"Public good" workers shouldn't be unionized

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by vivalostwages

Yeah, because everyone with a crappy job can just leave it, uproot everything and relocate to where their dream jobs are located. Jobs, decent or otherwise, are so darned easy to get these days, you know.

Well that's certainly a different metric! Dream job are never easy to come by. The fact remains that millions of millions of people get non-union jobs and move to new non-union jobs, many of them better jobs. This notion that unions are necessary is as incorrect.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I do not know. Why do you ask? Are you of the opinion that one must know the hiring laws of every city and township in the country to discuss the issue, writ large, as presented in the OP?

No. I was just addressing this statement

Originally Posted by magellan01

Oh and the unions that try to make it impossible to hire anyone who is not a union member.

So do you need to be a member of a union to be hired as a public employee? If not, your statement is a red herring.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

No. I was just addressing this statement

Then what does it matter what the specific situation is in Denver?

[casdave]

So far, the vast majority of this discussion revolves around pay. This seems to me to be revealing a great deal about the biases and stereotypes that some of the 'antis' hold.

Unions are not only about money, unions are about education, training, safety, equality and democracy.

Education is not an issue these days? Try telling that to the 50 year old who has found that the labour market has moved on and their skills are no longer relevant.

Unions have long recognised that education is a fundamental freedom, without an informed population the national government is free to do just whatever it wants, and for generations that's exactly what happened - education tends to be attacked nowadays by jacking up the cost, which keeps it out of reach for those further down the working orders, and it is lack of education that is critical in ensuring that they will tend to remain in that position - sure one or two will make good, but they are the exceptions.

Training - we live in a globalisation economy, why are 50 year old car workers losing their employment, this is not even worth answering, but it then begs the question what to do with those whose work has been displaced to lower cost countries?

Legislation, just as companies with vested interests lobby legislators, unions must keep up, individual salary negotiation workers simply do not have the capacity to do this - but it is at the political level where many of the terms and conditions that ALL WORKERS, unionised or not are fundamentally affected. Does anyone here genuinely believe that companies lobby to ensure best practice for their workforce?

Look at the Arab spring, you can argue one way or another, the fact remains, that unions and collectives have been able to empower whole populations, and if you remove their collective voice, what we see is the type of repression that we have in Syria. Extremist governments do their very best to disenfranchise workers, not only through the ballot box, they select their favourites, the corruption in such countries is quite staggering.

Safety - if you think you are an asset as a worker, and that your employer values your services, then you are sadly mistaken, there are very few such workers that are truly 'mission critical' and for the rest of us, we are readily replaced - perhaps with a little inconvenience - but remember that the air traffic controllers thought they were flame-proof, and they were not.

It really is no use hoping that single workers, isolated as they would be could do a bit of public interest whistle blowing. Extremist governments hate to see workers organise, they crush journalism and they crush collectivism - anyone advocating the compulsory stripping of union rights should take heed and understand the only way their own rights were obtained and continue to be maintained is through the independence and freedoms gained by collectivisation.

You get long term illness from asbestos? How many more millions have to die before you decide each and every one must negotiate their own compensation package? How do you every expect workers to build up the expertise they will need to protect themselves from a host of dangers? Don't give me all that rubbish about companies and moral concerns about safety, read the OHSA reports every week as I do and you quickly realise that companies or individual managers really don't give one for you.

You could try fighting your safety case on your own, perhaps hire your own legal team - good luck on that. Unionised workplaces are known to have over one third, and up to two thirds fewer serious life threatening accidents than non-unionised ones. You can ask me for cites on that if you wish, but trust me, there is no point in you pursuing that since there is a huge amount of stuff out there.

Who do you think limited the driving hours of tube train drivers? Who do you think limited the number of hours semi drivers can work in a shift, or airline pilots - sure it would be more 'cost effective' to push these people further and further, but that unionised safety has also ensured safety for the public too.

What we have here folks, are very poorly informed individuals trying to dance to their own personal bias without the slightest consideration for the wider work that unions do, and how that in turn benefits everyone in society.

Pay is only one aspect of union work, its the aspect that the average shop floor worker can see, and its the one that the politicians flag up and attacks - in truth its about balancing the power relationships between the employer and the employed - surely those 'antis' are not so stupid that they realise that power must be shared and not just left 'in trust' to the ruling classes?

[doreen]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Thanks for the info, but that does't change my opinion one iota. I find it an insult to a person that he or she would not negotiate their own compensation. Or not be able to. You're describing how things are. The OP asked should. And it certainly isn't a benefit of the community that pays the salaries of the workers for them to create leverage that artificially inflates their worth.

But it is a benefit to the community to not have the additional costs associated with individual negotiations. And it is more expensive. It might not make much of a difference for a small employer , or to only negotiate starting pay, but how much do you think it would cost NYS to individually negotiate compensation and benefits regularly with some 300,000 employees. And then remember that every county, town , city and village will have to do the same.And remember, unions don't only negotiate pay- they also negotiate working conditions, work hours, rules for accruing and using leave,transfer policies , health insurance benefits. There's a cost to having individual deals- right now, every member of bargaining unit X gets an X% raise on a particular date, or earns 10 days vacation after two years of employment. Individual negotiation will result in employee X getting a lower salary and 15 days vacation, or employee Y getting a higher salary and giving up health insurance, or Z giving up dental insurance and getting tuition reimbursement. They would have to either hire more people strictly to conduct these negotiations, or push the authority to negotiate way further down than either you or I would be comfortable with. It's a lot easier to give everyone a 3% raise effective April 1 than to give different people different raises on different effective dates, and therefore there would be more work (and a need for more employees) in timekeeping and payroll departments .Not to mention how it looks when the teacher who is the police commissioner's daughter negotiates a starting salary $10,000 above the average. Even if she legitimately negotiated it.

create leverage that artificially inflates their worth

What leverage? A strike? That's not the same thing as the right to collectively bargain and they don't always go together.

Whether you acknowledge it or not , government employers also benefit by negotiating with a group rather than on an individual basis. There's a reason my government employer will not bargain with me, even though I am not in a union.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Then what does it matter what the specific situation is in Denver?

And Los Angeles?
and Phoenix?
and anywhere else?

You made a statement that implies public-sector unions keep non-union members out. That (to use your words) is a false assumption.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Then what does it matter what the specific situation is in Denver?

And Los Angeles?
and Phoenix?
and anywhere else?

You made a statement that implies public-sector unions keep non-union members out. That (to use your words) is a false assumption.

So can teachers strike? You said those that are not easy to replace shouldn't be allowed to strike and now you equivocate with

Again, it depends on the time and the place, supply and demand. Generally, I would say that teachers would be the easiest to replace. The others require more specific training.

so by your own admission teachers can strike.

I have also demonstrated that you are wrong on
1. Union influence on working conditions
2. Unions using a closed-shop model
3. The ease with which public employees can strike

So now tell us why public sector workers should not unionize?

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J.H. Blair
-
Florence Patton Reece

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

And Los Angeles?
and Phoenix?
and anywhere else?

You made a statement that implies public-sector unions keep non-union members out. That (to use your words) is a false assumption.

Wait, are you of the opinion that public-sector unions don't do that? That it is not a characteristic associated with them? That it is only non-public sector unions who do that? I will certainly be gladdened to learn that that is the case. Or that the propensity for them to do so is less than I thought. What do you think the numbers are?

Secondly, I was not saying that they all keep union members out, or that they all do so via a stated rule. Do you disagree that some do it by stated rule? Or do you disagree with the fact that many of the policies put in place at the behest of the unions over the years have made it it near impossible (if not impossible) for people to be hired solely on their merit...sans teaching credentials, for example?

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

So can teachers strike? You said those that are not easy to replace shouldn't be allowed to strike and now you equivocate with
so by your own admission teachers can strike.

Yikes. So much wrong with this. And you're being very loose with facts here, which I think is getting us into trouble. So, I'll ask you to point to my exact phrasing, in context, that leads you to conclude that my positions (evidently) are. But I'll attempt to clarify in the meantime:

1) "those that are not easy to replace shouldn't be allowed to strike"
(I don't think any of them should be able to strike)

2) "teachers are easy to replace"
(I think you'll see that where you got this from was making the point that teachers would be the easiest of the examples given to be replaced. I'm sure you're logic course will come back to remind you that that is not the same thing as saying that "teachers are easy to replace". Though they very well may be the case given the laws of supply and demand.

It would also do you well to not have us fall into the nonsensical loop of you arguing what is against my what should be, which the OP asked for. As far as my "Again, it depends on the time and the place, supply and demand. Generally, I would say that teachers would be the easiest to replace. The others require more specific training." If you're of the mind that public safety workers and/or teachers are immune to the laws of supply and demand, I don't think I can help you.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

I have also demonstrated that you are wrong on
1. Union influence on working conditions

In what respect? Please you my exact words, in context, again. Show what my position was and how you showed it to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

2. Unions using a closed-shop model

Please provide support for the extraordinary claim that no union shops do this. Or that most do not. And then you can acknowledge what I just wrote in this post indicating that rules preventing non-union hires is only one way unions keep them out.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

3. The ease with which public employees can strike

Please supply my words indicating the specific position which I hold that you think I was wrong about, and then proof that I was wrong about it. I may have been. But I'm not clear on what you're referring to and you seem to have a tendency to take things I say and think, put them through some strawification device, and then expect me to recognize them and defend them. Perhaps in your fervor you've conflated my positions with others you are arguing against.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

So now tell us why public sector workers should not unionize?

Because it helps the union and the people in the union, not the municipality, from which the need for the jobs springs and who pay for the service. It's a mechanism that is inserted between worker (fireman, teacher, dog catcher) and the employer (the community). And that brings up an important point. The people doing the hiring in these situations should be acting as an agent of the community. The moral and fiduciary responsibility lies there. But with the unions in place, there is a tendency for the agent is more concerned with creating a power structure which to then use against the community for their own primary benefit. Like the example I gave upthread about the cops and firemen padding their last year(s) of work with overtime in order to inflate the salary their pension is based upon.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by doreen

But it is a benefit to the community to not have the additional costs associated with individual negotiations. And it is more expensive. It might not make much of a difference for a small employer , or to only negotiate starting pay, but how much do you think it would cost NYS to individually negotiate compensation and benefits regularly with some 300,000 employees. And then remember that every county, town , city and village will have to do the same.And remember, unions don't only negotiate pay- they also negotiate working conditions, work hours, rules for accruing and using leave,transfer policies , health insurance benefits. There's a cost to having individual deals- right now, every member of bargaining unit X gets an X% raise on a particular date, or earns 10 days vacation after two years of employment. Individual negotiation will result in employee X getting a lower salary and 15 days vacation, or employee Y getting a higher salary and giving up health insurance, or Z giving up dental insurance and getting tuition reimbursement. They would have to either hire more people strictly to conduct these negotiations, or push the authority to negotiate way further down than either you or I would be comfortable with. It's a lot easier to give everyone a 3% raise effective April 1 than to give different people different raises on different effective dates, and therefore there would be more work (and a need for more employees) in timekeeping and payroll departments .Not to mention how it looks when the teacher who is the police commissioner's daughter negotiates a starting salary $10,000 above the average. Even if she legitimately negotiated it.

You make a valid point regarding the nightmare of negotiating everything form a zero basis, but that really wouldn't be the case. For example, there are no unions in the advertising agencies and marketing companies I've worked in, but their are guidelines and guardrails. Every company had a vacation policy, within which there was room to maneuver if you were experienced and valuable enough (2-4 weeks). While their was rarely a stated salary for anyone other than the lowest paying jobs, when the company was interviewing you they knew that "Okay, this guy is applying for a job that I'm probably going to pay up $55,000 for. If they could get you for less they would. If they fell in love with you, they could usually pay another $10 grand. Naturally the higher the salary the more the leeway they came to the table with.

As far as benefit, the companies I've worked for never bargained with things like health benefits. That seemed to be off the table and the company was not free to have them fluctuate, legally. I'm not in HR, so I could be wrong about that. But in talking to friends of mine who had reason to try to negotiate better health care, there was no chance they could. The company could try to solve this by giving the employee some extra money, but that seemed to be the only way. The only things that seemed to be open ended were salary and raises, which were simply based on the work you've done up until that point.

Originally Posted by doreen

What leverage? A strike? That's not the same thing as the right to collectively bargain and they don't always go together.

No, I didn't mean that a strike was the only leverage.Collective bargaining is leverage all by itself. I think it's fine for this outside of the public sector (not that I'd be interested in it), but for public-sector employees places the community in a position they shouldn't be in.

Originally Posted by doreen

Whether you acknowledge it or not , government employers also benefit by negotiating with a group rather than on an individual basis. There's a reason my government employer will not bargain with me, even though I am not in a union.

I do acknowledge that there is a benefit. It's one less thing for the employers to have to deal with. The question is do the coasts of doing so outweigh the benefits. I'm of the mind that the extra mechanism is an unneeded appendage that should be cut off. also, I do find it troubling from a moral standpoint that I would get out in a huge pool of workers that would all be treated the same as me. It strips people of whom they are. If you are twice as good as someone else, should you not be paid considerably more? If you do a remarkable job in a particular year, should you not be compensated for that? I know that many schools are now trying to institute policies that allow for rewarding the individual, which is great. It;'s a step in the right direction. But I do beleive that we'd better off without them generally. And for the specific subset of "public-sector" employees and find them counter productive, creating a conflict of interest for the entity: is it there to serve the community? Or the people in the union?

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Please provide support for the extraordinary claim that no union shops do this. Or that most do not. And then you can acknowledge what I just wrote in this post indicating that rules preventing non-union hires is only one way unions keep them out.

Every school district I've ever worked in or heard about. Is that good enough?

[doreen]

Originally Posted by magellan01

You make a valid point regarding the nightmare of negotiating everything form a zero basis, but that really wouldn't be the case. For example, there are no unions in the advertising agencies and marketing companies I've worked in, but their are guidelines and guardrails. Every company had a vacation policy, within which there was room to maneuver if you were experienced and valuable enough (2-4 weeks). While their was rarely a stated salary for anyone other than the lowest paying jobs, when the company was interviewing you they knew that "Okay, this guy is applying for a job that I'm probably going to pay up $55,000 for. If they could get you for less they would. If they fell in love with you, they could usually pay another $10 grand. Naturally the higher the salary the more the leeway they came to the table with.

I'm not talking about starting from zero. I'm talking about having negotiations regarding initial salary and vacation within a range with every single employee, and then negotiating regarding raises and increased vacation once or twice a year. It's still a nightmare. Government employers will not do it.

As far as benefit, the companies I've worked for never bargained with things like health benefits. That seemed to be off the table and the company was not free to have them fluctuate, legally. I'm not in HR, so I could be wrong about that. But in talking to friends of mine who had reason to try to negotiate better health care, there was no chance they could. The company could try to solve this by giving the employee some extra money, but that seemed to be the only way. The only things that seemed to be open ended were salary and raises, which were simply based on the work you've done up until that point.

The reason your employers wouldn't negotiate regarding things like health benefits isn't because they can't , but again, because it's an administrative nightmare. There are laws prohibiting companies from offering better retirement and maybe better health insurance to the most highly paid employees, but no law says your employer can't increase your pay in exchange for for declining health insurance or for taking coverage only for yourself and not any dependents - and some employers will.

And unions do that sort of thing all the time- They give up two days vacation to keep health insurance premiums at the current level, they agree to a lag payroll or furloughs to avoid layoffs, they agree to pay a higher percentage of insurance premiums in exchange for a payment to those who decline the insurance. Your employer can't individually negotiate deferred pay or a furlough with you and your coworkers- it won't work if it's done individually. Your employer can only do that by fiat.

I do acknowledge that there is a benefit. It's one less thing for the employers to have to deal with. The question is do the coasts of doing so outweigh the benefits. I'm of the mind that the extra mechanism is an unneeded appendage that should be cut off. also, I do find it troubling from a moral standpoint that I would get out in a huge pool of workers that would all be treated the same as me. It strips people of whom they are. If you are twice as good as someone else, should you not be paid considerably more? If you do a remarkable job in a particular year, should you not be compensated for that?

I don't have a problem with that. But once you ban unions for government workers , how are you going to get the government to pay me more for doing a remarkable job rather than simply expanding how they currently treat the non-union workers? Remember, I'm one of them. Job X starts at $Y and it takes 6 years to get to top salary $Z. Everyone, no matter how remarkable a job you do.Except we've got a revenue problem, so it will take me at least 8 years to get to the top salary. I took the job with the expectation that it would take six years to get to top salary. But since there was no negotiation, there was no contract and I have no way to hold the governor to it.

[doreen]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Please provide support for the extraordinary claim that no union shops do this. Or that most do not. And then you can acknowledge what I just wrote in this post indicating that rules preventing non-union hires is only one way unions keep them out.

Hiring only union members is a "closed shop" and they have been illegal in the US since 1947. " Union shops", which hire non-union members who are then required to join the union are also illegal. "Agency shops" do not require union membership , but do require non-members to pay the portion of dues attributed to the cost of representation. A similar arrangement sometimes found in public sector employment is a "fair share" provision.

But with the unions in place, there is a tendency for the agent is more concerned with creating a power structure which to then use against the community for their own primary benefit. Like the example I gave upthread about the cops and firemen padding their last year(s) of work with overtime in order to inflate the salary their pension is based upon.

And why does all the blame go to the unions in those cases when the governors/legislators at a minimum agreed to the provisions and sometimes wrote them unilaterally ? My pension is very clear about exactly how my pension will be calculated. If I were eligible for overtime, (which I am not ) I would have to work that massive overtime for three years to have it affect my pension since it's based on my three highest consecutive years and no year can exceed the average of the other two by more than 10 %.

Of course unions seek to improve the lot of their members- that's their purpose. No matter what they tell you, the teachers union doesn't exist to improve education and the police union isn't there to fight crime. That's the job of the mayor , governor ,school board , etc. And it's also their job to resist outrageous demands on behalf of the community. Why do you want to ban unions when it's the politicians who are falling down on the job - most likely to gain union endorsements.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by doreen

Why do you want to ban unions when it's the politicians who are falling down on the job - most likely to gain union endorsements.

Actually, MOST likely because their brother-in-law runs the accounting firm that's padding their hours billed to the state, or their sister-in-law runs the catering service that runs the cafeteria at the state prison that just got a contract that helps bust the state budget.

[vivalostwages]

Originally Posted by magellan01

May I ask why you don't call the police and tell them someone was holding a gun to your head forcing you to work at a job that you considered to have such intolerable conditions?

May I ask why there isn't a third option---trying to change those conditions and make things better not just for those who work there at the time but for those who might work there later?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by vivalostwages

May I ask why there isn't a third option---trying to change those conditions and make things better not just for those who work there at the time but for those who might work there later?

I don get your point, but what I don't get is 1) why you think a union is necessary to do that, and 2) why you seems to have a stronger allegiance to the workers than to the community that they serve. The jobs exist because the community raised up and said, " Hey we need a Dog Catcher. Let's all chip in and pay for one. Once the Dog Catchers start worrying more about Dog Catchers than catching dogs, things have gotten out of whack. That, I think, is the crux of the issue. The pay, benefits, etc. should be just enough they have enough competent Dog Catcher. Anything else is waste and therefore, counter to the community's interest that created the position in the first place.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by doreen

Hiring only union members is a "closed shop" and they have been illegal in the US since 1947. " Union shops", which hire non-union members who are then required to join the union are also illegal. "Agency shops" do not require union membership , but do require non-members to pay the portion of dues attributed to the cost of representation. A similar arrangement sometimes found in public sector employment is a "fair share" provision.

Closed shops are "technically" illegal but agency shops are the exact same thing and still restrict the non-union members ability to negotiate and it also tends to restrict people from rising in the organization due to the arbitrary "seniority" rules.

It is also difficult to de-certifiy a union they maintain power through force, although "closed" by the employers "choice".

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/129457903.html

The union believes it has the right to work at the facility, but the company has hired a contractor that's staffing a workforce of laborers from another union, the Portland-based Operating Engineers Local 701. Representatives of the engineers union did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Organized labor can be and was a good thing but often times you are just being held down by another master.

To pretend this is done at behest of the employer just legal wrangling.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I don get your point, but what I don't get is 1) why you think a union is necessary to do that, and 2) why you seems to have a stronger allegiance to the workers than to the community that they serve. The jobs exist because the community raised up and said, " Hey we need a Dog Catcher. Let's all chip in and pay for one. Once the Dog Catchers start worrying more about Dog Catchers than catching dogs, things have gotten out of whack. That, I think, is the crux of the issue. The pay, benefits, etc. should be just enough they have enough competent Dog Catcher. Anything else is waste and therefore, counter to the community's interest that created the position in the first place.

1) Experience, at least in the education arena. I will admit that most of my experience is in large urban settings and you probably don't need a union in a small town with 2 elementary, 1 middle and 1 high schools but that is not the situation most teachers find themselves in. I notice you discount the evidence of experience given in this thread or use examples from private unions which usually uses a completely different operating style.

2) The community is more than able to set up the conditions for employment but the tradeoff is do you get someone qualified. A qualified person has the right to say I don't accept these conditions and I am willing to leave.

Do you agree with that?

My grandfather was a realtor in El Segundo and the first thing he would do is take his client to the house and point to Mines Field (now LAX) and say there's an airport there. It sounds stupid but when I lived in El Segundo, a lot of people would buy houses in the Hillcrest section then complain about airport noise. So to get a job knowing the conditions THEN complain is ridiculous. But that's not what unions do. Go back to dogcatchers for a minute and assume the dogcatchers form a union. The terms of conditions for employment was to catch pets and return them if possible or house them in the pound. Now the citizen want to change the terms so the dogcatchers have to catch wild animals and clear road kill.

Under those circumstances, do you believe the union can negotiate to get training, supplies, pay etc. to do that job? If the union is not satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations, do you believe the workers have the right to walk off the job (unpaid) to force the citizen to decide what concessions THEY are willing to make to have qualified people do the (now) Animal Control?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

1) Experience, at least in the education arena. I will admit that most of my experience is in large urban settings and you probably don't need a union in a small town with 2 elementary, 1 middle and 1 high schools but that is not the situation most teachers find themselves in. I notice you discount the evidence of experience given in this thread or use examples from private unions which usually uses a completely different operating style.

No, I do not completely discount it. But it is anecdotal. That doesn't mean it should be discounted, but simply accepted for what it is. If it's used to provide a bit of evidence, that's appropriate. If it's offered as proof of anything, then it's simply fallacious. I've been assuming you're using it the former sense, correct?

Also, experience, or anecdotal evidence, got to what is. As I've said several times now, I was addressing the "should" stated in the title of the OP. I can accept your experience for its full value without it dictating my answer to the OP.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

2) The community is more than able to set up the conditions for employment but the tradeoff is do you get someone qualified. A qualified person has the right to say I don't accept these conditions and I am willing to leave.

Do you agree with that?

Assuming that that should be a question mark at the end of the first sentence...I think the point of the first sentence is a valid concern. But I think the answer is, "Yes". If I were tasked with hiring a DOg Catcher in a town that had none, I could figure out how to go about that by contacting DCS in another town, etc. If there is already a DC department, I 9the community) would obviously seek the advice of the people in that position (assuming they're doing a good job, of course).

Sentence 2? Unless it's a trick question, of course I agree with it.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Go back to dogcatchers for a minute and assume the dogcatchers form a union. The terms of conditions for employment was to catch pets and return them if possible or house them in the pound. Now the citizen want to change the terms so the dogcatchers have to catch wild animals and clear road kill.

Under those circumstances, do you believe the union can negotiate to get training, supplies, pay etc. to do that job? If the union is not satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations, do you believe the workers have the right to walk off the job (unpaid) to force the citizen to decide what concessions THEY are willing to make to have qualified people do the (now) Animal Control?

This is a non-starter for me because I don't think the Dog Catchers employed by the community should be able to form a union. But the answer to what you pose in the scenario can be found in what you wrote preceding it:

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

A qualified person has the right to say I don't accept these conditions and I am willing to leave.

I see that as part of the conversation. And union or not, it leads to a compromise position that both parties are satisfied with. The only thing the union does is give the worker position more power. I think that is acceptable in a private setting, but with a function that is created and paid by the community, it puts the community in a less advantageous position.

And just to make sure I answer your hypothetical, no, I don't think any public employees should be able to strike. But if there is a union, and they do strike, I think the community has a right to simply replace them. Which is my position on all union strikes.

Now, let's look at other functions that benefit the community but is often done by non-community employees. Let's take roofing. Every so often the roofs of town building need to be replaced. Those workers (for the purposes of this argument) can form unions to till the cows come home. The difference is that if the community (let's say the Mayor, just to make it easy) is not happy with the deal—the amount of hours worked per day, the cost, the working method, the quality—he can just go hire another roofing company. One that has a different union or no union at all.

With the Dog Cacthers, Firemen, Teachers, it's not so clean. And the entity that is put in a less advantageous position is the very community that formed the teams of workers.