• 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
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?
AGAIN....if your shop is a union shop, you have 90 days to make a decision to keep me or not....and are you claiming that these unions don't have to negotiate with officials whom you helped to elect? that they dont have to negotiate with elected officials who are hostile to them? really?
 
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.

I think that is very correct. Allowing public employees to escape the unions is their death knell. When public employees were allowed to opt out of unions in Indiana, 91% of them did so. It would seem that public sector unions are less about representing workers and more about representing the leadership these days.
 
Last edited:
AGAIN....if your shop is a union shop, you have 90 days to make a decision to keep me or not....and are you claiming that these unions don't have to negotiate with officials whom you helped to elect? that they dont have to negotiate with elected officials who are hostile to them? really?

what evasive psychobabble. If I own a business I CAN Make it a union shop. But Why should I not be allowed to fire anyone who wants to unionize it
 
I think that is very correct. Allowing public employees to escape the unions is their death knell.
AFSCME-one of the most worthless POS unions there is, went from 65K members in Wisconsin to 28K in the Walker years. Good riddance.
 
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.
I think that's a ridiculous notion and a dangerous one for many workers and for the public. If you tell public sector employees to not unionize and in turn, take whatever their employer gives them, you're setting many of them up for being treated unfairly and you're setting the public up for attracting lower quality workers and enabling the government to provide lower quality services.
 
I doubt it's the end of public unions since the original problems they sought to address still exist. The treatment of unions as a scapegoat for economic problems, however, is likely temporary because our economy and citizens' opinion of the economy will eventually improve and a scapegoat will no longer be necessary.

That is not the issue really. Are you asserting that public (gov't) employees have the right to demand all the salary and benefit increases that they want, limitted only by the gov't's abaility to extort it from the citizens? People have been shown, and will continue to be shown, that while they may have to work until age 65 to 69 to get SS/Medicare (taken by law from every one of their paychecks), that the gov'r workers may retire at age 50 (or younger) and be supported ONLY by taxation? Even the federal gov't (non-union) has abandoned that nonsense, yet many states, counties and cities persist in that "worker's" right that ONLY exists for gov't "workers". If retirement at age 50 is a "right" then why does IRS demand that John Q. Private may only draw from his own PRIVATE "tax defered" retirement funds after age 59 1/2 (or suffer a "penalty")? This news WILL get out, even if the MSM tries to pretend otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I think that's a ridiculous notion and a dangerous one for many workers and for the public. If you tell public sector employees to not unionize and in turn, take whatever their employer gives them, you're setting many of them up for being treated unfairly and you're setting the public up for attracting lower quality workers and enabling the government to provide lower quality services.

the employer are the people of the united states. Unions don't bargain with us though-they bargain with people they often are responsible for electing. Are you saying our elected representatives would treat public employees unfairly?

public sector unions were created to funnel money to democrat politicians
 
AGAIN....if your shop is a union shop, you have 90 days to make a decision to keep me or not....and are you claiming that these unions don't have to negotiate with officials whom you helped to elect? that they dont have to negotiate with elected officials who are hostile to them? really?

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.
 
I think that's a ridiculous notion and a dangerous one for many workers and for the publc.

What an interesting notion. As a member of the military, I rather suspect that the public is in less danger due to the fact that me and my co-workers do not organize to push our budgetary preferences on them. Though parking a few tanks outside of the Capital building and assigning a couple of Battalions of Infantry to guard the exits might indeed focus Congresscritters minds wonderfully on how much we would like for Sequestration DOD cuts to go away :). If Public Sector Unions want to talk about "having an army" and "fighting a battle"... okay :). Let's have a fight - SEIU v the US Marine Corps on whether or not we cut services or defense :).

If you tell public sector employees to not unionize and in turn, take whatever their employer gives them, you're setting many of them up for being treated unfairly and you're setting the public up for attracting lower quality workers and enabling the government to provide lower quality services.

In which case the people can hold government officials accountable for the horrible services they have provided. Except that politicians will now be accountable to the public, whereas currently they are protected from backlash over the horrible services being provided due to the existence and power of Public Unions.

I would rather suspect that public employees provide worse services when they know that they will face no negative consequences for failing to do so.
 
Last edited:
the employer are the people of the united states. Unions don't bargain with us though-they bargain with people they often are responsible for electing. Are you saying our elected representatives would treat public employees unfairly?

public sector unions were created to funnel money to democrat politicians
Actually, the employer is the government.
 
I think that's a ridiculous notion and a dangerous one for many workers and for the public. If you tell public sector employees to not unionize and in turn, take whatever their employer gives them, you're setting many of them up for being treated unfairly and you're setting the public up for attracting lower quality workers and enabling the government to provide lower quality services.

Nonsense. I, and many other taxpayers, see the "quality" of gov't (I see you like the nice term "public sector") employees (and even a few gov't workers too). Many meet these fine folks in the unemployment office, like our "Texas workforce commission", or the department of motor vehicles (part of DPS in Texas) and see no "exceptional" qualities on display. The vast majority of gov't employees are file clerks, drivers, maintance workers and etc. with a VERY generous number of "managers". I know I left out police and firefighters, but they are the more visible gov't workers, and a very small minority of gov't employees. Look at the pay and benefit difference for gov't vs. private drivers, teachers and nurses, if you assert that private is "better" without a union to "protect" the gov't employee. Unlike the private sector, 80% or better of gov't "management" is also under the union defined and controlled pension systems (they are workers, that are simply labeled as management). The joke about road crews is sadly true; if you see one worker busy with a shovel surrounded by 4 or five others, just standing around, watching him, that is a gov't "work" detail.
 
Last edited:
What an interesting notion. As a member of the military, I rather suspect that the public is in less danger due to the fact that me and my co-workers do not organize to push our budgetary preferences on them.
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. 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.

Though parking a few tanks outside of the Capital building and assigning a couple of Battalions of Infantry to guard the exits might indeed focus Congresscritters minds wonderfully on how much we would like for Sequestration DOD cuts to go away :). If Public Sector Unions want to talk about "having an army" and "fighting a battle"... okay :). Let's have a fight - the AARP v the US Marine Corps on whether or not we cut entitlements or defense :).
Both.

In which case the people can hold government officials accountable for the horrible services they have provided.
Just as public sector unions can hold government officials accountable for any poor treatment of public employees that occurs.
 
so again why would public sector employees need a union?

Same reason anyone else does, to have colelctive power to negotiate. This is not complicated.
 
Nonsense. I and many other taxpayers see the "quality" of gov't (I see you like the nice term "public sector") employees. Many meet these fine folks in the unemployment office, like our "Texas workforce commission", and see no "exceptional" qualites on display. The vast majority of gov't employees are file clerks, drivers, maintance workers and etc. with a VERY generous number of "managers". Unlike the private sector, 80% or better of gov't "management" is also under the union defined and controlled pension system (they are workers, that are simply labeled as management). The joke about road crews is sadly true; if you see one worker busy with a shovel surrounded by 4 or five others, standing around, watching him, that is a gov't "work" detail.
I don't have any feelings about the term "public sector." It was used in the OP and so I continued using it.

In any case, I don't see how anything you said is relevant to what I said. You saw a bunch of people you think are bums. Cool. I'm happy for you.
 
so again why would public sector employees need a union?
Boo already answered it. They want/need a collective power to negotiate.

Here's a specific example: The School Board decides that it will evaluate teachers based solely on the standardized test scores of students. The entire world knows that test scores are impacted by many things outside of a teacher's control. Therefore, it's not only unfair, but also nonsensical and damaging to the public to evaluate teachers in such a manner since quality teachers will likely be fired because students did poorly despite being taught well.

In response to this, teachers tell their union to negotiate with the Board to develop a teacher evaluation that takes into account all the factors outside of teacher control that go into a student's performance.

Simple.
 
Last edited:
Boo already answered it. They want/need a collective power to negotiate.

Here's a specific example: The School Board decides that it will evaluate teachers based solely on the standardized test scores of students. The entire world knows that test scores are impacted by many things outside of a teacher's control. Therefore, it's not only unfair, but also nonsensical and damaging to the public to evaluate teachers in such a manner since quality teachers will likely be fired because students did poorly despite being taught well.

In response to this, teachers tell their union to negotiate with the Board to develop a teacher evaluation that takes into account all the factors outside of teacher control that go into a student's performance.

Simple.

Nonsense. Everybody realizes that student performance is not 100% controlled by the actions of the teacher. But everybody also realizes that some classes (with different teachers) in the SAME school show marked differences, year after year. Rather than rate teachers against a fixed number, simply rate them among each other (based on THEIR students' test scores). If you have 20 teachers in a school then rank them from 1 to 20, and assign pay increases based on which 1/4 they fall in. The top 25% get a raise, the middle 50% do not and the bottom 25% take a cut at 1/2 the raise percentage of the top 25%. After a few years the cream floats to the top, the worst (hopefully) seek another job, and the rest are not over paid near as much as the 'longevity only" nonsense that now passes as "fair". Simple.
 
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?

Hi, CP. I didn't vote because nothing quite fit my thoughts.

I think the Walker victory sent a strong message to public sector unions that they're going to have to adjust their sights and become more willing to compromise. Although one wouldn't know that based on the Chicago teachers' union. They've just held a strike vote for the fall -- results not announced yet. They are asking for a 30% pay increase over the next two years. What??

I also think it's important that we don't over-estimate the power of Walker's victory. The unions have proven that, "We will hunt you down if you try to take away our power." That message was delivered loud and clear. Politicians are likely to give pause when considering the Wisconsin events. JMVHO.
 
Nonsense. Everybody realizes that student performance is not 100% controlled by the actions of the teacher. But everybody also realizes that some classes (with different teachers) in the SAME school show marked differences, year after year. Rather than rate teachers against a fixed number, simply rate them among each other (based on THEIR students' test scores). If you have 20 teachers in a school then rank them from 1 to 20, and assign pay increases based on which 1/4 they fall in. The top 25% get a raise, the middle 50% do not and the bottom 25% take a cut at 1/2 the raise percentage of the top 25%. After a few years the cream floats to the top, the worst (hopefully) seek another job, and the rest are not over paid near as much as the 'longevity only" nonsense that now passes as "fair". Simple.
Good job. You just offered one of many potential suggestions that the Teacher's Union would give to the School Board during negotiations.
 
Good job. You just offered one of many potential suggestions that the Teacher's Union would give to the School Board during negotiations.

But you still have the tail wagging the dog. It is the school board ALONE that should decide, not the teacher's or their union. At a golf course, for example, it is not the maintanence staff that sets the work rules, but the owner/management. The workers may prefer to cut the greens, trim the trees or rake the bunkers one way, and the owner/manager another. It is neither negotiated nor put to a vote, it is SIMPLE, if you work for me you work my way. Your performance review is based on the owner/manager's evaluation of your work according to THEIR standards. Simple.
 
Last edited:
Boo already answered it. They want/need a collective power to negotiate.

Here's a specific example: The School Board decides that it will evaluate teachers based solely on the standardized test scores of students. The entire world knows that test scores are impacted by many things outside of a teacher's control. Therefore, it's not only unfair, but also nonsensical and damaging to the public to evaluate teachers in such a manner since quality teachers will likely be fired because students did poorly despite being taught well.

In response to this, teachers tell their union to negotiate with the Board to develop a teacher evaluation that takes into account all the factors outside of teacher control that go into a student's performance.

Simple.


complete crap-the government is required to treat all similarly situated employees equally.
 
Hi, CP. I didn't vote because nothing quite fit my thoughts.

I think the Walker victory sent a strong message to public sector unions that they're going to have to adjust their sights and become more willing to compromise. Although one wouldn't know that based on the Chicago teachers' union. They've just held a strike vote for the fall -- results not announced yet. They are asking for a 30% pay increase over the next two years. What??

I also think it's important that we don't over-estimate the power of Walker's victory. The unions have proven that, "We will hunt you down if you try to take away our power." That message was delivered loud and clear. Politicians are likely to give pause when considering the Wisconsin events. JMVHO.

I'm not that familiar with Chicago, but if I remember correctly, they were promised a rasie they didn't get. They are being asked to do more without much pay. Seems to me there is an issue there. Yes, if they are asking for 30%, that's a bit much. I wouldn't give it to them. But we should look at the entire picture.

I was involved in our negotiations here (we don't have a union). We go to administration, say here is what we would like, and they say yes or no. Seldom effective. But the administration these last few years ahve been cutting staff, firing folks who contributed (some question the reasons some were fired), cutitng benefits, and increasing work load. The preisdent took a huge bonus during this time. Workers, as may well surprise, take a dim view of that.
 
I don't get why people can't see that there'sa conflict of interest when it comes to public unions. The ultimate employer "the tax payers" are not the ones at the bargaining table. If people had to vote on salaries/benefits I'll bet that the outcomes would be very different. As it is the unions can finance people who they want to negotiate with.
 
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.
So, by that same argument, you also oppose minimum wage laws, yes?
 
I'm not that familiar with Chicago, but if I remember correctly, they were promised a rasie they didn't get. They are being asked to do more without much pay. Seems to me there is an issue there. Yes, if they are asking for 30%, that's a bit much. I wouldn't give it to them. But we should look at the entire picture.
I'm from Chicago and I can fill in the blanks of MaggieD's post. The Chicago Teacher's Union is asking for a 29% raise. They want 20% to match the 20% increase in the length of the school day that Emmanuel has proposed. They want the 4% which they argue they should have received last year and they want a 5% increase in the second year of the contract.

Here's the link to the press release.

It's really not scandalous at all. It's also worth noting that CTU is not having a strike vote, it's having a strike authorization vote so that it can be prepared for a strike if it comes to that. It's funny how people can make things sound outrageous when they take them out of context.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom