• 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
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.

a minor semantic point

an employee in a bargaining unit - located in a right to work state - can refuse to join a union. they are not obligated to pay union dues. however, the union must represent this bargaining unit member just as if that employee were a dues paying union member

but, the net effect is as you indicate. the employee represented by a bargaining unit cannot negotiate for him/herself. the union is the exclusive representative for all bargaining unit employees .... those who pay dues and those who do not
 
As an aside, I have the original Frost-Nixon interviews waiting for me at home...

I am anxious to see the truth of how Frost out maneuvered him.

UMMMM...if it allowed collective bargaining, it would no longer be a right to work state.
 
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.

No presupposition, just trying to get back to the basics that the thread is based on. Simple question. No answer?
 
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.

In practice unions lead to a lot of gymnastics but in principle they are still necessary. Put it plainly, nobody cares about employees.
 
Workers certainly have a right to form voluntary associations at their place of employment

Can I enter your home with signs and protest? We have to secure property rights as well as the Bill of Rights. Employees should be allowed the freedom to assemble peacefully so long as they do it on a public domain. A private business is still a private business. Just as they have the right to refuse service to anyone, they also have the right to escort rowdy protesters from their property.

and they without question have a right to speak about their grievances with their employers, including through representatives chosen by voluntary associations, as well as entering into written agreements with their employers. The fact people are working for the government does not somehow give government any ability to deprive them of these rights.

Ok, we're talking about public sector unions. They have a right to petition the government for an increase in wage or what have you. They should be allowed to do this individually or by association. I have yet to actually see any evidence that Walker is restricting the 1st Amendment rights of the public sector workers. If the proposal is passed as law, does that mean they face criminal punishment if they attempt to petition the government, or to assemble peacefully, or to speak freely? I highly doubt those things are in the proposal.

That's very similiar to the communist idea. Government dictates pay, workers do the work, and don't complain.

Governments do dictate the pay of all government workers. That's how it works. That's what I said. You're implying that I feel the government should dictate the pay of ALL people. I do not.

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.

I'm still not getting it. Where in the governor's proposal is the 1st Amendment rights of workers being violated?
 
It is a right in so much as it is the right of the individual to decide how he or she wants to negotiate her wage. If this means individually or collectively matters not. Banning or denying collective bargaining is a direct attack on personal freedoms.
 
It is a right in so much as it is the right of the individual to decide how he or she wants to negotiate her wage. If this means individually or collectively matters not. Banning or denying collective bargaining is a direct attack on personal freedoms.

So if two people decide they want to "bargain collectively" with their employer, the employer doesn't have the right to fire their asses? I don't think it's quite that simple.
 
So if two people decide they want to "bargain collectively" with their employer, the employer doesn't have the right to fire their asses? I don't think it's quite that simple.

The employer does have that right, public sector included.
 
So if two people decide they want to "bargain collectively" with their employer, the employer doesn't have the right to fire their asses? I don't think it's quite that simple.

Of course he does if the reasons are just. Now is "bargain collectively" a just cause, is another matter. In the US most likely, everywhere else, it is not.

Point is, no one can take away the individuals right to bargain for his or her wages in whatever way he or she wants, and it should in no way cost (in my opinion) the job of said employee just because he or she is joining others in collectively bargaining. It is in many ways the same principle, that just because a woman gets pregnant then the company can not fire her because of this. Or that the person is a muslim, jew, black, white, gay or straight.

Like it or not, collective bargaining came around because of the relative power in negotiations of the employer vs the employee and the abuses the employer did to the employee because of this power. Collective bargaining evens up the playing field, at least in theory.

And btw, this principle goes both ways. I have fought many battles against union members who demanded that all employees at a company were unionised under a certain union. That is why in my home country we have laws that prevent unions for demanding such things and respects the right of the employee to be in a union of his or her choice or not at all. We actually have a free market for unions in Denmark, ranging from political independent unions to religious based unions (yea sounds freaky I know) to the more traditional unions.
 
As far as I am concerned it is a privledge. A job is a job no matter if it is public or private. People should be paid based on the current marketability of <insert job here>, not on how much a bunch of loud mouths think they should be paid better than the rest of society.
 
It is a right in so much as it is the right of the individual to decide how he or she wants to negotiate her wage. If this means individually or collectively matters not. Banning or denying collective bargaining is a direct attack on personal freedoms.

Do businesses have the right to collectively bargain for higher prices for their products? No, that's an anti-competitive trust or monopoly, and is illegal in both the US and EU for good reason. The same should apply to monopolies on labor (I.e. unions), especially in the public sector where their sole purpose is to fleece the public.
 
Do businesses have the right to collectively bargain for higher prices for their products? No, that's an anti-competitive trust or monopoly, and is illegal in both the US and EU for good reason. The same should apply to monopolies on labor (I.e. unions), especially in the public sector where their sole purpose is to fleece the public.

Pretty much agree with everything except the last sentence.
 
....LOL......and doing the floor rolling thing...
I'd love to see Walmart unionize, and give the little mom and pop places a chance.

i don't see how the unionization of walmart is going to provide mom&pop businesses with more opportunity. could you explain how that would be expected to result
 
Do businesses have the right to collectively bargain for higher prices for their products? No, that's an anti-competitive trust or monopoly, and is illegal in both the US and EU for good reason. The same should apply to monopolies on labor (I.e. unions), especially in the public sector where their sole purpose is to fleece the public.

A business is essentially a group of people and one of the essential functions is collective action. I don't see this being a good comparison.
 
I'm a socialist, so I am compelled to say it is a right to protest, and demand better wages.
But the manner in which people carry it out and the reasons behind it are a bit absurd sometimes. So I have to take a more conservative approach to this and say its a bit of both. You have your right to collective bargaining, but if the unions are being [insert derogatory term of your choice], then the government should also have the right to step in and refuse the unions.
 
A business is essentially a group of people and one of the essential functions is collective action. I don't see this being a good comparison.

It's not the collective action (in the sense of organizing to achieve a common goal) that's inherently problematic. It's the collusion to fix prices that's the problem, and is why we have antitrust laws. Labor unions are essentially trusts; their members collude to try to get an above-market price for their product (I.e. their labor).
 
Well holy crap, a reasonable Socialist...I am impressed.

I tip my hat to you sir/ma'am.

I'm a socialist, so I am compelled to say it is a right to protest, and demand better wages.
But the manner in which people carry it out and the reasons behind it are a bit absurd sometimes. So I have to take a more conservative approach to this and say its a bit of both. You have your right to collective bargaining, but if the unions are being [insert derogatory term of your choice], then the government should also have the right to step in and refuse the unions.
 
other: it is a threat to representative government.
 
It's not the collective action (in the sense of organizing to achieve a common goal) that's inherently problematic. It's the collusion to fix prices that's the problem, and is why we have antitrust laws. Labor unions are essentially trusts; their members collude to try to get an above-market price for their product (I.e. their labor).

I have to admit, that is a perspective I have never considered.
 
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.

I will think on this awhile, and I appriecaite you giving me something to think about, but at my core, I don't believe this to be true, at least not to the level you suggest. Teachers, despite unions, are not paid the same from place to place, nr are the conditins the same. There are places you can't pay a teacher enough to teach at.



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.

I don't see labor as a monopoly. I think they are doing exactly what you suggest they should be able to do.

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.

Yes, but the reasons for that are not that they don't care or that they have no motivation to do differently. We can even point to some business in the private sector, despite the motives you attribute to them that would stop it, who run deficits.

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.

The government can take just as much advantage of a worker as a corporation can. And while the public does want services as cheaply as possible, and has a right to fight for that, it is not accuarte to assume they cannot underpay, or abuse those who work for them. In fact, I would argue they do so often. Many serivces are running understaffed, and are not getting rich. While a few did well, very well, most don't fit that criteria.
 
It is a right in so much as it is the right of the individual to decide how he or she wants to negotiate her wage. If this means individually or collectively matters not. Banning or denying collective bargaining is a direct attack on personal freedoms.

Explain HOW the governor is banning or denying collective bargaining.
 
Explain HOW the governor is banning or denying collective bargaining.

it's in the bill he wants to get passed. no negotiations with unions on anything but pay raises, and then not even really raises. they can't exceed inflation.
 
it's in the bill he wants to get passed. no negotiations with unions on anything but pay raises, and then not even really raises. they can't exceed inflation.

But they still have the right to petition the government (their employer) just as everyone has a right to petition the government.
 
But they still have the right to petition the government (their employer) just as everyone has a right to petition the government.

what obligation does the government have to respond to the proffered petition?
 
Back
Top Bottom