• 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
complete crap-the government is required to treat all similarly situated employees equally.
It's not surprising that this has nothing to do with anything I said.
 
It's not surprising that this has nothing to do with anything I said.


you can only make that point if you did not understand your earlier post but that is well within the realm of possibilities
 
So, by that same argument, you also oppose minimum wage laws, yes?

Not really. Having a floor for ANY hour's worth of work is not a bad law, nor is requiring time and one half for over 40 hours of work in a week. The FLSA simply applies minimum standards that give no employer the unfair advantage of basically using slaves. It is not nearly as rediculous as the Davis-Bacon act, that attempts to dictate "fair" labor rates by county, that often far exceed reality, the minimum wage or the REAL prevailing wage rates.
 
Last edited:
still waiting for someone to tell me what legitimate need is filled by public sector unions

It's their right to collective bargaining. They have that needand JFK answered that need: it is a protected right. NOw, my understanding of thier benefits comes as a result of the scads of money that the federal and state governments have coming into thier coffers to support the boondoggels that they create.

Public employees are at the bottom of the pile, and as is usual in these cases, the bottom is the first place the top goes to protect itself. That's why we have unions in the first place, and public employees are no exception to that.

Here is just one example of articles that have appeared all over the country that counter the argument that public unions are costing tax payers more money than is necessary ABQJOURNAL OPINION/GUEST_COLUMNS: Public Unions Are Not the Problem These articles and counter opinions don't get as much press because they don't fit it in with the rhetoric of the campaigning right-wing. I fault the Democrats for not making more of an issue of these qualified writers, however the case is a very good one.
 
Last edited:
It's their right to collective bargaining. They have that needand JFK answered that need: it is a protected right. NOw, my understanding of thier benefits comes as a result of the scads of money that the federal and state governments have coming into thier coffers to support the boondoggels that they create.

Public employees are at the bottom of the pile, and as is usual in these cases, the bottom is the first place the top goes to protect itself. That's why we have unions in the first place, and public employees are no exception to that.

Here is just one example of articles that have appeared all over the country that counter the argument that public unions are costing tax payers more money than is necessary ABQJOURNAL OPINION/GUEST_COLUMNS: Public Unions Are Not the Problem These articles and counter opinions don't get as much press because they don't fit it in with the rhetoric of the campaigning right-wing. I fault the Democrats for not making more of an issue of these qualified writers, however the case is a very good one.
more crap-its much harder to fire a public sector employee-even a non union one than someone in the private sector. Public sector unions are often a problem. just ask the Post Office
 
complete crap-the government is required to treat all similarly situated employees equally.

What? Is it unfair to assign different grades to two students sitting in the same class, reading from the same books and haivng the same teacher? It is not ONLY the duties of the job that should determine pay rates, but the LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE of the job duties that should determine pay rates. It is nonsense to say that only time on the job should determine pay. Pay the best money for the best work, otherwise why bother to work harder than the slowest slob in the room, especailly if you have been there longer?
 
What? Is it unfair to assign different grades to two students sitting in the same class, reading from the same books and haivng the same teacher? It is not ONLY the duties of the job that should determine pay rates, but the LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE of the job duties that should determine pay rates. It is nonsense to say that only time on the job should determine pay. Pay the best money for the best work, otherwise why bother to work harder than the slowest slob in the room, especailly if you have been there longer?

similarly situated is a term of art that labor attorneys use. I don't disagree with what you say but I am not going to bore you with a bunch of citations to 6th circuit opinions but similarly situated employees generally have to be performing at the same level etc
 
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?
Not the end of public unions, but I think we are witnessing the end of inflexible and burdensome public pensions, etc.
 
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?

Republicans will find a new scapegoat and then unions will be fine.
 
Republicans will find a new scapegoat and then unions will be fine.

scapegoat assumes no real blame-thus the analogy fails
 
scapegoat assumes no real blame-thus the analogy fails

No, scapegoat assumes that they are being targetted for blame that is not rightly theirs.
 
I have no problem with you having that opinion which is why I said "many workers" and not "all." It depends on the profession and for teachers, firefighters and police officers, I think unions are necessary.

Yes. Explicitly you argued that sectors that are involved in public safety are prime candidates for unionization, and implicitly you suggested this is because public unions will somehow provide a better service. I point out that the military is a public sector involved in providing public safety, but the specter of what happens when the military begins to steer government is one whose effects we are all too familiar with. the incentives and effects are the same for the others - government by the government for the government is an extractive enterprise in which special interests fatten themselves at the public expense.

When you allow a School Board to fire teachers based on their students' scores when such scores are impacted by many things outside the teacher's control, not only do you allow unfair firings, you enable the quality of your district to decrease.

or (more plausibly) you enable them to get rid of poor teachers and you allow the quality of your district to increase.


an attempt to side-step the question. why should we allow sectors of the government to control themselves, thus making them unaccountable to the citizenry?

Just as public sector unions can hold government officials accountable for any poor treatment of public employees that occurs.

In that occurs then the good employees quit and the public holds the government officials to account. If they have broken the law, they can be sued. Public Union members, however, are hardly if at all vulnerable to being held to account for providing poor services.
 
Not the end of public unions, but I think we are witnessing the end of inflexible and burdensome public pensions, etc.

That might be. However, as fungibility increases, I wouldn't be surprised to see money and people leave states dominated by their public unions at the same pace that we've seen capital flee businesses and industries similarly controlled. To an extent, we are already seeing this, with large flight of productive persons from California.
 
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.

Perfectly put.
 
No, scapegoat assumes that they are being targetted for blame that is not rightly theirs.


I agree that is a better way of putting it.
 
similarly situated is a term of art that labor attorneys use. I don't disagree with what you say but I am not going to bore you with a bunch of citations to 6th circuit opinions but similarly situated employees generally have to be performing at the same level etc

I am glad that you won't "bore me" with a judges OPINION of what differences exist in the eyes of an employer (or even among the workers themselves). Just as no judge can assign "fair" grades to school children, no judge can assign "fair" pay rates to workers. The simple fact is that judges must follow the law, and the law must adhere to the constitution. Some states (even cities) have established their own minimum wage laws, and have signed moronic union labor contract labor agreements. If a "fair" pay rate law, such as the Davis-Bacon act were passed it SHOULD be deemed unconstitutional based on equal protection. Why is it the legal and fair "pervailing" wage ONLY for federal contrct work if that same wage is, in fact, NEVER found outside of federal contract work? Many times I see ads for work at HALF of the Davis-Bacaon act labor rates, just as I see ads for work at HALF of the gov't employee pay rates. It is way past time to examine the REAL wage/benefit packages (in relation to the TRUE prevailing wage/benefits in actual private use) that the taxpayers are FORCED to support, with NO recourse once "their" reprsentative makes a "lifetime" promise to some union of gov't employee leaches. I do not seek to make gov't employment the job of last resort, but certainly not FORCE the taxpayer to pay TWICE (or more) the prevailing wages for the "same" work. It should NOT take wages of 3x or 4x the minimum wage to find a "qualified" crossing guard to monitor a school zone.
 
You are trying a strawman. We aren't arguing over the Right to Work (though I would support it) in the private sector. We are talking about Public Sector Unions. In the Private Sector, we have stated several times here that we are fine with closed shops so long as you also allow non-union shops. If you aren't going to allow non-union shops, then you should allow the Right to Work. Government simply shouldn't tilt the balance of power in favor of either actor.
no strawman, the absolute truth..and cp, you already have the 'right to work'...you don't have to work in a union shop, you can find a non union shop to your liking. to pretend that you don't have a choice is absurd and dishonest.
 
no strawman, the absolute truth..and cp, you already have the 'right to work'...you don't have to work in a union shop, you can find a non union shop to your liking. to pretend that you don't have a choice is absurd and dishonest.
Then if you want to work for a union shop go to where one already exists and dont impose one on my company.
 
you are free to work anywhere you wish....if you don't like the terms of that employment, no one is forcing you to take a job...move on to the next one.

You really don't have a ****ing clue, do you? Unions don't employ people, companies do.
 
no strawman, the absolute truth..and cp, you already have the 'right to work'...you don't have to work in a union shop, you can find a non union shop to your liking. to pretend that you don't have a choice is absurd and dishonest.

That is a silly argument as well, since there is but ONE gov't. Too allow a minority (gov't workers) to dictate labor policy to the majority (the taxpayer/voters) is insane. Why should we, the people, be forced to cede labor negotiating power to the few among us that CHOOSE to work in the gov't jobs that we offer? If 2% of the public works for the gov't, then barely over 1% get to be the sole deciders of whether a gov't union can come to exist. In non right-to-work states that means that ALL gov't employees must pay union dues, and ALL taxpayers must honor any contract made with them. If the gov't has the "right" to alter SS retirement ages AFTER that citizen has been required to pay SS taxation (yet has not yet attained the benefit age), we should certainly be able to alter a "labor contract" that assigns retirement benfits for ANY gov't worker that has not yet retired. It is time to stop the madness of treating ONLY gov't employees, not the citizens that must support them trough taxation, as "super citizens" with special union contract rights that are not applicable to ALL citizens. After all of the screaming in WI about how "unfair" the teachers were treated one would expect a mass exodus of these highly qualified and educated folks, yet NONE (as far as I know) quit and the applictaions for these positions are still backed up with hundreds waiting for an opening.
 
That might be. However, as fungibility increases, I wouldn't be surprised to see money and people leave states dominated by their public unions at the same pace that we've seen capital flee businesses and industries similarly controlled. To an extent, we are already seeing this, with large flight of productive persons from California.
You could count me as one of those people in some fashion. I purposely left California almost 7 years ago. Not because of unions specifically. A large part of my list of reasons was how effed-up state government had become, though, and the state public unions certainly did play a part in that.
 
Yes. Explicitly you argued that sectors that are involved in public safety are prime candidates for unionization,
Where did I do that? Hint: no where at all.

and implicitly you suggested this is because public unions will somehow provide a better service. I point out that the military is a public sector involved in providing public safety, but the specter of what happens when the military begins to steer government is one whose effects we are all too familiar with. the incentives and effects are the same for the others - government by the government for the government is an extractive enterprise in which special interests fatten themselves at the public expense.
The majority of union members are middle class. I hardly consider middle class to be "fattening" anything.

or (more plausibly) you enable them to get rid of poor teachers and you allow the quality of your district to increase.
No. When you fire workers based on things outside of their control, then you put yourself at risk for firing many quality workers. You also put yourself at risk for not solving the problems outside of those workers' control because instead of addressing the causes of those problems, you falsely tie them to the workers. This is the scenario I'm talking about and it would only increase the quality of workers in an alternate universe.

an attempt to side-step the question.
You didn't ask a question...

why should we allow sectors of the government to control themselves, thus making them unaccountable to the citizenry?
Easy. Unions don't make the government unaccountable to the citizenry.

In that occurs then the good employees quit and the public holds the government officials to account. If they have broken the law, they can be sued.
Oh please. The government has been treating public employees horribly for years and the public hasn't done squat to hold government officials accountable. Hell, you don't even understand why holding teachers accountable for things outside of their control is unfair and dangerous for public education. Unions understand things like that and enable workers to negotiate for fair and quality treatment that the public often benefits from. I'll count on that.

Lawsuits are fine, but I'd rather prevent them by negotiating beforehand.

Public Union members, however, are hardly if at all vulnerable to being held to account for providing poor services.
Said like someone blissfully unaware of many of the problems that face many public workers.
 
Last edited:
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?

If they do it will be only bad for federal, state, and municipal governments.

It's not the public sector unions that are bankrupting these state and local governments. Rather, its the pension plans that they don't fund.

So it would make more sense to get rid of pension plans and instead have a 401K plan that governments must pay into for every paycheck the worker gets than have these pension plans. And the union can help negotiate these plans for the workers.

But that is a healthy compromise that makes way too much sense that doesn't feed into any of the partisan ideology of either side and will actually work for the mutual benefit of government workers and government administrators, and we just cannot have that in our country.
 
Back
Top Bottom