd love to ban the NRA, for example, because they seem to create massive conflicts of interest among Republicans on gun policy. There are plenty of other lobbying groups and "public interest" organizations that probably fall in the same category. But I wouldn't actually propose doing that because it would violate the freedom of association.
 
What unions have done is promote wages for hard working people so these workers can sustain themselves and/or their families.

Unions have prevented millions from needing social services assistance.

Unions have promoted wage increases that encourages workers to stay on the job.

Politicians lie a lot concerning unions.

What is wrong with workers making plenty of money that ultimately promotes economic growth?

If some on here think union workers are over paid how can these thinkers stand by the wages and benefits capitol hill elected officials are taking from the taxpayers?

Congress needs to double the size of COVID 19 checks to the people until COVID 19 subsides and Congress needs above all else to take a 50% cut in pay until COVID 19 subsides. After all it is the elected officials who brought this wrath on we the taxpayers and our economy.

If employers would pay their employees say $32.50 per hour as a starting wage unions likely would not be necessary. Too many employers fail to respect that workers help make employers well to do, wealthy or very rich ......... employers cannot do all of the work themselves while they may do well becoming very rich might not happen.

Screwing workers is not acceptable behavior.
 
NatMorton said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's no confict of interest that I can see. Politicians may pay people who work for the government whatever they want. Special interests groups may lobby politicians to get what they want. There's no conflict, this is how democracy works.

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?
Click to expand...

Who is the lawyer in this scenario?
 
I mean, is this the part where I gotta start reminding the free marketeers in this thread how racist and misogynist corporate American has been/is? Like, is this another scenario where accepting your framework means we pretend this country has no history and we are all evaluated on the same merits?

Such silliness.
 
NatMorton said:
I agree with you completely on giving government the option to hire non-union labor, but that is far more easily said than done. Have you seen the battle over charter public schools?
Click to expand...
Sometimes getting the majority to agree with you is not easy, that doesn't mean you go and rig the game or Tonya Harding your opponent's knee cap. I don't think charter public schools is a good analogy as that debate involves a host of other social issues.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Because merit pay in the private sector has proven to be bullshit over and over again. The entire point of unions is to ensure workers are paid a fair wage for their work.

If you don’t want people to earn a fair wage for their work, just say that.
Click to expand...
what is a fair wage?
 
Cameron said:
This sounds like a political argument for electing Republicans instead of Democrats, not a reason so bar public employees from collective bargaining.

I'd love to ban the NRA, for example, because they seem to create massive conflicts of interest among Republicans on gun policy. There are plenty of other lobbying groups and "public interest" organizations that probably fall in the same category. But I wouldn't actually propose doing that because it would violate the freedom of association.
Click to expand...
The same scenario can happen with Republicans as they often need the support -- and also must negotiate with -- police and fire unions. The reality, however, is that public sector unions are always going to come down on the side of governments taxing and spending more, and that usually means supporting the Democrat in the race. None of that alters the conflict of interest created when a public official engages in labor negotiations with union whose support they -- the government official -- must have to remain in office.
 
Cameron said:
That’s what I’m saying though. There is no reason governments have to hire union workers other than perhaps a mandatory policy which can be undone. If they can’t find any applicants willing to go around the union that is not a problem of monopoly, it just means they must be proposing very unfair terms. I don’t think there has ever in history been an example of a union controlling the entire labor pool. Seems impossible.
Click to expand...
ee
I rather seriously doubt any municipal government publishes union vs non-union pay scales to applicants. There was a Supreme Court in 2018 that kind of illustrates that point. non-union government workers working in jobs that also had union employees were forced to pay "agency fees" to the union because the union negotiated contracts that apply to both union and non-union employees. The SC found that unconstitutional but it highlights the fact that governments pay the same job the same money regardless of whether the employee is union or not.

I'd think it far more likely that prospective cops and firemen who might not otherwise join the union join because they'd rather not have their union colleagues pissed off at them.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Much higher than that of a mere private sector worker. ;)
Click to expand...

I don’t understand why that’s automatically used as a metric that needs to be respected. The private sector’s default philosophy is to pay people less than their worth because margins must be maintained. THe balance sought is paying as little as possible to those who create the value so as to hold on to as much profit as possible.

Our crony capitalist market is just not something I respect as a framing device.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
I mean, is this the part where I gotta start reminding the free marketeers in this thread how racist and misogynist corporate American has been/is? Like, is this another scenario where accepting your framework means we pretend this country has no history and we are all evaluated on the same merits?

Such silliness.
Click to expand...
In 2021, any company mistreating or not hiring qualified people because of their race or gender is at a competitive disadvantage. The market will address that.
 
NatMorton said:
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.
Click to expand...
1. The people negotiating on behalf of the government are not elected officials. The only elected officials in the entire US government are House and Senate members and the President. None of those people will be sitting down with the union to negotiate anything.

2. However, your point still stands. Those negotiators were hired by the administration that is in power and that administration may or may not be influenced by money from the union.

3. Furthermore, Congress and the President create legislation that affects the ability of the union to operate...and how they operate. This is where the money influence you are talking about comes in.

But the biggest problem is this:

There is no consideration for the people who actually pay for the results of the "negotiations"...the taxpayers. Nobody...not the union, not the administration's negotiators and certainly not Congress...cares about where the money comes from. To them, it's all just part of that endless pot of money that they can thrust their hands into and pull out huge amounts of cash anytime they want.

With a private sector union, the stockholders, owners or investors are the ones who pay for the results of the negotiations. They don't have an endless pot of money. That means the negotiation will be tougher than what you'll ever see from public sector negotiations.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
I don’t understand why that’s automatically used as a metric that needs to be respected. The private sector’s default philosophy is to pay people less than their worth because margins must be maintained. THe balance sought is paying as little as possible to those who create the value so as to hold on to as much profit as possible.

Our crony capitalist market is just not something I respect as a framing device.
Click to expand...

Nope, the balance sought is to offer that which is required to attract and retain qualified labor. That balance is not important when your revenue is obtained via mandatory taxation. The incentive then becomes rewarding those who contribute campaign cash and or otherwise publicly support your re-election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom