• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?


  • Total voters
    64
The one party that has the absolute right to hire you, possesses the absolute right to fire you as well. You work at the pleasure of the employer.
for exercising my right to join/form a union? i don't think so.....you want to fire me, do it for a legitimate reason...like i don't show up for work on a regular basis, i constantly do a piss poor job , produce piss poor quality, constantly not performing my job in a safe manner, causing safety concerns for my fellow employees....for joining a union? i don't think so.
 
Yes, it really is. And it's a foolish one, built around the notion that people do not have individual circumstances.
What? I'm talking about specific situations where all teachers in a public school directly benefit from something that a union has done. In those situations, people who do not pay union dues are free riders.

except that:

5. Half of the schools in the district do not need security guards, and yet the teachers who work in those schools have their compensation reduced to pay for the guard that they do not need.
I'm talking about specific situations where all teachers in a public school directly benefit from something that a union has done. In other words, when I say "benefit," I've already established that the security guards are wanted or needed which is what makes the people who don't pay union dues free riders.

People are individuals, and circumstances vary. That is why socialization of compensation is typically not that great a bargain for many who are then told that they have to pay up "because they are benefiting." You are confusing your beliefs with facts.
I have not confused anything. My argument has been based on the premise that teachers are benefiting. I've stated that since the beginning. Examples where union members must pay for things they don't want or need are entirely different scenarios.
 
well in the postal service you have the national alliance which is not a union. and supervisors have NAPS-National Association of Postal Supervisors who can represent EAS 15 or higher (I believe) employees who are too high to be in the APWU or the Mail handlers etc unions. Assistant United States Attorneys have NAAUSA
none of those are bargaining units but they do what you want in public sector employment.

the problem with Pub Sect unions is that the bargaining is not in good faith because the union is often bargaining with people they helped elect or with people who are subordinate to the people they helped elect and the taxpayers often do not have representation at the table.

in the private sector management represents the owners-unions represents the workers and if management gives too cozy a deal the owners are going to fire them. If the union gets too good a deal they lose their jobs

if a public sector union gets too good a deal the taxpayers are forced to foot the bill-public sector unions cannot kill the host like greedy private sector unions can

That's my main problem with public sector unions. They are very much involved in politics and try to gain support from elected officials via donations and other incentives. It's corrupt and should not go on. I also don't believe a body like a public sector union should be able to essentially apportion government funds they way they do through their negotiations.
 
Well, according to hte new montra of "Build and Buy American", your dire prediction is what is doomed. As for Public employee Unions; well, we'll habe to wait and see. JFK entered thier roght to organize into law, so said law is going to have to overturned first, and that is not likely.

Historically, nonunion beliefs in this country had worked themselves into such a zenith that both the military and police were showing up to picket lines, rifles in hand, and opening fire on strikers; that didn't last.

These times in AMerican hisotry have ebbs and flows: this way and that way. We're just getting into this for real now.

still waiting for someone to tell me what legitimate need is filled by public sector unions
 
if every available laborer joins the union than the union will be able to get its terms. If the company can hire enough workers who aren't in the union should lose. that's the way it should be. and yes, I should have the absolute right to fire you for being in a union.
you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, you say you should have the right to be able to join a union, but turn around and say you should have the absolute authority to terminate someone for excercising that right...don't think so.
 
That's my main problem with public sector unions. They are very much involved in politics and try to gain support from elected officials via donations and other incentives. It's corrupt and should not go on. I also don't believe a body like a public sector union should be able to essentially apportion government funds they way they do through their negotiations.

Don't all unions get involved? And don't employers and othe rinterest groups? What separates public unions as different?
 
for exercising my right to join/form a union? i don't think so.....you want to fire me, do it for a legitimate reason...like i don't show up for work on a regular basis, i constantly do a piss poor job , produce piss poor quality, constantly not performing my job in a safe manner, causing safety concerns for my fellow employees....for joining a union? i don't think so.

there should be no government enforced right to join a union and not be fired. If you can convince enough workers to join the union the union will exist. If not, them's the breaks-
 
for exercising my right to join/form a union? i don't think so.....you want to fire me, do it for a legitimate reason...like i don't show up for work on a regular basis, i constantly do a piss poor job , produce piss poor quality, constantly not performing my job in a safe manner, causing safety concerns for my fellow employees....for joining a union? i don't think so.

You do not have a right to someone else's money. If you decide not to pay someone else for your labor anymore (so long as there are no contractual obligations delineating specifics on this procedure), then you have the right to cease doing so. You do not have a right to come demand that I give you $20 for which you will mow my lawn, and if you have been mowing my lawn, past performance does not give you the right to demand that I continue to do so. I have the right to tell you I wish to now do it myself, or pay the neighbors kid to do it instead. to
 
you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, you say you should have the right to be able to join a union, but turn around and say you should have the absolute authority to terminate someone for excercising that right...don't think so.

you as usual don't understand the point. You have a right to be late to work. the government should not punish you for that but if your employer fires you, that is his right. You have the right to come to work in a miniskirt, fishnets and heels but if you are a guy and your employer fires you-too bad. On the other hand, if you are indispensable, he might not fire you because your "issues" are not so deleterious as to overcome the benefits you bring your boss. So you should have the right to join a union but if your boss doesn't need you enough too bad
 
Don't all unions get involved? And don't employers and othe rinterest groups? What separates public unions as different?

Private Sector Unions require that their business continue to do well in order for them to survive. Public Sector Unions do not. Ergo, their incentive structures are different.
 
for exercising my right to join/form a union? i don't think so.....you want to fire me, do it for a legitimate reason...like i don't show up for work on a regular basis, i constantly do a piss poor job , produce piss poor quality, constantly not performing my job in a safe manner, causing safety concerns for my fellow employees....for joining a union? i don't think so.
As a free man you have the right to form a union. And I as a free man have the right to fire you for doing so. The fact of the matter is, you have no right to work for me. I hire you because I need or want to pay for your services. If you are going to be a pain in my ass and form a union, I have every right to fire you. Truth is, I dont need a reason to fire you, just as you dont need a reason to quit.
 
Don't all unions get involved? And don't employers and othe rinterest groups? What separates public unions as different?

Public unions negotiate and try and dictate to the government, which is funded by taxpayers and public funds. Private sector unions negotiate and try to dictate with private entities, which are funded by the market and consumers and are subject to the market and consumers.

It also seems that private entities exist to turn a profit and thus must manage funds wisely. Government does not exist to do so and public entities are extremely inefficiency and wasteful in financial resources. The structure of public and private entities are different as is their funding. Thus, unions representing employees should also be different with different degrees of power especially considering that one entity is linked to public funds paid into them by taxpayers.
 
You do not have a right to someone else's money. If you decide not to pay someone else for your labor anymore (so long as there are no contractual obligations delineating specifics on this procedure), then you have the right to cease doing so. You do not have a right to come demand that I give you $20 for which you will mow my lawn, and if you have been mowing my lawn, past performance does not give you the right to demand that I continue to do so. I have the right to tell you I wish to now do it myself, or pay the neighbors kid to do it instead. to
huh? what in the hell are you blathering about?
 
huh? what in the hell are you blathering about?

It is perfectly understandable to us who don't think we have a right to someone else's private property.
 
As a free man you have the right to form a union. And I as a free man have the right to fire you for doing so. The fact of the matter is, you have no right to work for me. I hire you because I need or want to pay for your services. If you are going to be a pain in my ass and form a union, I have every right to fire you. Truth is, I dont need a reason to fire you, just as you dont need a reason to quit.
no, no you don't have that right. in a non-union shop, you are correct, you don't need a reason..in a union shop, with a contract, with a grievance procedure, you need a legitimate reason, and if you can make your case, then yes, you can still be rid of me. like i said before, those reasons being poor work, not showing up for work, coming in late or leaving early constantly....poor quality, creating safety hazards to myself or others...but for joining a union? no, no you do not have that right.
 
Helping ensure safe worker environments mainly. Now they are too large, demand too many benefits, and wast tax payer money while restricting worker freedom (especially in non-right to work states). I think they also cause government to run inefficiently and keep crappy employees employed on the government's dime.
I don't think safe work environments are the main thing that public employee unions accomplish. For example, if a School Board or Mayor decide that they don't want to be held accountable for low test scores and would rather scapegoat teachers as the cause for such scores, then they can tie teacher evaluations directly to student scores without accounting for the factors outside teachers' control that affect test scores like environment and adequate textbooks and supplies in schools. In order to prevent this, teacher's unions step in and make sure that teacher evaluations account for all the factors outside of a teacher's control that impact a student's test scores.

That's important and necessary for several reasons: it ensures that teachers are fairly evaluated only for things within their control, it ensures that the School Board is also held accountable for things in it's control and it enables the School Board, teachers, public and whoever else to pinpoint all the factors that are contributing to low test scores within the district. Public sector employers are more than capable of harming the public sector employees and the public. Unions offset that when they're doing their job.

I also don't think unions restrict worker freedom. Workers are free to not work in unionized environments.
 
no, no you don't have that right. in a non-union shop, you are correct, you don't need a reason..in a union shop, with a contract, with a grievance procedure, you need a legitimate reason, and if you can make your case, then yes, you can still be rid of me. like i said before, those reasons being poor work, not showing up for work, coming in late or leaving early constantly....poor quality, creating safety hazards to myself or others...but for joining a union? no, no you do not have that right.

Many lefties (or lefties pretending to be "centrists") have a very dim understanding of what a RIGHT is

a right is the ability to do something and not be persecuted by the government. A right is NOT an affirmative duty on someone else to act. You have a right to worship Ba'al, Buddha, Jesus, Lucifer or Eric Clapton but I don't have the duty to build you a temple. You have a right to keep and bear arms but I should't be taxed to supply you won

and you have a right to join a union but your employer should not have duty to give you a job if you do so
 
That's my main problem with public sector unions. They are very much involved in politics and try to gain support from elected officials via donations and other incentives. It's corrupt and should not go on. I also don't believe a body like a public sector union should be able to essentially apportion government funds they way they do through their negotiations.
I don't understand your point. If public sector unions did not get involved in politics, then the government would just be able to treat it's employees however it wants to which means that public sector employees are just supposed to take what they're given and shut up. That can't be what you're advocating.
 
Helping ensure safe worker environments mainly. Now they are too large, demand too many benefits, and wast tax payer money while restricting worker freedom (especially in non-right to work states). I think they also cause government to run inefficiently and keep crappy employees employed on the government's dime.

That's private sector unions, although OSHA has power over non-union shops as well.

In the public sector, employees are bound by state and local laws covering safety concerns, etc. Both public and private unions have seniority clauses in nearly all contracts that prohibit or severely restrict layoff or termination based upon a merit system. Therefore, good employees with excellent work records must be laid off instead of more senior employees with poor work records. If private companies are okay with that, it's no skin off my nose. But when the public sector is bound by seniority-over-merit requirements, then it's lots of skin off my nose because I am paying to keep lousy employees while watching good employees go somewhere else.
 
That's private sector unions, although OSHA has power over non-union shops as well.

In the public sector, employees are bound by state and local laws covering safety concerns, etc. Both public and private unions have seniority clauses in nearly all contracts that prohibit or severely restrict layoff or termination based upon a merit system. Therefore, good employees with excellent work records must be laid off instead of more senior employees with poor work records. If private companies are okay with that, it's no skin off my nose. But when the public sector is bound by seniority-over-merit requirements, then it's lots of skin off my nose because I am paying to keep lousy employees while watching good employees go somewhere else.

I agree, and I've known several people in my life who have had to suffer due to this. I am from Maryland around the DC area so I know a lot of people who worked for the government (my dad worked for the government too at one time). We have a family friend that works for the FDA and he had a unionized secretary. She was African American (which also made her harder to fir) and lazy as dirt. He could never get her to do anything and she sat in a swirly chair all day and talked with friends on the phone. He complained about her and demanded that she be fired many times and provided proof of her laziness. The union would not let the employer fire her or dismiss her. After about 6 months she was no longer the secretary, and this was because she was promoted to another department... Stuff like this makes me livid and also wastes tax payer money.
 
Many lefties (or lefties pretending to be "centrists") have a very dim understanding of what a RIGHT is

a right is the ability to do something and not be persecuted by the government. A right is NOT an affirmative duty on someone else to act. You have a right to worship Ba'al, Buddha, Jesus, Lucifer or Eric Clapton but I don't have the duty to build you a temple. You have a right to keep and bear arms but I should't be taxed to supply you won

and you have a right to join a union but your employer should not have duty to give you a job if you do so
my employer has 90 days from the time they hire someone to determine if they will be a good employee...after 90 days, the new employee enjoys the full protection of the grievance procedure agreed to by both the company and the union, and needs a valid reason to fire them...them being a union member is not a valid reason....contrary to the belief of many 'righties' here, union members can and are fired , all that is required is that the grievance procedure be followed, and the company make its case...one of the biggies that got people terminated in my shop when i was shop chairperson was attendance...sometimes , if the terminated employee wished it, i would file a grievance on their behalf, but would explain to them, that unless they could provide extensive documentation of extenuating circumstances, they were pretty much screwed, as i could not justify pushing their case beyond our grievance procedure to arbitration....i believe that your employer has a right to expect good attendance, and quality work. if your taking nights of work to go out and go party, it is kinda hard to make a good argument on your behalf.
 
my employer has 90 days from the time they hire someone to determine if they will be a good employee...after 90 days, the new employee enjoys the full protection of the grievance procedure agreed to by both the company and the union, and needs a valid reason to fire them...them being a union member is not a valid reason....contrary to the belief of many 'righties' here, union members can and are fired , all that is required is that the grievance procedure be followed, and the company make its case...one of the biggies that got people terminated in my shop when i was shop chairperson was attendance...sometimes , if the terminated employee wished it, i would file a grievance on their behalf, but would explain to them, that unless they could provide extensive documentation of extenuating circumstances, they were pretty much screwed, as i could not justify pushing their case beyond our grievance procedure to arbitration....i believe that your employer has a right to expect good attendance, and quality work. if your taking nights of work to go out and go party, it is kinda hard to make a good argument on your behalf.

why should I, as the owner of a business, have to employ you if you join a union

and why should I, as a tax payer, have to pay more taxes because of public sector unions who often "bargain" with the very people they put into office?
 
Lately we have seen Republican and Democrat (though, oddly, only Republicans make news with it) Governors work to save their states from fiscal ruin by curtailing the Public Unions, either in finances or in power. Have the last two years marked the beginning of the end for the Public Sector Union, and will they go the way of the Private Sector Union?

The unions fought so hard on this precisely because they knew if Walker succedded it was the beginning of the end for them. Their failed recall just hastened it.
 
The unions fought so hard on this precisely because they knew if Walker succedded it was the beginning of the end for them. Their failed recall just hastened it.

there is an old saying

If you intend to shoot the king you best not miss

the unions shot and missed.

paybacks are a bitch. Let the heads roll
 
I don't understand your point. If public sector unions did not get involved in politics, then the government would just be able to treat it's employees however it wants to which means that public sector employees are just supposed to take what they're given and shut up. That can't be what you're advocating.

As a public employee, I am absolutely saying that public sector employees should stay out of politics as public sector employees. They are free to speak, vote, and what-have-you; but they shouldn't be unionized, and they should not be allowed to use their employment as a political weapon.
 
Back
Top Bottom