Is Collective Bargaining in the public sector a Right, or is it a Privilege?

I've never been particularly passionate about labor, and worker's rights (I know, weird for a liberal, right?), but what's currently going on in Wisconsin caused me to dig a little deeper into the issue. Given the current dearth of intelligent polls on meaningful issues, I thought I'd use this issue to make my own first original thread.

On one hand, I believe that certain segments of the public sector are underpaid, while others are overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. However, it also can't be denied that collective bargaining in the public sector has placed a certain burden on the taxpayers in the state. Public sector workers differ from those in the private sector in that they serve at the pleasure of the people, not some tyrannical or dictatorial management. The taxpayers of the state are essentially paying the workers and should have a say in issues such as pay and benefits. In addition, government workers are already free to form workers' associations and lobby for their own causes.

I personally believe that collective bargaining in the public sector should be a privilege, rather than a fundamental human right.

I think unions in general have outlived their usefulness. Unions as an idea much like communism seems pretty good at face value. The problem is the human corruption and favoritism infiltrate every aspect. This is why organized crime was able to get involved and stay involved for so long. It is power and money, and thus corruptible.

Our labor laws are supposed to protect laborers. Each person should be able to negotiate a favorable wage on their own, or get a different job. Hard in these times, but it can be done.

It's not a human right, it's not that important, however, it shouldn't be prohibited. Though unions, like business', should lose a lot of the protections they have.

StillBallin75 said:

I've never been particularly passionate about labor, and worker's rights (I know, weird for a liberal, right?), but what's currently going on in Wisconsin caused me to dig a little deeper into the issue. Given the current dearth of intelligent polls on meaningful issues, I thought I'd use this issue to make my own first original thread.

On one hand, I believe that certain segments of the public sector are underpaid, while others are overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. However, it also can't be denied that collective bargaining in the public sector has placed a certain burden on the taxpayers in the state. Public sector workers differ from those in the private sector in that they serve at the pleasure of the people, not some tyrannical or dictatorial management. The taxpayers of the state are essentially paying the workers and should have a say in issues such as pay and benefits. In addition, government workers are already free to form workers' associations and lobby for their own causes.

I personally believe that collective bargaining in the public sector should be a privilege, rather than a fundamental human right.

Click to expand...

It's one thing for unions to be negotiating with their private companies -- their money, their rules. It's quite another for the public sector -- the people negotiating with them are spending Other People's Money....to curry favor and keep themselves in office.

In my opinion when you work for the state, you are at their mercy. Civil service and 85% other mindless government jobs are not meant to be cushy with fantastic benefits/pay.

chevydriver1123 said:

In my opinion when you work for the state, you are at their mercy. Civil service and 85% other mindless government jobs are not meant to be cushy with fantastic benefits/pay.

Click to expand...

I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence, meh everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

chevydriver1123 said:

In my opinion when you work for the state, you are at their mercy. Civil service and 85% other mindless government jobs are not meant to be cushy with fantastic benefits/pay.

Click to expand...

what do you do for a living?

liblady said:

what do you do for a living?

Click to expand...

Retail Management

chevydriver1123 said:

Retail Management

Click to expand...

so, not rocket science, huh?

liblady said:

so, not rocket science, huh?

Click to expand...

Maybe he sells rockets.

Blackdog said:

I think unions in general have outlived their usefulness. Unions as an idea much like communism seems pretty good at face value. The problem is the human corruption and favoritism infiltrate every aspect. This is why organized crime was able to get involved and stay involved for so long. It is power and money, and thus corruptible.

Our labor laws are supposed to protect laborers. Each person should be able to negotiate a favorable wage on their own, or get a different job. Hard in these times, but it can be done.

Click to expand...

Agreed. When unions started, we didn't have the labor protections in place that we have now and unions began as a means of the workers of a particular job site to band together for mutual protection. Today, when you have state or national unions that have no real pressing interest in a particular job site's survival, they only care about making money from the union members, then what's the point? Unions used to have to work with the employers for their mutual benefit. Today, unions couldn't care less if they drive individual employers out of business, they have thousands of other employers still to grind under their heel.

We don't need unions today, the fundamental protections that they provide already exist in law.

I think people should be free to assemble in any form they like, and if that includes a unit of workers, regardless of sector, for the purpose of improving their wages then so be it. Though there should not be laws to protect them. However, businesses should not be able to ban them either.

MaggieD said:

It's one thing for unions to be negotiating with their private companies -- their money, their rules. It's quite another for the public sector -- the people negotiating with them are spending Other People's Money....to curry favor and keep themselves in office.

Click to expand...

The private sector includes public companies in which the managers negotiate in lieu of the shareholders/owners.

nonpareil said:

The private sector includes public companies in which the managers negotiate in lieu of the shareholders/owners.

Click to expand...

I don't even know what that means, Nonpareil. Say it another way?

The private sector, by definition, does not pay their employees with public money. If you're talking about "a public company" as in the definition of investing and the stockmarket, well, that's just not the same thing. But I'm sure you know that...

MaggieD said:

I don't even know what that means, Nonpareil. Say it another way?

The private sector, by definition, does not pay their employees with public money. If you're talking about "a public company" as in the definition of investing and the stockmarket, well, that's just not the same thing. But I'm sure you know that...

Click to expand...

Unless we're talking contractors, but I'm also curious as to what she's referring to.

why do these threads consistently ignore those who entered into the contracts with government employees

they are the managers. not one contract is executed where a manager was not sitting across the table from the union

if the contract is found to have been untenable, why blame the worker instead of looking at the manager who signed off on something which should have been found inappropriate

what we really find is a massive amount of management incompetence at work. these are the political hires. they are on the job, not because they have considerable management expertise but because they have good political connections

those are the folks sitting across the table from the union ... those are the people who sign off on the contracts which are later found to be excessive

a personal example. on the last day of the dicknbush regime, the outgoing political appointees signed off on a $7.6 million settlement agreement with our union. the claim was weak, at best. we had almost no valid data to support the claim for uncompensated overtime. hell, we have a provision which allows us to receive as compensation other time off (credit hours) for overtime voluntarily worked. yet that voluntary overtime constituted much of what we had to buttress our case. what we really wanted was an end of uncompensated INvoluntary overtime. if that had been approved by management, then the agency would have saved $7.6 million
instead, the political hacks of the prior regime wanted to place the incoming political hacks in a fiscal hole, by making them operate with $7.6 million less than would have otherwise been available for operations

my point is that unionization of government or the labor of privately held companies is not, of itself, a bad thing. but when the principals are incompetent and/or misdirected, bad contract outcomes are going to emerge
labor has to make sure it participates in union governance, otherwise those who would exploit their union position for personal benefit will (and do) prevail. this is too often the case
management must make sure that its representatives understand labor-management issues and the labor-management processes and therefor should not assign incompetents to fulfill that representative role. finding the weakest management staff assigned to this role is too often the case

StillBallin75 said:

I've never been particularly passionate about labor, and worker's rights (I know, weird for a liberal, right?), but what's currently going on in Wisconsin caused me to dig a little deeper into the issue. Given the current dearth of intelligent polls on meaningful issues, I thought I'd use this issue to make my own first original thread.

On one hand, I believe that certain segments of the public sector are underpaid, while others are overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. However, it also can't be denied that collective bargaining in the public sector has placed a certain burden on the taxpayers in the state. Public sector workers differ from those in the private sector in that they serve at the pleasure of the people, not some tyrannical or dictatorial management. The taxpayers of the state are essentially paying the workers and should have a say in issues such as pay and benefits. In addition, government workers are already free to form workers' associations and lobby for their own causes.

I personally believe that collective bargaining in the public sector should be a privilege, rather than a fundamental human right.

Click to expand...

Public sector workers is not different from the private sectors, they do not "serve at the pleasure of the people", they work for wages. Managers in the government sectors can be "tyrannical or dictatorial" too.

The problem is not collective bargaining, it's the politicians. There are private sector unions that give their supports to politicians for favourable treatments. There are lobbyists who promise contribution to politicians for favourable legislations. It's the evil that comes with representative democracy. Targeting public sector employee is myopic and unfair.

The issue is not complex, but I don't believe in "fundamental human rights" either.

I voted other. Because of everything that's going on in several states, I now feel the public sector shouldn't be allowed to unionize at all. Tax payers are the one's who pay their wages and benefits. They are the ones who should have a say in what those are through the people they elect. In Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, the people elected Walker, Kasich, and Christie. Civil Service Protection laws, should be strong in every state so that there in no need for a union. Wisconsin has a strong one and I hope the Union there does get busted up.
They've outlived their usefullness, if they ever were useful in the public sector.

MaggieD said:

I don't even know what that means, Nonpareil. Say it another way?

The private sector, by definition, does not pay their employees with public money. If you're talking about "a public company" as in the definition of investing and the stockmarket, well, that's just not the same thing. But I'm sure you know that...

Click to expand...

Your problem with public sector negotiation is "the people negotiating with them are spending Other People's Money".

This situation is also true of public companies, which is part of the private sector.

liblady said:

so, not rocket science, huh?

Click to expand...

I applaude your cheap shot

justabubba said:

why do these threads consistently ignore those who entered into the contracts with government employees

Click to expand...

The Wisconsin teachers' contract has expired.

They are the managers. not one contract is executed where a manager was not sitting across the table from the union. ff the contract is found to have been untenable, why blame the worker instead of looking at the manager who signed off on something which should have been found inappropriate?

Click to expand...

Who's blaming the workers? Most people blame the unions, the politicians, and the system that allows unions to contribute millions to assure they have the support of the "managers" sitting across from them at the bargaining table...SPENDING OUR MONEY!!

Those are the folks sitting across the table from the union ... those are the people who sign off on the contracts which are later found to be excessive.

Click to expand...

Those are the folks the union donated millions to in order to keep them in office.

nonpareil said:

Your problem with public sector negotiation is "the people negotiating with them are spending Other People's Money".

This situation is also true of public companies, which is part of the private sector.

Click to expand...

Horrific comparison.

nonpareil said:

Your problem with public sector negotiation is "the people negotiating with them are spending Other People's Money".

This situation is also true of public companies, which is part of the private sector.

Click to expand...

What exactly are you referring to when you say "public companies?" Are we referring to government corporations or publicly traded firms?

MaggieD said:

Horrific comparison.

Click to expand...

How is it "horrific"?

StillBallin75 said:

What exactly are you referring to when you say "public companies?" Are we referring to government corporations or publicly traded firms?

Click to expand...

"publicly traded firms"

Public Company Definition