• 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!

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

Is Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector a Right or is it a Privilege?

  • Collective Bargaining, at least in the public sector is a fundamental human right

    Votes: 10 23.8%

  • Collective Bargaining in the public sector is a privilege.

    Votes: 21 50.0%

  • Other, the issue is more complex than that (Explain)

    Votes: 11 26.2%
  • Total voters
    42
Barbbtx said:
Texans don't have collective bargaining and we are NOT communists.:boxer
Click to expand...

Does the Texan government dictates pay without negotiation with the employee being hired, and forbid them to complain about this condition?
 
Barbbtx said:
People consider too many things "rights" these days in my opinion. Oh well, doesn't make it so.
I may have already posted this

Teacher's Unions/Collective Bargaining: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law

Constitutional Considerations Regarding Unions

The First Amendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS provides: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . the right of people peaceably to assemble." This right, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, has been interpreted to give teachers and other employees the right to free association, including the right to join a union, such as the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. However, the Constitution does not grant teachers the right to bargain collectively with employers. This right is based on applicable provisions in state constitutions, federal statutes, or state statutes. Similarly, teachers do not have a constitutional right to strike, though other federal law or state law may permit teachers to strike.
Click to expand...

TEXAS & N. O. R. CO. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RY. & S. S. CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548 - SCOTUS declares the use of bargaining representatives by multiple employees to be constitutionally protected.

Those who would destroy or further limit the rights of organized labor -- those who would cripple collective bargaining or prevent organization of the unorganized -- do a disservice to the cause of democracy.

Fifty years or so ago the American Labor Movement was little more than a group of dreamers, and look at it now. From coast to coast, in factories, stores, warehouse and business establishments of all kinds, industrial democracy is at work.

Employees, represented by free and democratic trade unions of their own choosing, participate actively in determining their wages, hours and working conditions. Their living standards are the highest in the world. Their job rights are protected by collective bargaining agreements. They have fringe benefits that were unheard of less than a generation ago.

Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours and provided supplemental benefits. Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor. But their work goes beyond their own jobs, and even beyond our borders.

Our unions have fought for aid to education, for better housing, for development of our national resources, and for saving the family-sized farms. They have spoken, not for narrow self-interest, but for the public interest and for the people.

-- John F. Kennedy * August 30, 1960
Click to expand...

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988, establishing the right of federal workers to engage in collective bargaining. Consequently, union membership among U.S. government employees soared from 13 percent in 1961 to 60 percent in the 1974. NFFE's membership also grew tremendously, roughly doubling during the same period from 80,000 members to 150,000 members.[7]
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
(smile) Uhhh, who has RESISTED merit based pay for decades ;)

The Unions.
Click to expand...

And how does this dispute the point that "lobby[ing] government to pay them more than the job is worth" is not "the only reason that the public unions exist"?


Now, whatever you've been talking about...the OP is about Public Unions ;)
Click to expand...

Then quote the OP, don't quote me and tell me what "we" have been talking about.


What an idiotic thing to pick upon to try to derail a good thread. There's no rule that says private union cannot be brought up in public union thread as a comparison.
 
nonpareil said:
Does the Texan government dictates pay without negotiation with the employee being hired, and forbid them to complain about this condition?
Click to expand...

She doesn't get it yet.
 
The fact is that union demands for salary, but more importantly pensions and healthcare, puts price pressure on companies that hire them and governments that employ public sectors. This prices US cars too high, allowing foreign imports to suck up market share (Michigan). This forces budget shortfalls in the billions to states (California). A non-union employee can always quit and go to another job. This may not be possible for single skilled employees with lots of unemployed people with the same skills.

Poor California and Michigan - way to go Virginia!
 
StillBallin75 said:
I don't particularly agree with Barb on most things, but she is correct when she says the Constitution doesn't specifically enumerate the right to collective bargaining. Nevertheless:

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
Click to expand...
- Wikipedia



But I don't see that as collective bargaining as in a right for a union leader to sit down with a politician and make demands or work out deals for public servants. Too much chance for corruption in my opinion.

However, maybe if teachers insist on collective bargaining and all the perks that come with being unionized, perhaps the time has come to privatize education. :)
Click to expand...
 
Barbbtx said:
StillBallin75 said:
I don't particularly agree with Barb on most things, but she is correct when she says the Constitution doesn't specifically enumerate the right to collective bargaining. Nevertheless:

- Wikipedia



But I don't see that as collective bargaining as in a right for a union leader to sit down with a politician and make demands or work out deals for public servants. Too much chance for corruption in my opinion.

However, maybe if teachers insist on collective bargaining and all the perks that come with being unionized, perhaps the time has come to privatize education. :)
Click to expand...

Right, which is why I think a distinction needs to be made between the public and private sectors.
Click to expand...
 
Bah. I just spouted off on the other poll with the same basic topic. Bottom line, public corporations are funded by citizens hoping to make a profit. Contract impasse means unions strike and company either folds or goes bankrupt. A limited number of people lose their jobs.


Public sectors are funded by taxpayers purchasing a service. Contract impasse means... no real options. Salaries and wages are the largest portion of the budget. Public sectors must by law have a balanced budget. If a public sector, say a state, goes bankrupt, hundreds of thousands of state workers and those funded by the state lose their jobs.

Multi-year union contracts keep public sectors from having the flexibility they need to provide needed services within the constraints of a dwindling revenue stream.
 
Hatuey said:
Read... the... thread... Elija said that he supported a system where employees didn't have CB or ability to make demands. Somebody suggested that systems where employees do not have ability to make collective bargains or makes demands is used in communist systems. In addition communist countries use this system far more often than free societies. Collective bargain is by no means a communist invention. It's not even a capitalist invention. It's existed even as far back as feudalism.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that statement suggest that a system that does NOT have CB is similar to communist systems?
Texas does not have CB but we are not commies, we are not similar to commies.:boxer



:giggle1:
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure who says more than it is worth, or by what standard.
Click to expand...

By the standard of supply and demand. If the government is having difficulty recruiting qualified people to fill some position, then they are underpaying them. If there are massive numbers of qualified people applying for some position, then they are overpaying them.

Boo Radley said:
but aren't they still employees, just like a private employee, negotiating a wage for the job, and benefits that make it more desirable to work there.
Click to expand...

They can do that individually. When they join an organization whose sole purpose is to strongarm the government (i.e. the representative of the people) into overpaying them by monopolizing the labor supply, they've crossed a line. Any money spent overpaying teachers could be better spent hiring MORE teachers, or improving education in some other way, or on some other public service. From the public's perspective, the money is essentially wasted. No one benefits from public unions except the public union employees...and they have no reason to expect to be immune to the laws of supply and demand any moreso than anyone else.

Boo Radley said:
And merit pay. Think about this for a minute. All students are not equal as all parents aren't. If I can teach a place with excellent parents, and few obsticles for my students, and get merit pay because the job is easier, as oppsoed to more difficult jobs, with a problem population, in which merit pay will be harder, where would I work?

I know we tend to think about this problem in simplistic terms, assuming platitiudes convey truth, but merit pay can be seen as counter productive, especially if you have areas havng a problem gettiing good teachers.
Click to expand...

That's based entirely on the assumption that merit pay would simply pay teachers for how well their students do without regard to any other variables, like the quality of students. I don't think there are many merit pay advocates who want such a system.

Boo Radley said:
However, the point is what makes this different than the private sector? I see nothing in what you say that shows me a difference.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of private unions either, but there is one crucial difference that makes public unions a lot worse: Private companies are motivated by profit, and have a financial incentive to push back against union demands. Government officials are not motivated by profit, and thus often have no such financial incentive to tell the unions no. Along the same lines, who bears the consequences when private company executives allow unions to walk all over them? The shareholders, who chose to invest in the company and have the ability to fire the offending executives and/or sell their stock. Who bears the consequences when government managers allow unions to walk all over them? The public, who has nowhere else to turn for public services.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
TEXAS & N. O. R. CO. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RY. & S. S. CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548 - SCOTUS declares the use of bargaining representatives by multiple employees to be constitutionally protected.
Click to expand...



Collective Bargaining/Exclusive Consultation
Texas is a “right to work” state. This means by law, employees cannot be forced to join a professional organization as a term of employment. In states such as New York and Michigan that don’t have “right to work” laws, all teachers are forced to become members of the union that represents their district. In some cases, unions have even sued educators who refused membership and won! Collective bargaining agreements and exclusive consultation policies leave the door open for this kind of union tactic.
How it works
If Texas law were changed to allow collective bargaining for public school employees (currently it is prohibited), districts would typically hold an election to determine which employee group would be designated to represent all district employees. Only the designated group would be allowed to negotiate with the school board. All other groups and their members would be shut out of the process. In this situation, organizations could coerce educators into becoming members because they would otherwise have no representation to the school board.
Click to expand...
 
There is nothing wrong with right to work laws, however, if one chooses to join a union and have collective bargaining, that, I believe, is the right of association.
 
DiAnna said:
Bah. I just spouted off on the other poll with the same basic topic. Bottom line, public corporations are funded by citizens hoping to make a profit. Contract impasse means unions strike and company either folds or goes bankrupt. A limited number of people lose their jobs.


Public sectors are funded by taxpayers purchasing a service. Contract impasse means... no real options. Salaries and wages are the largest portion of the budget. Public sectors must by law have a balanced budget. If a public sector, say a state, goes bankrupt, hundreds of thousands of state workers and those funded by the state lose their jobs.

Multi-year union contracts keep public sectors from having the flexibility they need to provide needed services within the constraints of a dwindling revenue stream.
Click to expand...

The company or government should have the ability to hire scab labour during strikes or lockouts.

Managers need to sign better contracts if the ones they currently have put their organization at risk. Failure to do so, means they are not doing the job they are generally well paid for
 
And how does this dispute the point that "lobby[ing] government to pay them more than the job is worth" is not "the only reason that the public unions exist"?

;) It doesn't, nor did I say it did...I did however say that Public Sector Unions do not, or should not have the "right" to strike."

Look, they have the "right" to ask for anything they choose...but if they walk of we have the "right" to replace them.

It's just that simple.

Then quote the OP, don't quote me and tell me what "we" have been talking about.

I already did, it's right there in the 1st paragraph of what he wrote...

What an idiotic thing to pick upon to try to derail a good thread. There's no rule that says private union cannot be brought up in public union thread as a comparison.

Perhaps this will help, it its apples to oranges, k?

Completely different animal.....now....stop being surly.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Technically the right to unionize is widely interpreted to already have been covered in the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that would also, by necessity, require the right not to be in a union, which simply isn't the case, apparently. You cannot refuse to join a union in a union shop.
 
Kandahar said:
By the standard of supply and demand. If the government is having difficulty recruiting qualified people to fill some position, then they are underpaying them. If there are massive numbers of qualified people applying for some position, then they are overpaying them.
Click to expand...

This suggests those are the only factors. I see no reason to believe that so simplistic a view is correct. I can of many reasons beyond pay. If I'm unemployed, I am in demand. If you have a job, you have the supply. I will apply.

They can do that individually. When they join an organization whose sole purpose is to strongarm the government (i.e. the representative of the people) into overpaying them by monopolizing the labor supply, they've crossed a line. Any money spent overpaying teachers could be better spent hiring MORE teachers, or improving education in some other way, or on some other public service. From the public's perspective, the money is essentially wasted. No one benefits from public unions except the public union employees...and they have no reason to expect to be immune to the laws of supply and demand any moreso than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Not as effectively. Seriously, one voice can be ignored much easier than many voices. Just as an industy CEOs will group together to negotiate with government, so do employees group together to negotiate wages and benefits. One is no better or more evil than the other. Employees wanting better benefits is no worse than business wanting better and bigger breaks (tax cuts and less regulation).

That's based entirely on the assumption that merit pay would simply pay teachers for how well their students do without regard to any other variables, like the quality of students. I don't think there are many merit pay advocates who want such a system.
Click to expand...

Well that is what I've seen discussed. NCLB is entirely based on that false premise. So, I'd love to see another version explained.

I'm not a big fan of private unions either, but there is one crucial difference that makes public unions a lot worse: Private companies are motivated by profit, and have a financial incentive to push back against union demands. Government officials are not motivated by profit, and thus often have no such financial incentive to tell the unions no. Along the same lines, who bears the consequences when private company executives allow unions to walk all over them? The shareholders, who chose to invest in the company and have the ability to fire the offending executives and/or sell their stock. Who bears the consequences when government managers allow unions to walk all over them? The public, who has nowhere else to turn for public services.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that. Government officals have no motivation to bankrupt the state, s it hurts them. they have every motivation to balance a budget and keep government open. And leaders do bear the consequence when they fail, as theyoften lose their seats, their position. An employee, any employee, should never be subject to an employer without the ability to negotiate collectively. While I fall just short of calling a union a right, I will be more than willing to let them fight for it. No law says anyone has to cave. but no laws should say they have the absolute rigth to forbid people to fight for better wages, benefits or conditions. Neither side should be handed an advantage.
 
megaprogman said:
There is nothing wrong with right to work laws, however, if one chooses to join a union and have collective bargaining, that, I believe, is the right of association.
Click to expand...

UMMMM...if it allowed collective bargaining, it would no longer be a right to work state.
 
Hatuey said:
You're just a generic conservative who supports corporate enslavement of the masses.
Click to expand...

So having a free market and less government control of our life = slavery.
Having a powerful "group" dictate to us = freedom.

Coroprations as far as I know, are 100% voluntary, and compete with one another.
Are taxes voluntary?
Is the U.S. government competing with someone or is it a monopoly?
 
Amazed, your response was interesting to me. Please help, some things are not obvious to me. Is it based on the Gov workers not being a members of "We the People" but rather they are part of the 'tyrannical' government?

Posted by OhIsee.Then in response to Amazed:

Wow, the juxtaposition of these two thoughts on one post with not [a] problem!
Yes, Amazed I am.

Public Employees have NO fundamental "right" to go on strike.
vs.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

With the following reply:
Amazed said:
Another red herring.

Sorry, no....

It isn't "tyranny" to tell a Gov worker he/she can't strike.

They aren't underpaid, they have the best benefits money can buy...and the best pensions, in short...they should shut up and work.

They don't get to shut the Gov down because THEY don't want to pay any part of their benefits.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
This suggests those are the only factors. I see no reason to believe that so simplistic a view is correct. I can of many reasons beyond pay. If I'm unemployed, I am in demand. If you have a job, you have the supply. I will apply.
Click to expand...

There are a certain number of positions for qualified teachers available; there are a certain number of qualified teachers to fill them. Each school wants to fill the position for the lowest price (salary) possible, while each teacher wants to find a position at the highest price (salary) possible. The price would naturally reach an equilibrium. In this regard, the labor market is not much different than a widget market. But when you introduce a monopoly on the labor supply (or the widget supply) which drives the prices artificially higher, the public suffers. This is why monopolies on widgets are generally illegal. Yet public teachers' unions monopolize the labor supply, and the public is the one that suffers.

As to there being other factors besides overpaying/underpaying teachers that could lead to a disparity in supply and demand: Yes, but they're all ultimately tied to the salary. Jobs in crappy conditions command a premium salary, for example...while jobs in extremely secure/cushy conditions generally receive a lower salary.

Boo Radley said:
Not as effectively. Seriously, one voice can be ignored much easier than many voices. Just as an industy CEOs will group together to negotiate with government, so do employees group together to negotiate wages and benefits. One is no better or more evil than the other. Employees wanting better benefits is no worse than business wanting better and bigger breaks (tax cuts and less regulation).
Click to expand...

Depending on how exactly the businesses are grouping together, this may or may not be illegal too. And I agree that labor (or business) groups that want to lobby the government should be legal...but it should be just that: Lobbying. Not monopolizing the labor force to cripple the operations of the government, which the public paid for. If individual workers want to join a special interest group, of their own volition, whose mission is to advocate for policies that increase the median wage in the United States, they should absolutely have that right.

Boo Radley said:
I don't believe that. Government officals have no motivation to bankrupt the state, s it hurts them. they have every motivation to balance a budget and keep government open. And leaders do bear the consequence when they fail, as theyoften lose their seats, their position.
Click to expand...

The experience of the past 50 years shows that this just isn't true. Governments at both the state and the federal level have almost constantly run deficits.

Boo Radley said:
An employee, any employee, should never be subject to an employer without the ability to negotiate collectively. While I fall just short of calling a union a right, I will be more than willing to let them fight for it. No law says anyone has to cave. but no laws should say they have the absolute rigth to forbid people to fight for better wages, benefits or conditions. Neither side should be handed an advantage.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that a government employer is not a corporation. I saw this stated quite well in an op-ed piece a couple days ago: Private unions were created to guard against the greed of the corporations. Public unions were created to guard against the greed of...the public?

The government simply does not have enough money to be wasting it on stuff like this. Public employees are not dependents of the American people who need charity; they are the people whom we hire to perform the services we deem important. We have public services that the American people need, and we have a limited amount of cash to pay for them. Every dollar spent overpaying a public union employee is one less dollar that can be spent on the public service itself.
 
Last edited:
So...you are saying that Public Employees have a Constitutional "Right" to Strike?

Let me ask you, do you know who they work for?

OhIsee.Then said:
Amazed, your response was interesting to me. Please help, some things are not obvious to me. Is it based on the Gov workers not being a members of "We the People" but rather they are part of the 'tyrannical' government?

Posted by OhIsee.Then in response to Amazed:

Wow, the juxtaposition of these two thoughts on one post with not [a] problem!
Yes, Amazed I am.

Public Employees have NO fundamental "right" to go on strike.
vs.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

With the following reply:
Click to expand...
 
Mach said:
So having a free market and less government control of our life = slavery.
Having a powerful "group" dictate to us = freedom.

Coroprations as far as I know, are 100% voluntary, and compete with one another.
Are taxes voluntary?
Is the U.S. government competing with someone or is it a monopoly?
Click to expand...

Various government possibilities are competing with the voters in the US at this time, so its not a monopoly. That is what root of this this thread is about, a change in government.

Mach, I'd like you to answer the same question I asked Amazed. Is your view based on the Gov workers not being a members of "We the People" but rather they are part of the 'tyrannical' government? thx
 
Barbbtx said:
UMMMM...if it allowed collective bargaining, it would no longer be a right to work state.
Click to expand...

not true
there can be - and there is - collective bargaining in right to work states. i happen to be a union officer in a right to work state
the distinction is that the represented employee in the bargaining unit of the union does NOT have to pay union dues within a right to work state
the union still must represent them, just as it would a dues paying member. that causes us to distinguish between bargaining unit members and union members. only the latter pay dues. all are represented
 
Amazed said:
So...you are saying that Public Employees have a Constitutional "Right" to Strike?

Let me ask you, do you know who they work for?
Click to expand...
I've had many cases where they were clearly working for me and others I know. I sorry if you haven't had the same experience. However, last year I had a bad experience in TX, they thought we might have been smuggeling drugs and used the old seat belt stop....

But, why don't you answer my simple question?
Is your view based on the Gov workers not being a members of "We the People" but rather they are part of the 'tyrannical' government? thx
 
Your question pre supposes a Constitutional Right to Strike...I don't find that in The Constitution...now those Unions (Public) are free to ASK for whatever they want..they are free to walk off the Job if they want...but we are free to replace them if they do.

OhIsee.Then said:
I've had many cases where they were clearly working for me and others I know. I sorry if you haven't had the same experience. However, last year I had a bad experience in TX, they thought we might have been smuggeling drugs and used the old seat belt stop....

But, why don't you answer my simple question?
Is your view based on the Gov workers not being a members of "We the People" but rather they are part of the 'tyrannical' government? thx
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom