• 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

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,485
Reaction score
39,816
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
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?

Hopefully it's the beginning of the end for all unions.
 
I would like to see a national right to work law past.
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.
 
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 any union in this country. What I think has happened is that the fuse has been lit. "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

It's just a matter of time now.
 
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.
 
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.

No one should be force into a union just because of there job.
 
No one should be force into a union just because of there job.
They should be forced if they will in anyway benefit from something a union negotiates.
 
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?

Yeah your right the entire federal deficit and all the states woes are ALL the fault of public sector unions....CPwill heres the TRUTH the rich have raped public sector workers and put it all right in their pocket....the rich literally HATE that they cant control public worker unions and steal from them...so they started this class warfare between public and private sector workers...and in the end the private sector workers are going to get even Less then they are now...MORONS...they will wake up but it will be too late for them, they will have been stripped of everything especially their dignity.
All the proof of that is right in front of t heir eyes...they'd just rather believe koch Brother super pac attack ads...
 
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.
Joining a union should be a choice and it should never be a condition of employment.Closed shops remove this choice especially for anyone wanting to be a public school teacher, police officer or some other public sector career that has a closed shop. Whether or someone works for a company should only be between the employee and employer and should have nothing to do with the union.Whether or not someone joins a union should only be between the individual and the union and should have nothing to do with the employer.
 
Last edited:
No one should be force into a union just because of there job.

It's not force: it's democratic process when voting for representation. In union shops, it's the same kind of requirement as having to buy your own uniform and wear it. Or joining the army and wanting to wear your own clothes: it's a matter of choice. If ya' don't want it, don't choose it.
 
Joining a union should be a choice and it should never be a condition of employment.Closed shops remove this choice especially for anyone wanting to be a public school teacher, police officer or some other public sector career that has a closed shop.
It's not a choice in some places because it's not a choice to benefit from what unions negotiate. If you teach in a public school where unions negotiate better security, then you are a free rider if you don't pay union dues. That's ridiculous.
 
Joining a union should be a choice and it should never be a condition of employment.Closed shops remove this choice especially for anyone wanting to be a public school teacher, police officer or some other public sector career that has a closed shop.

Closed shops imply a history. Each company has their own history and their own dynamic. If one does not want to take advantage of membership benefits, then look elsewhere for employment: isn't that what conservatives say about working under conditions that are unsatisfactory?

I don't get the double standard?
 
Joining a union should be a choice and it should never be a condition of employment.Closed shops remove this choice especially for anyone wanting to be a public school teacher, police officer or some other public sector career that has a closed shop. Whether or someone works for a company should only be between the employee and employer and should have nothing to do with the union.Whether or not someone joins a union should only be between the individual and the union and should have nothing to do with the employer.
as i stated earlier, no one is 'forced' to do anything....you always have a choice on where to work, if you don't like working in a union shop, there are plenty of places out there that are non-union...why should you have the right to walk into a place that is a union shop, where the employees voted for unionization, and say 'no thanks' to joining the union, but still be able to enjoy the benefits of that union's presence? no free riders. funny how you never hear about a 'free rider' turning down the benefits they enjoy because of the union, you never hear of a 'free rider' going up to the boss, and asking for less pay, less benefits, because they are not in the union...
 
I hope it's the beginning of the end of public employee unions. I don't care if the private sector wants unions; the private sector runs on profit, and if the union demands put them out of business, then too-bad so-sad. It's different when non-profit municipalities, states, counties, etc. are unionized. Municipal management negotiates with taxpayer dollars, not profits. When union demands exceed taxpayer revenues, then the governing body (city council, state legislature, etc.) just ups taxes to pay for it.

I've been at the negotiating table with public unions. They don't give a damn about the citizens and neither does management, which supposedly is on the taxpayer's side... but really only cares about keeping their own public jobs, also taxpayer provided. When it comes to public unions, this is how it goes at the negotiating table:

1. Union demands increase in salary and benefits

2. City shows that projected revenues can't cover the increase, and rejects the demands.

3. Public union employees picket city hall, man the phone banks and hit the airwaves: "City management refuses to adequately compensate public employees, jeopardizing the health and safety of citizens. Police will not be adequately funded to protect citizens. Firemen will not be adequately funded to handle fire and emergency situations. Water treatment quality control will be jeopardized. Public safety from road and street light maintenance will be jeopardized. Public services in all sectors will be cut. Call City Hall now! Demand they negotiate in good faith to retain the public services citizens deserve!"

4. Terrified citizens inundate City Hall and Council Chambers demanding that health and public safety services not be cut, and insisting that union demands are met.

5. City Management gives in to union demands. Since state law will not allow any public municipality to run on a deficit, tax increases are passed by the City Council to fund the increase in union wage and benefit costs.

6. Citizens, outraged by huge tax increase, recall the entire City Council. A new City Council is seated. Public employees pocket their fat raises, and wait for the new contract to expire in 2-3 years to begin the cycle all over again.

That's a summary of what goes on behind the scenes when dealing with public employee unions. The demands of private-sector unions are tempered by the reality that if the company can't make a profit, everyone will lose their jobs. Private employee unions have no such fear. They always get what they want because they know by threatening citizens with the loss of health and safety services, citizens will rally their support without having a clue that it is all coming out of their own pockets.

Public employee unions are evil. They should be illegal, and in 26 states they ARE illegal. Those states, BTW, get along just fine without fleecing taxpayers everytime the unions want a higher-than-cost-of-living raise.
 
They should be forced if they will in anyway benefit from something a union negotiates.

:shrug: I believe that the country benefits from Conservative governance. Ergo, all citizens should be forced to donate money to conservative candidates for political office. Yes?
 
no one is 'forced' to do anything....you always have a choice.

You realize that is also an argument for allowing employers to ban unions? If the workers do not like the conditions of their employment... they always have a choice to go elsewhere.
 
:shrug: I believe that the country benefits from Conservative governance. Ergo, all citizens should be forced to donate money to conservative candidates for political office. Yes?

If - it were democratically elected as a reuirement, then you would be right; but . . .
 
i think that unions are certainly on the decline, both private and public. and as i've stated before, may those who wish for the demise of unions live to work in an economy without them.
 
If - it were democratically elected as a reuirement, then you would be right; but . . .

that doesn't connect. If you are arguing that the reason for coercion is that non-unionized employees will benefit from unionized employees, then you are arguing that benefits flowing from actions that others take with or without their will can be charged to their account.
 
:shrug: I believe that the country benefits from Conservative governance. Ergo, all citizens should be forced to donate money to conservative candidates for political office. Yes?
Beliefs are irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm talking about facts. It is a fact that a teacher is a free rider if they get their class size lowered because of union negotiations and yet doesn't pay union dues. That is a measurable fact.
 
Beliefs are irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm talking about facts. It is a fact that a teacher is a free rider if they get their class size lowered because of union negotiations and yet doesn't pay union dues. That is a measurable fact.

: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.
 
: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.
No, it's really not a belief. You don't seem to understand this basic concept, so let me try to explain it in a simpler way.

1. Union negotiates a deal so that every school has a security guard.
2. Every school has a security guard because of the union.
3. The union was able to negotiate that deal because of teachers who paid union dues.
4. Teachers who did not pay union dues benefit from the action of an organization they did not contribute to - they are free riders.

This is super simple cause and effect stuff. This has nothing to do with "one could easily argue" type things. This is about facts. This is about people getting benefits that they did not pay for.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom