• 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
public sector unions do not raise standard of living for millions, they create no market for industry, and we are talking about state government.. production doesn't enter into the equation as the don't produce anything.


Proof that public sector unions didn't raise the standard of living for millions?
 
public sector unions do not raise standard of living for millions, they create no market for industry, and we are talking about state government.. production doesn't enter into the equation as the don't produce anything.

Of course they do. That's absurd. They make roads, they create educated future generations, they keep cities safe, they put out fires, they keep people healthy, the help preserve competitive and honest markets, etc... If you want to see what life is like without government workers, go check out Somalia.

And, more generally, the more power unions have, the higher compensation is for all people. Where the right to bargain collectively is strong, even non-unionized companies know that if they mistreat their employees too harshly, they might unionize.

unionincome.jpg
 
Last edited:
"History is a great teacher. Now everyone knows that the labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it. By raising the living standards of millions, labor miraculously created a market for industry and lifted the whole nation to undreamed of levels of production. Those who attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them."

Martin Luther King Jr.

I don't think anyone that knows thier history would deny that unions were a big help in getting the rights we have now in regards to safety and a decent wage. But then again we are not talking about the unions that were around back in Martin's day. The unions that were around then and the unions that are around now adays are totally different creatures. They may act the same. But they are NOT the same.

Also most of us are talking about PUBLIC unions. NOT private unions. I personally have no beef with private unions. My beef is with public unions.
 
I don't think anyone that knows thier history would deny that unions were a big help in getting the rights we have now in regards to safety and a decent wage. But then again we are not talking about the unions that were around back in Martin's day. The unions that were around then and the unions that are around now adays are totally different creatures. They may act the same. But they are NOT the same.

Also most of us are talking about PUBLIC unions. NOT private unions. I personally have no beef with private unions. My beef is with public unions.

Yeah, the Chinese do just fine without public unions today, right? The middle class standard of living people have become accustomed to in this country is far too opulent!

"The emergence of public sector bargaining helped government workers make up much of the pay gap that had developed between them and private sector workers. As a result, millions of public employees were brought into the middle class."
Collective bargaining by unions is a key part of democracy - Morning Call
 
Of course they do. That's absurd. They make roads, they create educated future generations, they keep cities safe, they put out fires, they keep people healthy, the help preserve competitive and honest markets, etc... If you want to see what life is like without government workers, go check out Somalia.

And, more generally, the more power unions have, the higher compensation is for all people. Where the right to bargain collectively is strong, even non-unionized companies know that if they mistreat their employees too harshly, they might unionize.

View attachment 67128943

I don't equate production with services, sorry.

even in the private sector, there are professions who do not produce.
note that i'm stating that many of those services are not necessary or undesirable... just that they do not produce anything tangible ( road crews may be an exception , though)


can you provide evidence of me saying anything about wanting to get rid of government employees or wanting to move to Somalia?... if not, keep your idiot strawmen
to yourself.
 
Yeah, the Chinese do just fine without public unions today, right? The middle class standard of living people have become accustomed to in this country is far too opulent!

China is a socialist country. Far different than what we have here in the States. So apples and oranges.

"The emergence of public sector bargaining helped government workers make up much of the pay gap that had developed between them and private sector workers. As a result, millions of public employees were brought into the middle class."
Collective bargaining by unions is a key part of democracy - Morning Call

You're still stuck in the past. As I already stated, unions use to be a good thing. Not anymore.

Also your link is from the opinion page of that news site.
 
China is a socialist country. Far different than what we have here in the States. So apples and oranges.
Pick any country without public unions and compare the standard of living. Or, look at how they have increased the standard of living and working conditions for public employees here in this country.



You're still stuck in the past. As I already stated, unions use to be a good thing. Not anymore.

Also your link is from the opinion page of that news site.

As a opposed to the opinion of an anonymous internet dude?
 
Pick any country without public unions and compare the standard of living. Or, look at how they have increased the standard of living and working conditions for public employees here in this country.

There is no country like the US so it would be a waste of time.

As a opposed to the opinion of an anonymous internet dude?

I wasn't trying to pass things off as fact. You were.
 
There is no country like the US so it would be a waste of time.

Then examine our own history of how public unions increased the standard of living and working conditions for public employees closer to that of the private sector.


I wasn't trying to pass things off as fact. You were.

You tried to refute it with your opinion is if it were fact. I fail to see the difference.
 
Then examine our own history of how public unions increased the standard of living and working conditions for public employees closer to that of the private sector.

How many times must I say this? The unions of yesteryear are not the same as the unions we have today. I do not discount, disparage, deny, or anything else the importance that unions use to be. I just do not believe that the unions of today are useful. I think that they are a detriment.


You tried to refute it with your opinion is if it were fact. I fail to see the difference.

If I was trying to pass off my opinions as fact then I would have inserted the word "fact" in those posts or gave some other indication. I have not. How you took my posts is irrelevent to what those posts actually say. See, I'm a blunt person. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Perhaps that is why you think that I was trying to pass them off as fact.
 
How many times must I say this? The unions of yesteryear are not the same as the unions we have today. I do not discount, disparage, deny, or anything else the importance that unions use to be. I just do not believe that the unions of today are useful. I think that they are a detriment.

If I was trying to pass off my opinions as fact then I would have inserted the word "fact" in those posts or gave some other indication. I have not. How you took my posts is irrelevent to what those posts actually say. See, I'm a blunt person. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Perhaps that is why you think that I was trying to pass them off as fact.

Thanks for your opinions!
 
:doh

No, it's not. It is a belief. One could just as easily make the argument that without public union restrictions, merit pay would allow non-unionized teachers to earn more. Similarly, one could argue that without Unions' shifting compensation to the back end via retirement and healthcare benefits, that non-unionized teachers (many of whom may want to only work for a few years) would benefit more from being able to negotiate individually and shift their compensation to the pay end and away from the benefits.
You're kidding, right? No mid-sized to large company negotiates that way except for very specific jobs.

"If you qualify for the janitor position then here's they pay we offer and the compensation package - take it or leave it."

That's about the extent of "negotiation" for most of the workers in America. The only time that might change is when unemployment starts dipping toward 4% or lower.
 
Last edited:
The better question is why are public sector unions needed in the first place?
Because the government is just as bad at listening to it's workers about problems in the workplace as the private sector is.
 
Of course they do. That's absurd. They make roads, they create educated future generations, they keep cities safe, they put out fires, they keep people healthy, the help preserve competitive and honest markets, etc...

what a fascinating set of claims. So, it is your argument that prior to unionization, public employees did not do these things, and that in the states where they do not have collective bargaining, they do not do these things today?

And, more generally, the more power unions have, the higher compensation is for all people

This is incorrect. The more power unions have, the higher compensation for those who are unionized. Unfortunately, by artificially increasing the price of labor, unions also decrease demand, having a net negative effect on employment.
 
You're kidding, right? No mid-sized to large company negotiates that way except for very specific jobs.

"If you qualify for the janitor position then here's they pay we offer and the compensation package - take it or leave it."

That's about the extent of "negotiation" for most of the workers in America. The only time that might change is when unemployment starts dipping toward 4% or lower.

Not necessarily at all - I've negotiated at all my jobs up to and including my current membership in the Military.

But the fact remains that the Union negotiation of compensation packages in no way necessarily benefits non-unionized teachers. I, for example, would like to spend a few years teaching at one point in my life, but I'm not going to spend 30 years in it. How does a compensation package that decreases my pay in order to increase a pension that I will never see benefit me?
 
Because the government is just as bad at listening to it's workers about problems in the workplace as the private sector is.

And that justifies effectively ceding sovereignty to public sector unions because.....?
 
public sector unions do not raise standard of living for millions, they create no market for industry, and we are talking about state government.. production doesn't enter into the equation as the don't produce anything.
I believe those "undreamed of levels of production" Dr King was talking about was from consumer spending. The creation of the middle class and the subsequent increase in consumer spending is exactly what propelled us forward economically. China is moving forward because of consumer spending - at least they hope they are since exports are leveling off or reversing. If they don't have the domestic demand to keep up production as the exports slow then they'll experience a recession, too. We're still having trouble getting economic traction mostly from lack of consumer spending.

So, yes, public sector unions, in fact any group that promotes a reasonable wage for workers, increases production. As many business have learned in the past couple of years it's demand that fuels production, not the other way around. You can produce all the widgets you want but you have to sell them to make a profit.
 
Not necessarily at all - I've negotiated at all my jobs up to and including my current membership in the Military.

But the fact remains that the Union negotiation of compensation packages in no way necessarily benefits non-unionized teachers. I, for example, would like to spend a few years teaching at one point in my life, but I'm not going to spend 30 years in it. How does a compensation package that decreases my pay in order to increase a pension that I will never see benefit me?
That depends how the pensions are set up. I know several people who have had more than one job that offered a pension plan, so instead of drawing one big paycheck from one pension they draw several small checks from various pensions. It all comes out more or less the same. :shrug:
 
And that justifies effectively ceding sovereignty to public sector unions because.....?
"Ceding sovereignty"? That's funny, dude, have you considered stand-up?
 
"Ceding sovereignty"? That's funny, dude, have you considered stand-up?

There is nothing funny at all about it. Public Sector unions are threats to popular sovereignty.
 
There is nothing funny at all about it. Public Sector unions are threats to popular sovereignty.
Then you had better define your notion of "popular sovereignty".
 
Last edited:
Then you had better define your notion of "popular sovereignty".

Roughly, the ability of the governed to control the government. When portions of government self-organize in opposition to the peoples' representatives they either A) lose or B) take effective control of that portion of the government.
 
Lets see-I posted indisputable facts and two advocates of parasitic government merely engaged in nattering nothings in response

The "induspatable facts" you post about the wealthy paying a certain percentage of income tax have no relationship with your pontifications you then make upon the subject of taxation.

no matter what you whine about, the rich pay far more of the TOTAL federal taxes than any other group and this is especially true when dealing with the FIT and completely true when dealing with the estate or death tax.

We have been through this many many many times before in thread after thread. You are well aware that when ALL TAXES PAID by ALL PERSONS to ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT are considered, the percentage paid by the wealthy as a percentage of total income is only a tiny bit more than the percentage paid as a percentage of total income by average workers.

You also know this is because
1 - the wealthy pay a very low rate of FICA tax compared to most people
2- most state and local taxes are flat or regressive in nature

This is a long established fact. It also explains why you are obsessed with discussing only the federal income tax and inheritance taxes.
 
Last edited:
Roughly, the ability of the governed to control the government. When portions of government self-organize in opposition to the peoples' representatives they either A) lose or B) take effective control of that portion of the government.
Then things must be much different in other parts of the world than they are here because no non-politician or any group of non-politicians can "take over" the government here.
 
Back
Top Bottom