unions, by federal law must be democratic organizations
which is fine. so, technically, was the communist party. having an organization be democratic does not mean that it's rule will be democratic.
you insisted that a reason public unions should be found problematic is that they
subverts democracy by giving a non-represenatitve, elected, or accountable entity veto power over the decisions of the representatives of the people
as unions, by federal law must be democratically operated, they cannot then be found to be unrepresentative, unelected or unaccountable
public sector unions do NOT have veto power. they can only negotiate
really. It's the public's will, as expressed by their representatives, to have a public education system. so you tell me, when the public employee unions were protesting, were the schools in Wisconsin all open? the classrooms all full of students being taught?
and pray tell us what prevented the school system from opening its doors? there was nothing which prohibited the public employer - the school system - from staffing its schools
Public sector unions contain the ability to veto representative government because they serve as vehicles to refuse to carry out the tasks for which they are hired. when the public unions went on strike against austerity in Europe they were able to shut entire nations' transportation systems down.
absolutely wrong. you seek a repeal of the 14th amendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
those employees are not bound to perform because they are in servitude. they are free men, who exercised their own freedoms - collectively
the state owned the facility and had every opportunity to staff it - by other than those free men who chose not to. that is hardly veto authority
yes, collective bargaining does give the employee more negotiation leverage than if each employee negotiated with the employer separately
yes. that's part of the problem here. not only have we reached a situation where public employee unions' grip on government has created fiscal nightmares, but they have managed to successfully fight virtually every major reform effort of our schools, causing our educational establishment to slip, hurting our kids.
ok. we agree. your side would prefer to coerce an individual employee to do the state's will, by depriving that employee the right of assembly
the union can ask for anything it wants ... and stupid union representatives can ask for that which is unsustainable
so given that many states, municipalities, and counties are facing unsustainable spending on public employee benefits, would you agree that a hefty percentage of union representatives are stupid? I wouldn't; they got exactly what they wanted and they don't care what the cost to everyone else is.
they got what they wanted via successful negotiation with the employer
would you prefer that the employer be able to instead dictate to the employee what it would do? rhetorical question. of course you would. that is the system we had before unionization. that time when work conditions were of no concern, despite the harm those conditions inflicted on the employee. a time when children worked in factories. a time when there was no overtime. when no leave was available for vacation or illness. a time when there was no limit to the number of hours an employee would be subject to work, without prior notice
what you want is a relinquishment of personal freedom to the desires of the employer. a current republican view
but the employer has no obligation to do anything more than engage in 'good faith' bargaining
and when 'employers' in the form of politicians promise the public employee unions that they will "fight" (presumably they will be fighting themselves?) for increased benefits; who is acting in good faith towards the people who pay the taxes whom they are representing?
the 'employer' is the state when the matter involves public unions. in no way is the elected politician the employer. the politician has a fiduciary responsibility to the state
if that politician abdicates his fiduciary responsibility it is the right - and the obligation - of the represented citizens to oust that inept politician at the ballot box
if the employer agrees to contract terms it cannot afford, then that indicates the employer selected the wrong person(s) to represent the employer in negotiations
"we can elect our own boss", is i believe, how the subversion of this process was described. few really pay attention to the election of school boards, local officials, and the like. except for those whose wallets are lined in the process; they pay very close attention and are quite successful at directing elections their way. public sector unions are now THE big-dog campaign donors, and they know well how to target.
again, the employees are not working for the politician. they are working for the state. the politician was also elected to serve the state. the public employees and the elected representatives both are obligated to serve the state
if those parties find that their obligations coincide, then negotiations should proceed smoothly. where those parties have different opinions about how the state could best be served, then negotiations will be contentious
please note. that means the unsound outcome is attributable to management's poor decision making
no, it is the logical result of a system whose incentive structure is designed to encourage that management to make the long-term-stupid decision and punishes him if he doesn't.
that you may disapprove of the resulting, negotiated outcome does not cause it to be other than one negotiated by the representative of labor bargaining with the representative of the employer
the employer - management - must stand responsible for any ineptness it displays at the bargaining table. and the public should reasonably hold the elected representatives who chose inept negotiators responsible for a poor contract result
the union, collectively, has an opportunity to be a formidable political advocate or opponent. but that is no different than any other advocacy groups, including PACs, corporations and foreign entities/governments
except of course that PAC's, corporations, etc. are all dependent upon some external source of revenue for influence. public employee unions are able to take money from the government to influence the government.
this is absolutely false
your disingenuous effort is exposed with this example. if you were a state contractor receiving contract monies for performance of the contract obligation, that truck you purchased with the proceeds of that contract was not state money. it was the contractor's. just as the money received as salary by the state employees is the employee's money - not the states. the employees have the right to fund their own advocacy group, just as the PACs, other lobby interests, corporations, and foreign states and entities
while i am opposed to all such political funding, that would be a matter for another thread on such topic. while it is legal, it is as appropriate for state employees to lobby on their behalf as for any other
which is why they now spend far more money than any of those entities when it comes to influencing politicians. it's a money-laundering scheme wherein Democrats funnel themselves public funds by way of public employee unions. the only losers are the taxpayers.
i would present, that when compared with the contributions by business, lobbyists, PACs and foreign entities and states, the democrats enjoy no funding advantage
it would appear by your post that you do not hold the UAW in any way responsible for the demise of the US auto industry.
oh, i do. and it should have been a classic example of how a union can shoot itself int he face by driving it's employer into the ground.
then you have chosen to argue against yourself:
... private sector unions are limited in their sapping of a corporation by a simple factor; they want the company to survive and the company must be profitable in order to do so. ...
except, of course, unions and Democrats have basically ceased to be seperate entities; and so the Unions were saved by good ole Government (read: yours and mine) money.
while i do recognize that the unions' interests do align more closely with that of the democrat party, it is also fair to say that the interests of the corporations and some foreign entities, PACs and lobbyists are usually more aligned with the positions taken by the republican party and its members
in the instance of wisconsin, we saw the public sector unions quickly concede to wage and benefit reductions ... once it was made apparent that the state could no longer afford to pay the amounts it had previously obligated itself to pay
so long as they kept the ability to force up those benefits at will, certainly. I promise not to accept a single dollar bill from you, so long as you hand me a book of blank signed checks.
your position assumes the union can unilaterally give itself a raise. such is not the case. the union could continue to bargain for increases, but the state would have to agree with the union before such increases became effective
what we know from what you have stated is that inept employer representatives often bind the public sector employer to contract terms which should be found inappropriate
not inept. bribed, and owned by the people they are supposed to be negotiating with. when public sector unions sit down at the negotiating table, most times they are sitting on both sides of the table.
so, your position is all elected officials are crooks and they appoint crooks - who are not inept - to agree to contract terms you don't like
so, you approve of democracy, just not how it works
the poor fiscal management on the part of politicians isnt' the result of a sudden rash of greater - than - normal stupidity on their part; its' the result of the growing power of public employee unions.
i would say it is a combination of inept state representation at the negotiation table, coupled with an economy which has behaved in a way which was less than had been forecast by the contract negotiators
and i still find no basis to conclude that the union was in any way responsible for the problem
