• 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
I'm kinda sick of people claiming everything is a right.
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it can be seen as a right. A man has the right to reap the benefits of the sweat of his brow, does he not? These collective bargaining agreements is just a man trading his labor for money and arguing about details for it. The workers get together to collectivize their voice so that they can best reap the most benefit from their labor. Like it or not, there is right to contract. A man can strike a contract with another and details need to be determined. Workers should have the ability to have a say in that contract over the conditions and pay for their labor. Collectivizing it gives a bit of that power to the workers along with streamlining the system so that you do not individually have to work out contracts with each worker.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

The unions already offered financial concessions. At this point, its about destroying the union itself.
 
megaprogman said:
The unions already offered financial concessions. At this point, its about destroying the union itself.
Click to expand...

Like to their capitulation, please. I've asked four times now and gotten a link from 2009. Post please? Please?
 
As most of you can see, I'm kind of sitting on the fence on this issue and I can definitely see both sides. But what I can definitively say is that going after collective bargaining itself is hardly the issue Wisconsin should be tackling if they're sincere about fixing their deficit.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Like to their capitulation, please. I've asked four times now and gotten a link from 2009. Post please? Please?
Click to expand...

A quick jaunt to google news gives me :

Wisconsin layoffs soon if governor's proposal doesn't pass - USATODAY.com

Public employees have said they would agree to concessions Walker wants that would amount to an 8% pay cut on average, but they want to retain their collective bargaining rights. One Republican senator also has floated an alternative that would make the elimination of those rights temporary.
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
I think it can be seen as a right. A man has the right to reap the benefits of the sweat of his brow, does he not? These collective bargaining agreements is just a man trading his labor for money and arguing about details for it. The workers get together to collectivize their voice so that they can best reap the most benefit from their labor. Like it or not, there is right to contract. A man can strike a contract with another and details need to be determined. Workers should have the ability to have a say in that contract over the conditions and pay for their labor. Collectivizing it gives a bit of that power to the workers along with streamlining the system so that you do not individually have to work out contracts with each worker.
Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment to a certain extent, but I will cite one of my previous posts (Post #44 of this thread): I believe in the public sector the unions' bargaining power has exceeded that of their employers (the public):

StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
StillBallin75 said:
I agree with this sentiment to a certain extent, but I will cite one of my previous posts (Post #44 of this thread): I believe in the public sector the unions' bargaining power has exceeded that of their employers (the public):
Click to expand...

Oh and it can. There's the rub, because you don't want to completely hamstring labor; but you don't want to bend business over the barrel either. So somehow you have to strike a balance, and that is really tough to do, particularly given the dynamics of the system. But to the base question as to whether or not it is a right, I think there is good argument for it.

Unions have a purpose and a need, but they are essentially a form of government; and like government it must be controlled and constrained. Otherwise, they get out of hand and we see what that looks like. But should we throw the baby out with the bath water? I think there's plenty of good use still left in unions, we just need to try to make the system a bit more reasonable.
 
I think it is ludicrous to assume that collective bargaining on the part of public sector (government employee) unions is a fundamental human right. Collective bargaining on the part of private sector unions is a right precisely because it is private. But public sector employees are paid by the taxpayer (ie the voter). Their wages should be determined by the voters' elected representatives. In terms of collective bargaining procedures, the public employees have no right beyond that to petition the government, a right maintained by every U.S. citizen.
 
Workers certainly have a right to form voluntary associations at their place of employment 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.
 
Demon of Light said:
Workers certainly have a right to form voluntary associations at their place of employment 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.
Click to expand...

Even in the absence of collectve bargaining, public sector workers already have the right to form voluntary associations and lobbies on their own behalf. I know that the situation isn't entirely analogous, but the fact that military personnel work for a particular organization necessarily means that they have to cede some of their first amendment rights regarding free speech. I'm wondering if a similar standard should or shouldn't be applied here. Again, the floor is open for debate and I'm still kinda sitting on the fence on this issue.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Even in the absence of collectve bargaining, public sector workers already have the right to form voluntary associations and lobbies on their own behalf. I know that the situation isn't entirely analogous, but the fact that military personnel work for a particular organization necessarily means that they have to cede some of their first amendment rights regarding free speech. I'm wondering if a similar standard should or shouldn't be applied here. Again, the floor is open for debate and I'm still kinda sitting on the fence on this issue.
Click to expand...

No one cedes any of their rights no matter the organization they join. Collective bargaining only refers to negotiating on an agreement between employee and employer. Of course, one could argue that private employers have every right to tell their employees to go to hell, but the government is not a private employer and it does not change that banning collective bargaining itself is nothing short of an infringement on the natural right to liberty.
 
Demon of Light said:
No one cedes any of their rights no matter the organization they join. Collective bargaining only refers to negotiating on an agreement between employee and employer. Of course, one could argue that private employers have every right to tell their employees to go to hell, but the government is not a private employer and it does not change that banning collective bargaining itself is nothing short of an infringement on the natural right to liberty.
Click to expand...

So federal employees, and many state employees have had their rights infringed?
 
It's neither. It's something you fight for.
 
It shouldn't be either a right OR a privilege. It should be illegal.
 
CB is not something recognized as a right in the constitution nor does it come within the 9th amendment. if it exists it is due to statutory law which can (and should) be changed to disallow it.
 
nonpareil said:
It doesn't change the fact that managers negotiate with other people's money.
Click to expand...

Why it's not even close to being the same argument:

1. They are legally obligated to maximize return to shareholders
2. It's 100% voluntary, you can get in and out at nearly any time

It's not not just different, it's different in every meaningful way. I think you understand that a great many, let's say, conservative and tea party advocates do not in fact voluntarily want politicians to take money from them, or to spend it in the ways they do. They also do not like how so many government programs are unsustainably in the market because people don't actually value them enough to work for them.
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I voted "collective bargaining in the public sector is a fundamental human right."

No organization has the right to abuse worker and working conditions. Not a private company, and not a government service.

Labor organizations are how workers assemble to help protect them against such abuses. Now, the system isn't perfect - but then again, neither is a lack of collective bargaining.

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but that's what I think regarding the OP.
 
Blackdog said:
I think unions in general have outlived their usefulness. Unions as an idea much like communism seems pretty good at face value. The problem is the human corruption and favoritism infiltrate every aspect. This is why organized crime was able to get involved and stay involved for so long. It is power and money, and thus corruptible.
Click to expand...

Corruption and favoritism are prevalent in management as well. Read up on all the foreclosure fraud going on right now if you want some good examples.
 
StillBallin75 said:
So federal employees, and many state employees have had their rights infringed?
Click to expand...

If they are not allowed to organize and discuss their problems collectively with their employers then yes.
 
It's not a right, but I don't think it should be prohibited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom