• 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
nonpareil said:
"publicly traded firms"

Public Company Definition
Click to expand...

Those are companies that people CHOOSE to invest in. These investors can opt to spend their money or not, or to sell their investment at any time. That's not the same as the government where people have no choice but to give them their money in the form of taxes.
 
Cephus said:
Those are companies that people CHOOSE to invest in. These investors can opt to spend their money or not, or to sell their investment at any time. That's not the same as the government where people have no choice but to give them their money in the form of taxes.
Click to expand...

It doesn't change the fact that managers negotiate with other people's money.

If you don't like how your tax money is spent, you can hire new managers/politicians. If that is not enough, you can move to another state or country. Everytime you pay tax, you understand the risk that your money will be squandered by politicians. Conservatives especially seem to complain of this non-stop. If you don't want to pay tax, you can again vote with your feet.
 
justabubba said:
but spot on

i challenge you to disprove his point
Click to expand...

Spot on????????? The public sector is completely different than a public company. What are you thinking? Spot on. Right. What IS his point? That they both use money? One is taxpayer money. The other is investor money. Come onnnnn....pick another door.
 
StillBallin75 said:
One is where shareholders voluntarily invest their own money knowing the inherent risk, while the other is not.
Click to expand...

you are responding to something other than which was stated:
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...
this comparison is more than valid

in the instance of public sector unions*, management is spending other peoples' money when it obligates taxpayer dollars as compensation for the government labor performed

in the instance of private companies, management spends other people's money when it obligates shareholder dollars as compensation for the private sector labor performed
the only instance where this would not be the case was where there is but a sole proprietor of a company and he is the one who negotiates the contract with labor. i defy you to show a single instance where this has transpired


* in the federal sector, wages are established by the congress and are non-negotiable with the union (impact and implementation of the wage rules not withstanding)
 
nonpareil said:
It doesn't change the fact that managers negotiate with other people's money.

If you don't like how your tax money is spent, you can hire new managers/politicians. If that is not enough, you can move to another state or country. Everytime you pay tax, you understand the risk that your money will be squandered by politicians. Conservatives especially seem to complain of this non-stop. If you don't want to pay tax, you can again vote with your feet.
Click to expand...

I agree with this in principle, but in reality it's easier said than done.
 
MaggieD said:
Spot on????????? The public sector is completely different than a public company. What are you thinking? Spot on. Right. What IS his point? That they both use money? One is taxpayer money. The other is investor money. Come onnnnn....pick another door.
Click to expand...

you said it yourself

one spends the shareholder dollars and the other obligates the taxpayer dollars

i thank you for making my own argument against you
 
nonpareil said:
If you don't like how your tax money is spent, you can hire new managers/politicians. If that is not enough, you can move to another state or country. Everytime you pay tax, you understand the risk that your money will be squandered by politicians. Conservatives especially seem to complain of this non-stop. If you don't want to pay tax, you can again vote with your feet.
Click to expand...

That's EGAZKLY what the people of Wisconsin did.
 
you are responding to something other than which was stated:
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...

Her statement was true in a literal sense. However on a philosophical level the two situations really aren't comparable. In the first situation the money is forcibly taken, while in the second instance the money is willingly given. If we're debating the merits of the existence of private sector unions vs. those in the public sector then this is a pretty important distinction.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
you said it yourself

one spends the shareholder dollars and the other obligates the taxpayer dollars

i thank you for making my own argument against you
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You've taken MY argument and made it your own. :rofl
 
StillBallin75 said:
Her statement was true in a literal sense. However on a philosophical level the two situations really aren't comparable. In the first situation the money is forcibly taken, while in the second instance the money is willingly given. If we're debating the merits of the existence of private sector unions vs. those in the public sector than this is a pretty important distinction.
Click to expand...

nope
in both instances, the dollars are willingly given
by the designated representatives to the contract negotiations
in the instance of the private sector company and the public sector taxpayer, they are represented in negotiations
the contract is hammered out and executed by both parties, each having received authority to bargain on behalf of their representative constituency

the problem develops when one of the parties sends to the negotiation table representatives who are not up to the task

often, that is management ... whether it is corporate management or government management ... it is the sending of the incompetents to engage in contract negotiations that produces these negative outcomes

so, rather than eliminating the unions, instead select better representatives to sit at the negotiating table
 
justabubba said:
nope
in both instances, the dollars are willingly given
by the designated representatives to the contract negotiations
in the instance of the private sector company and the public sector taxpayer, they are represented in negotiations
the contract is hammered out and executed by both parties, each having received authority to bargain on behalf of their representative constituency

the problem develops when one of the parties sends to the negotiation table representatives who are not up to the task

often, that is management ... whether it is corporate management or government management ... it is the sending of the incompetents to engage in contract negotiations that produces these negative outcomes

so, rather than eliminating the unions, instead select better representatives to sit at the negotiating table
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this. What are the names of the people negotiating these golden compensation/benefits packages? They seem to remain nameless.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't disagree with this. What are the names of the people negotiating these golden compensation/benefits packages? They seem to remain nameless.
Click to expand...

those names will be found at the bottom of each contract they have entered into
 
justabubba said:
nope
in both instances, the dollars are willingly given
by the designated representatives to the contract negotiations
in the instance of the private sector company and the public sector taxpayer, they are represented in negotiations
the contract is hammered out and executed by both parties, each having received authority to bargain on behalf of their representative constituency

the problem develops when one of the parties sends to the negotiation table representatives who are not up to the task

often, that is management ... whether it is corporate management or government management ... it is the sending of the incompetents to engage in contract negotiations that produces these negative outcomes

so, rather than eliminating the unions, instead select better representatives to sit at the negotiating table
Click to expand...

Again, easier said that done. I agree with you in principle, but the reality is that elected politicians represent a wide variety of constituents who all want different things. And it's not like we have a lot of competent negotiators to choose from in the first place. I didn't vote for George Bush or the Iraq War, and on the face of it, it really wasn't that great of an investment. Should I really still be held responsible for the selection of an incompetent head of state?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Again, easier said that done. I agree with you in principle, but the reality is that elected politicians represent a wide variety of constituents who all want different things. And it's not like we have a lot of competent negotiators to choose from in the first place. I didn't vote for George Bush or the Iraq War, and on the face of it, it really wasn't that great of an investment. Should I really still be held responsible for the selection of an incompetent head of state?
Click to expand...
yep

it is true that we DESERVE the politicians we elect
 
justabubba said:
yep

it is true that we DESERVE the politicians we elect
Click to expand...

I'm just saying, realistically speaking, the ideal of choosing competent representatives and negotiators is just that, an ideal that is usually not achievable.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Her statement was true in a literal sense. However on a philosophical level the two situations really aren't comparable. In the first situation the money is forcibly taken, while in the second instance the money is willingly given. If we're debating the merits of the existence of private sector unions vs. those in the public sector then this is a pretty important distinction.
Click to expand...

This isn't totally true either. Once the shares are bought, shareholders are stuck with the company, when their interest is negatively affected, they have no recourse except to sell their shares at a loss. This agent-principal problem is widely studied in economics. It is not an exclusively public sector problem.
 
Last edited:
nonpareil said:
This isn't totally true either. Once the shares are bought, shareholders are stuck with the company, when their interest is negatively affected, they have no recourse except to sell their shares at a loss. This agent-principal problem is widely studied in economics. It is not an exclusively public sector problem.
Click to expand...

I agree, but nevertheless it's easier to cash in your money and sell the stock than it is to vote for competent politicians or vote with your feet. In the long run, unions will always be more powerful than the people for the simple reason that unions are organized and usually of one mind, while voters, at large, are not. In the public sector, unions will always win because the have more bargaining power than the other side in the long run. Even if their wages and benefits have risen to a level that's more than fair, there isn't much stopping them from going further unless it's something pretty catastrophic like a budget crisis.
 
Last edited:
nonpareil said:
It doesn't change the fact that managers negotiate with other people's money.
Click to expand...

With other willing people's money.

If you don't like how your tax money is spent, you can hire new managers/politicians. If that is not enough, you can move to another state or country. Everytime you pay tax, you understand the risk that your money will be squandered by politicians. Conservatives especially seem to complain of this non-stop. If you don't want to pay tax, you can again vote with your feet.
Click to expand...

No, you can't do that. With a personal investment, you don't have to rely on the majority of investors. If you don't like how things are run, you can sell your shares and go elsewhere. That's not the case with the government. You can't simply refuse to give them your money, they're going to take it regardless. You can't just fire the management either, you have to go with the majority. If they're too clueless to fire incompetent management, you're stuck and you're still forced to pay no matter how much you hate what's going on. The idea that you can move elsewhere is likewise ridiculous, no matter where you go, some government is going to tax you. There is no relief.
 
I believe collective bargaining is an aspect of the right to assemble in the first amendment.

Also, there is little correlation between public sector unionization and state budget deficit, so the politician giving away the store argument does not sway me much.

unionsanddeficits-thumb-475x345-321.png
 
megaprogman said:
I believe collective bargaining is an aspect of the right to assemble in the first amendment.

Also, there is little correlation between public sector unionization and state budget deficit, so the politician giving away the store argument does not sway me much.

unionsanddeficits-thumb-475x345-321.png
Click to expand...

It is definitely true that, to some degree, public sector unions are being scapegoated by the governor for Wisconsin's budget shortfalls.
 
StillBallin75 said:
It is definitely true that, to some degree, public sector unions are being scapegoated by the governor for Wisconsin's budget shortfalls.
Click to expand...

I believe in this case, it is an easy excuse for them to do what they want to ideological as opposed to financial reasons.
 
Those who say that Wisconsin is trying to cure its budget deficit on the backs of unions are misguided. That's nothing more than a talking point. Everything needs scrutiny. Everyone is going to have to sacrifice. No more golden compensation programs for the public sector is a much-needed beginning.
 
megaprogman said:
I believe in this case, it is an easy excuse for them to do what they want to ideological as opposed to financial reasons.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree here. However my OP was more of a philosophical entertainment of the merits of public sector unionization, and whether or not they're really necessary. Just like people who join the military have to give up some of the first amendment rights, people who join the public sector as civil servants should potentially give up some of their first amendment rights because of their unique situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom