Are Public Unions Necessary?

[a_new_machine]

Wisconsin is raising hell in its attempts to balance a budget that's heavily weighed down by union-bargained benefits for public employees. Of course, they're taking the "nuke it from orbit" approach and removing collective bargaining rights from public employees

Comments

[kitlizzy]

I work at a large university, and in my experiences with the union re: admin personnel, etc is that the union is needed not so much for the pay, as it to prevent bad supervisors/management/etc from abusing and/or firing staff for no good reason.

The unions don't only protect your pay, they protect you from power-tripping assholes. :P

[a_new_machine]

But, of course, they *do* also protect your pay. And your job security from legitimate concerns. In New Hampshire, our budget was seriously unbalanced, and we needed to cut public services. The unions refused to take job cuts, preferring instead to foist the additional costs off on local government (cities/towns). So we had more employees doing less work. Public services were worse-impacted because the Governor was forced to institute furlough days, rather than simply leaving everything open but with fewer staff members. In the meantime, our court system was forced to cut so deep they had to suspend trials for a month, and they're not even open normal business hours anymore. As a result, the courts are facing constitutional challenges for failure to provide speedy trials.

[kitlizzy]

That's the kind of thing that makes me be embarrassed to be part of a union, honestly. Our U just had a furlough as well and the union was outraged about it - but I'd rather lose those days of my pay than have other people lose their jobs. (Neverminding the union's constant goings-on about the need to "chop from the top" by cutting the salaries of the people making more than $200K. You get what you pay for when you hire Deans, I'm just saying.)

I did not have a choice about being a union or not - if I want this job, I *have* to pay the dues. I would agree with the concept of letting people decide whether or not they want to be union or not except then you start running into intimidation issues and a weakening of the union's leverage to get things done, and then things are even more of a mess.

Perhaps if we made adequately funding education and public services a priority, we wouldn't need the unions around to get up on their soapboxes and yell about the problems we have.

[a_new_machine]

I did not have a choice about being a union or not - if I want this job, I *have* to pay the dues.

Another issue I have with unions in general is that compulsory element. If I'm OK with going it alone on my benefits package, why should I join the union? Why should the other employees get to dictate what I get paid? Why can't I keep my job if I'm willing to take less than they are?

[policraticus]

I'm going to come right out and say it: Public unions should be illegal.

[vnsplshr]

This.

[gunslnger]

I'd agree with that.

[a_new_machine]

Except, as the info provided in the post points out, public sectors are less impacted by market forces, and thus less likely to be so slapped.

[a_new_machine]

I dunno. See my points re: NH. The unions refused to take reasonable job cuts, and so the entire state gets "slapped" with even lower service availability and a federal constitutional challenge.

[rasilio]

"The counter-argument I've heard is that many fields only offer employment in the public sector (teachers spring to mind). This means that the same dynamic exists as existed between the Company Town bosses and the laborers."Bullshit

Restricted Vote for public employees

[russj]

In the end the only way you can grant public employees collective bargaining rights is if you restrict their voting rights

I suspect that was the reasoning behind the creation of the District of Columbia, which has no representation in Congress.

They wanted to restrict the influence of the workers who wield such great bureaucratic power.

Re: Restricted Vote for public employees

[a_new_machine]

IIRC the bigger concern was with a state having jurisdiction over the capital. Imagine the state creating zoning laws that bar the creation of edifices necessary to house, say, the Senate or House?

From Wikipedia:

[nevermind6794]

James Madison expounded the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788, in his "Federalist No. 43", arguing that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[7] An attack on the Congress at Philadelphia by a mob of angry soldiers, known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, had emphasized the need for the government to see to its own security.

[tridus]

(Usual disclaimer applies: I'm a bureaucrat

[a_new_machine]

Interesting that here, it's seen as employees v s. legislators. Normally I tend to see it as employees vs. taxpayers.

[tridus]

Legislators are ultimately the ones who set the budgets, set the tax rate, create the rules the bureaucracy works under, dictate the policy direction, and decide what to accept for public sector contract offers.

Taxpayers are in my experience only vaguely aware of what is going on in regards to all that at the best of times, and are usually blissfully ignorant. Which is probably good, because around here your average taxpayer thinks the public service is four times larger then it really is (sadly, that's not an exaggeration).

Its legislators who also cry poor while voting themselves a pay hike and a corporate tax cut.

[rasilio]

I don't know about Canada but you might want to rethink that stance after you look at this list