• 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
Boo Radley said:
Why? Just asking . . . .
Click to expand...

Because the only reason that the public unions exist is to lobby government to pay them more than the job is worth. If they didn't, then they would have no reason for existing. I'm all for paying teachers more if we needed more qualified teachers and it was an effective way of recruiting them...but the unions have also ensured that there will be no merit pay.

So every time the government overpays for public services, whether because of unions or lobbyists or old-fashioned corruption, that means that there is less taxpayer money that could be spent on something worthwhile. Government services exist to benefit the PUBLIC, not to benefit the government employees.
 
Wow, the juxtaposition of these two thoughts on one post with not problem!
Yes, Amazed I am.

Public Employees have NO fundamental "right" to go on strike.
vs.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson
 
Kandahar said:
Because the only reason that the public unions exist is to lobby government to pay them more than the job is worth.
Click to expand...

The same could be said of government contractors, especially those who get no-bid contracts, but I haven't heard of many Republican governors or Congressmen prohibiting those.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Wow, the juxtaposition of these two thoughts on one post with not problem!
Yes, Amazed I am.

Public Employees have NO fundamental "right" to go on strike.
vs.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

Public employees are free to go on strike and parade around with signs all they like...but they shouldn't expect to have a job waiting for them after they've abandoned their duties to the people who are paying their salary.
 
samsmart said:
The same could be said of government contractors, especially those who get no-bid contracts, but I haven't heard of many Republican governors or Congressmen prohibiting those.
Click to expand...

I agree, if government contractors are chosen in non-transparent processes, then that's definitely a problem. There might be a few situations where such transparency is impractical, but for the most part you're absolutely right. Government shouldn't subsidize or overpay for government contractors either.
 
Cephus said:
With other willing people's money.



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.
Click to expand...


You have quite a number of choices: Andorra, Bahamas, Monaco, Nauru...
 
megaprogman said:
I believe collective bargaining is an aspect of the right to assemble in the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Teacher's Unions/Collective Bargaining: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law
Constitutional Considerations Regarding Unions
The First Amendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS provides: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . the right of people peaceably to assemble." This right, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, has been interpreted to give teachers and other employees the right to free association, including the right to join a union, such as the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. However, the Constitution does not grant teachers the right to bargain collectively with employers. This right is based on applicable provisions in state constitutions, federal statutes, or state statutes. Similarly, teachers do not have a constitutional right to strike, though other federal law or state law may permit teachers to strike.
Click to expand...
My state among 20 something others bans or limits collective bargaining. We seem to be doing ok.
I only know one teacher and I remember her saying how grateful she was for her great healthcare plan, and other benefits she has as a teacher. She was going through a difficult and complicated pregnancy at the time. Maybe collective bargaining isn't all that important.
TEXAS: Statute prohibits public employees from entering into a collective bargaining agreement. Statute also prohibits strikes by public employees
Click to expand...
 
ElijahGalt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

Managers are not "legally obligated to maximize return to shareholders". That's just nonsense. Managers have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders as politicians have a duty to their constituents.

As I said before, they can get out, but at a loss. There are circumstances where shareholders can't sell their shares because of illiquid market. Sometime minority shareholders are forced to sell when they don't want to, or accept new management that they don't want, because it is forced on them by majority shareholders.


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.
Click to expand...

The second part of that post you quoted has the answer to this already.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Public employees are free to go on strike and parade around with signs all they like...but they shouldn't expect to have a job waiting for them after they've abandoned their duties to the people who are paying their salary.
Click to expand...

Re: Is Collective Bargaining in the public sector a Right, or is it a Privilege?

For a second I thought you might put them in jail for not working.

Yes, all the public has to do is to hire some new employees. And, yes the Public had better have negotiated their previous contracts correctly to allow this, etc.
 
Kandahar said:
Because the only reason that the public unions exist is to lobby government to pay them more than the job is worth. If they didn't, then they would have no reason for existing. I'm all for paying teachers more if we needed more qualified teachers and it was an effective way of recruiting them...but the unions have also ensured that there will be no merit pay.

So every time the government overpays for public services, whether because of unions or lobbyists or old-fashioned corruption, that means that there is less taxpayer money that could be spent on something worthwhile. Government services exist to benefit the PUBLIC, not to benefit the government employees.
Click to expand...


Very wrong.

In a June 15 telephone press conference/emergency meeting in Pittsburgh on the issue with Steelworkers President Leo Gerard and Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts, OSHA Administrator Dr. David Michaels added that the targets of the shaming would be "those companies that aren't playing by the rules" on worker safety and health.

"We have every right to call the CEO of any company and tell them what we want, and we will," Michaels added. And he urged workers to report violations.

Gerard, Roberts and Michaels spoke at an emergency safety conference of oil workers the Steelworkers union called in Pittsburgh, after a string of fatal oil refinery accidents - even before the deep-sea BP well blew up - and after deaths of 37 coal miners so far this year.

Michaels said he has already called the oil companies' lobby on the carpet to justify its practices, after the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil well fire, explosion and sinking in the Gulf of Mexico almost two months ago. The blast at the mile-deep well killed 11 workers and has spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf in the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

Oil and mine disasters show the need for stronger job safety laws, and stronger enforcement, both union leaders said. "There's got to be an equal consequence" for companies when their laxity or refusal to protect workers costs lives, Gerard said.

Harkening back to the 1989 Pittston coal strike, where the United Mine Workers was fined $64 million for a peaceful protest that blocked a road, Roberts said "what corporate CEOs go through" when their firms kill people "is vastly different" than what hit his union.

"Their fines are not adequate. We need stronger laws, bigger penalties and criminal penalties for executives who commit these acts," Roberts added.

Both unions are leading labor's fight for the Protect American Workers Act (PAWA), a measure to strengthen the 40-year-old Occupational Safety and Health Act.

OSHA to publicly shame job safety violators » peoplesworld
Click to expand...
 
Another red herring.

Sorry, no....

It isn't "tyranny" to tell a Gov worker he/she can't strike.

They aren't underpaid, they have the best benefits money can buy...and the best pensions, in short...they should shut up and work.

They don't get to shut the Gov down because THEY don't want to pay any part of their benefits.
OhIsee.Then said:
Wow, the juxtaposition of these two thoughts on one post with not problem!
Yes, Amazed I am.

Public Employees have NO fundamental "right" to go on strike.
vs.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
 
nonpareil said:
That's very similiar to the communist idea. Government dictates pay, workers do the work, and don't complain.
Click to expand...

Texans don't have collective bargaining and we are NOT communists.:boxer
 
Without unions, corporations have the annoying habit of oppressing their lower level employees to the breaking point. Laws and regulations be damned. Anyone who complains is fired and the case is settled out of court without much real repercussion to the employer.
 
pssst...this isn't about Private Sector Unions....

Hatuey said:
Without unions, corporations have the annoying habit of oppressing their lower level employees to the breaking point. Laws and regulations be damned. Anyone who complains is fired and the case is settled out of court without much real repercussion to the employer.
Click to expand...
 
Barbbtx said:
Texans don't have collective bargaining and we are NOT communists.:boxer
Click to expand...

Neither do communists. His point was that the system proposed by Elija is very similar to those used in communism. Government employees are subject to the pay that the employer decrees without the ability to make demands.
 
Glad to see my OP provoked some thoughtful debate and legitimate arguments rather than the typical baiting and trolling that has been characteristic of most of our polls recently. I'm still sitting on the fence on this issue, but way to go guys, I think both sides bring up legitimate points and that this isn't a black-and-white issue.
 
Amazed said:
pssst...this isn't about Private Sector Unions....
Click to expand...

pssssst. read the beginning of the thread. People were talking about the usefulness of unions in general. My post is in respose to that Newb.
 
Actually you are responding to Barb who is telling you that Texas doesn't have the CB chip to play....sorry ;)

Now....you DO know the hub bub is about Public Sector workers...don't you?

Hatuey said:
pssssst. read the beginning of the thread. People were talking about the usefulness of unions in general. My post is in respose to that Newb.
Click to expand...
 
If anything I think it's a privilege. It isn't a right, and I think it is largely abused to provide benefits that do not merit the job and simply reward laziness at the taxpayers expense.
 
Amazed said:
Actually you are responding to Barb who is telling you that Texas doesn't have the CB chip to play....sorry ;)
Click to expand...

No. I'm not. Do you know how replying works? If the person's quote is not in your post, you're not responding to their post. I replied to the question of unions without quoting anybody in specific. On the contrary , you like the newb that you are, interjected yourself into this thread and decided to quote my post in response to the question of unions.

Now, piss off troll.
 
Last edited:
Here is the quote from the OP lil guy ;)
'
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.

What were you saying now?

Hatuey said:
No. I'm not. Do you know how replying works? If the person's quote is not in your post, you're not responding to their post. I replied to the question of unions without quoting anybody in specific. On the contrary , you like the newb that you are, interjected yourself into this thread and decided to quote my post in response to the question of unions.

Now, piss off troll.
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
Here is the quote from the OP lil guy ;)
'
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.

What were you saying now?
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to the 2nd post, not my OP.
 
I can't seem to enter :rolf here - but I'll say it anyway :rolf :rolf :rolf !!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom