"Public good" workers shouldn't be unionized

[CheeseDonkey]

I once heard an interesting opinion that I would like to get your thoughts on.

An individual once told me something to the effect of individuals in an organization that exists to protect or support the public good, like police officers, firemen and governmental employees, shouldn't be allowed to unionize because once they unionize they stop caring about the good of the public and start caring mainly about the good of themselves. She cited a couple instances where, police officers who had done "ungood" things got their jobs back by the force of the union, which in her opinion was obviously not good for the public.

What are your thoughts on that opinion? Does it makes sense, or is it hogwash?

[YogSosoth]

Hogwash. People are capable of caring for more than one thing.

[Duckster]

Professional federal worker, and union member, checking in. My union bargains for working conditions. Congress hold absolute power with everything else.

It's been my experience that my fellow union members take a greater role in securing the public good, than my non-union co-workers doing exactly the same job. Perhaps it's because we take a greater responsibility for what we do, knowing that abusing the system could result in a greater loss to all, including the public. I also believe good and bad exists everywhere, regardless of union affiliation, and regardless of public vs. private employers. It's just so easy for the power brokers to demonize public employees (especially union members) because the ignorant masses don't put much effort in finding answers for themselves. At the same time, many federal workers just do the job, and are tired of all the bullshit. And in many cases, there are fine lines of ethics, conduct and confidentiality we don't cross, even to our own detriment. Many of us have duties tied directly to statutory authority, meaning Congress has explicitly dictated what we can and cannot do. If you have a problem with those programs, blame Congress.

And yes, many of us are disgusted with GSA and the Secret Service/military right now. It's so easy to taint all federal workers with a wide brush, and get away with it, because the mob mentality has been stirred for a long time.

[even sven]

I don't think a lot of people are entering the bureaucracy because it's their deep calling to be a functionary. The opportunity to serve the public is one benefit of public service. But it's one of many trade-offs. and I really don't think it is the key one. You don't hire talented, dedicated workers by warm fuzzies alone.

Corporations are supposed to serve their customers, but we can all find cases of corporations not just not serving their customers, but actively bending them over the table and screwing them. Every business has its bad eggs.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Don't get me going on "public service".

Aren't public employees the majority of union members now? Especially if you included school teachers who are quasi-public. Apparently its easier for them to unionize not just allowable.

[Evil Captor]

Just the usual anti-union crap. We need more people in unions in America, not less, public good or not.

[Little Nemo]

Isn't the public good best served by attracting the best employees to public service? Better working conditions is part of that.

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Just the usual anti-union crap. We need more people in unions in America, not less, public good or not.

Just the usual union crap.

There is another point against unionizing public workers. Any 'labor action' by publc workers is not to the detriment of an 'unfair, uncooperative' corporation; it's against the public they are supposed to be serving.

See police officer's 'blue flu' or similar actions by fire departments. Or threats by sanitation workers to quit collecting. It's bullying, hurting citizens or putting them in danger in order to strongarm more benefits. Basically, extortion to modify an existing employment contract.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Isn't the public good best served by attracting the best employees to public service? Better working conditions is part of that.

Honestly, what US government employee really has to deal with poor 'working conditions?' Yeah, you can always improve conditions; hell, I'd love softer lighting and less ambient noise. And an ergonomic keyboard. And a milder coffee blend, that's not so hard on my stomach. And....

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

There is another point against unionizing public workers. Any 'labor action' by publc workers is not to the detriment of an 'unfair, uncooperative' corporation; it's against the public they are supposed to be serving.

See police officer's 'blue flu' or similar actions by fire departments. Or threats by sanitation workers to quit collecting. It's bullying, hurting citizens or putting them in danger in order to strongarm more benefits. Basically, extortion to modify an existing employment contract.

I couldn't agree more. IMO, collective bargaining and striking should be disallowed by all public employee groups for which a person cannot be replaced the next day with a non-union worker. It is a matter of both responsible spending of public dollars and safety. I agree that there existence results in a form of blackmail.

And does anyone really think municipalities would be in the financial dire straights they're in if public workers unions weren't at the table pushing for the ridiculous retirement benefits many of them receive?

The public needs to wake up. Some of the deals our firefighters and policemen get (of which I have many friends) is completely anti-"public good".

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by magellan01

The public needs to wake up. Some of the deals our firefighters and policemen get (of which I have many friends) is completely anti-"public good".

Specifically, what deals do you refer to?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by CheeseDonkey

I once heard an interesting opinion that I would like to get your thoughts on.

An individual once told me something to the effect of individuals in an organization that exists to protect or support the public good, like police officers, firemen and governmental employees, shouldn't be allowed to unionize because once they unionize they stop caring about the good of the public and start caring mainly about the good of themselves.

No. Those of us who work for the public good are still workers, we are not slaves. It's perfectly valid for us to want to make sure that we are well compensated and well treated even while we're working for the public good. What sort of a person demands that others work on their behalf, and then has the nerve to claim that it's beyond the pale when those workers want their own personal needs met? That's some chutzpah, right there.

[Saint Cad]

I've works for four school districts with varying levels of union effectiveness:
#1 Extremely strong union. Very advesarial.
Prevented abuses of administration like when principals did not want to follow state laws when firing teachers. Protected us when the district wanted to dock teachers 30 minutes of pay because according to the superintendant (who was never a teacher and had no credential) "teachers don't work during passing period."

#2 Mediocre union. Very collaborative with district.
Just made sure the district followed the contract and negotiated for pay, hours etc. Most of their work was lobbying on education issues in the state capital. No real drama.

#3 No union. Superintendent fired any teacher trying to start one (and yes that is illegal)
I cannot begin to tell you how abusive the situation was. We had to work outside of our contract hours for free. The superintendent had his own ideas about pedagogy (again, no experience in education, no credential and no background in pedagogy) and if he saw you teaching in a manner he did not personally approve of, you were fired on the spot. He would literally call HR and they would send two employees down to escort you immediately off campus and you were fired. The pay was at least $10000 per yr below other districts and although you could theoretically make a lot more, the district never approved anyone's paperwork for higher pay because it was all based on subjective criteria. Let me give you an example that made me leave. On an observation, each area of teaching was rated 1-4 with 4 the top. On one observations I had gotten a bunch of 3's and I asked the administrator what I had to do to earn a 4 since all the feedback was positive with no negatives. He didn't have an answer and told me flat out that 3's were good enough. Did I mention you needed 4's to even be considered for a pay raise? Or how about the time I was marked down on an observation from the district for certain things I did during groupwork. A month later that same employee gave a professional development on effective groupwork practices. Any guess on what certain things she mentioned as best practices?
Do you think a union would allow that?

#4 Decent union but IMHO not really that well run.
Luckily we have a real good administration in this district otherwise they could run roughshod over us. When they asked for feedback on how they were handling negotiations after a second straight year of giving concessions to the district because of the economy, I asked what concessions will the district give us when the economy turns around. This sort of quid pro quo is common when teacher union negotiations happen but to my union, it was like a foreign concept

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Just the usual union crap.

There is another point against unionizing public workers. Any 'labor action' by publc workers is not to the detriment of an 'unfair, uncooperative' corporation; it's against the public they are supposed to be serving.

The public can also be unfair and uncooperative - particularly when it comes to police. I mean, yeah, police unions often go to bat for cops that really shouldn't be on the force anymore. They also go to bat for good cops who have been falsely accused of misconduct. The next time there's a Tawana Brawley, and the public is calling for some cops' heads based on media reports and demagoguery, who's going to stand up for the accused, if not their union? The mayor's office? I think it's a good idea to have an organization that is not entirely dependent on polling numbers involved in these sorts of decisions.

See police officer's 'blue flu' or similar actions by fire departments. Or threats by sanitation workers to quit collecting. It's bullying, hurting citizens or putting them in danger in order to strongarm more benefits. Basically, extortion to modify an existing employment contract.

First of all, weakening unions won't prevent blue flu. "Blue flu" exists specifically because some unions are legally prevented from striking - instead of striking, they all call in sick at the same time. There's not really any way to prevent that, short of not giving cops any sick days at all.

Secondly, while I have no doubt that there are many examples of unjustified union work stoppages, there are also plenty of fully justified union work stoppages. I think you're being unfair by automatically assuming that any action by a police or similar union is just "bullying for more benefits."

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Odesio

Specifically, what deals do you refer to?

Perhaps Magellan was referring to the fact that:

Total employer compensation cost in 2011 averaged $40.76 per hour for state and local workers; for private industry workers it was $28.24 per hour. The disparities are also big for federal workers. A janitor working for Uncle Sam makes $30,110 a year, while his or her private-sector peer makes $24,188. Federal graphic designers, “recreation workers,” and even P.R. flacks all make between 50 percent and 100 percent more than their private-sector colleagues.

Then there's the very generous pensions for public workers:

These huge pension increases have eaten away at public finances, most spectacularly in California, where a bipartisan bill that passed virtually without debate unleashed the odious “3 percent at 50” retirement plan in 1999. Under this plan, at age 50 many categories of public employees are eligible for 3 percent of their final year’s pay multiplied by the number of years they’ve worked. So if a police officer starts working at age 20, he can retire at 50 with 90 percent of his final salary until he dies, and then his spouse receives that money for the rest of her life. Even during the economic crisis, “3 percent at 50” and the forces behind it have only become more entrenched.

In the midst of California’s 2008–09 fiscal meltdown, with the impact of deluxe public pensions making daily headlines, the city of Fullerton nevertheless sought to retroactively increase the defined-benefit retirement plan for its city employees by a jaw-dropping 25 percent. What’s more, the Fullerton City Council negotiated the increase in closed session, outside public view. Under California’s open meetings law, known as the Brown Act, even legitimate closed-session items such as contract negotiations are supposed to be advertised so that the public has a clear idea of what’s being discussed. But the Fullerton agenda for that night only vaguely referred to labor negotiations.

And then, of course, there's the fact that many public employee shenanigans either are illegal or should be:

A large percentage of public safety officials —more than two-thirds of management-level officials at the California Highway Patrol, for instance—come down with something widely known as “Chief’s Disease” about a year before their scheduled retirement. “High-ranking [CHP] officers, nearing the end of their careers, routinely pursued disability claims that awarded them workers’ comp settlements,” John Hill and Dorothy Korber of the Sacramento Bee reported in 2004. “That, in turn, led in many cases to disability retirements. As they collected their disability pensions, some of these former CHP chiefs embarked on rigorous second careers—one as assistant sheriff of Yolo County, for example, another as the security director for San Francisco International Airport.”

When Mike Clesceri was mayor of Fullerton (a part-time position filled by a city council member), he also worked as an investigator for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. As his retirement approached, Clesceri claimed to have an extreme case of acid reflux, which would help him net a tax-free pension of $58,000 a year, plus cost-of-living increases. Even while retired with that alleged disability, Clesceri pursued a local police chief’s job, retained his mayorship, and ran a tough re-election campaign. He even had the time to have his brother-in-law, an attorney, send threatening letters to members of the community who commented on the absurdity of his disability pension. As Clesceri explained in a newspaper column, the disability only applied to his job at the D.A.’s office.

[Manda JO]

Public workers generally cannot negotiate their salary or any part of their compensation (PTO or benefits) on an individual level: it's set on a table. Prohibiting collective negotiation as well means that communication is entirely one way.

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

No. Those of us who work for the public good are still workers, we are not slaves. It's perfectly valid for us to want to make sure that we are well compensated and well treated even while we're working for the public good. What sort of a person demands that others work on their behalf, and then has the nerve to claim that it's beyond the pale when those workers want their own personal needs met? That's some chutzpah, right there.

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Public workers generally cannot negotiate their salary or any part of their compensation (PTO or benefits) on an individual level: it's set on a table. Prohibiting collective negotiation as well means that communication is entirely one way.

When you take the job, you're told what your salary and compensation will be. So you can't negotiate when you accept a government job; that's just part of the deal. Agreeing to do the job for a particular wage, and then attempting to force your employer to provide more....that's chutzpah.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Just the usual union crap.

There is another point against unionizing public workers. Any 'labor action' by publc workers is not to the detriment of an 'unfair, uncooperative' corporation; it's against the public they are supposed to be serving.

Sorry for the double post but I missed this the first time.

I don't "serve" the public. I work for the public.
Teaching, policing, firefighting, political office, etc. is not community service. It is a job. If you want service then look for people in orange vests picking up trash on the freeway. I work for the state and the state is an employer like IBM or the corner store down the street and should be held to employment standards like everyone else.

I would also contend that your statement shows that you have no experience in a public sector jobs, teachers (from my experience), police and firefighters (from those I know) put up with quite a lot of abuse in their jobs precisely because they "serve the public" and job actions are considered when the conditions they work in are such that they cannot do their job. Would you go out and get a bachelor's degree and pay for tests to do you job if you couldn't earn a living wage to feed you family? Teachers won't so we fight for decent pay along with the right to not be abused by parents and students. Do you pay for your office supplies to do your job? I do because in some districts supplies are not adequate. I know police officers that are frustrated because they want to be out doing their job but are stuck doing needless paperwork.

So I'll make a deal with you. Since you see those positions as serving the public and not real jobs, we will not pay teachers, police, firefighters, politicians, judges, state, county and city employees and give them no protection from employment abuse and in return we agree not to strike. Have fun and my resignation will be on your desk in an hour.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

When you take the job, you're told what your salary and compensation will be. So you can't negotiate when you accept a government job; that's just part of the deal. Agreeing to do the job for a particular wage, and then attempting to force your employer to provide more....that's chutzpah.

What about agreeing to do the job for the year, and then at the end of the year (or five, or ten) wanting to discuss your options? Why is that chutzpah?

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Honestly, what US government employee really has to deal with poor 'working conditions?' Yeah, you can always improve conditions; hell, I'd love softer lighting and less ambient noise. And an ergonomic keyboard. And a milder coffee blend, that's not so hard on my stomach. And....

I've talked to corrections officers in KY who were paid under $23,000 a year (which doesn't help attract or retain quality officers), have no training for new hires (creates a very unsafe working environment when you're dealing with inmates), don't have access to weapons (again, safety), and don't have radios that work inside the walls of the prison. Officers that were friends with the warden got the plum shifts and assignments.

These guys were fighting tooth and nail for a union because the state sure as hell wasn't changing things out of the goodness of their hearts. So you can take your soft lighting and milder coffee and...never mind this ain't the pit.

ETA: Other government employees that often have poor working conditions: Nurses, road crews, inner city school teachers, sanitation workers, probation officers, social workers.

[Invisible Chimp]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

These huge pension increases have eaten away at public finances, most spectacularly in California, where a bipartisan bill that passed virtually without debate unleashed the odious “3 percent at 50” retirement plan in 1999. Under this plan, at age 50 many categories of public employees are eligible for 3 percent of their final year’s pay multiplied by the number of years they’ve worked. So if a police officer starts working at age 20, he can retire at 50 with 90 percent of his final salary until he dies, and then his spouse receives that money for the rest of her life. Even during the economic crisis, “3 percent at 50” and the forces behind it have only become more entrenched.

In the midst of California’s 2008–09 fiscal meltdown, with the impact of deluxe public pensions making daily headlines, the city of Fullerton nevertheless sought to retroactively increase the defined-benefit retirement plan for its city employees by a jaw-dropping 25 percent. What’s more, the Fullerton City Council negotiated the increase in closed session, outside public view. Under California’s open meetings law, known as the Brown Act, even legitimate closed-session items such as contract negotiations are supposed to be advertised so that the public has a clear idea of what’s being discussed. But the Fullerton agenda for that night only vaguely referred to labor negotiations.

If you have a problem with these, it sounds like you should blame the legislatures, not unions. The "3 percent at 50" was even bipartisan with little debate, so you can't blame the evil liberals either.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

When you take the job, you're told what your salary and compensation will be.

Yet again, despite your demands that others work on your behalf, for your good and at their expense. Initial expectations, salary schedules, benefits packages, etc... can all be modified by continuing negotiation. The idea that those working for the public good cannot try to negotiate for a better life, to say nothing about collectively bargaining to avoid abuses by management, and must simply accept management's position as divine fiat, is absurd. If you think that negotiation shows "chutzpah", you don't understand what the word means.

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

When you take the job, you're told what your salary and compensation will be.

How authoritarian. In a free society, the level of a worker's compensation should be the result of a negotiation between equals, not a present handed down by some all-powerful overlord. Workers are free to band together and price their labor at whatever the level the market will bear. That's free enterprise, baby. And if you don't like it, move to someplace more repressive.

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by Miller

The public can also be unfair and uncooperative - particularly when it comes to police. I mean, yeah, police unions often go to bat for cops that really shouldn't be on the force anymore. They also go to bat for good cops who have been falsely accused of misconduct. The next time there's a Tawana Brawley, and the public is calling for some cops' heads based on media reports and demagoguery, who's going to stand up for the accused, if not their union? The mayor's office? I think it's a good idea to have an organization that is not entirely dependent on polling numbers involved in these

They do go to bad for bad and good cops. As far as police go, I'm not against them having an organization that they can rely on for legal defense and similar matters. They do have a job that has a unique potential for civil liability.

Originally Posted by Miller

First of all, weakening unions won't prevent blue flu. "Blue flu" exists specifically because some unions are legally prevented from striking - instead of striking, they all call in sick at the same time. There's not really any way to prevent that, short of not giving cops any sick days at

Some unions should e legally prevented from striking...police definitely fall into that category. Any public safety employee or anyone who fills a vital service should be similarly barred from striking. Air traffic controllers, anyone? No, there's no way to keep an entire shift from calling in sick...it's still petty, entitled bullshit, though.

Originally Posted by Miller

Secondly, while I have no doubt that there are many examples of unjustified union work stoppages, there are also plenty of fully justified union work stoppages. I think you're being unfair by automatically assuming that any action by a police or similar union is just "bullying for more benefits."

Ok, I'll say that I don't assume that about any. I'll just say that there's no doubt that it happens a non-negligible percentage of the time.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

I don't "serve" the public. I work for the public.
Teaching, policing, firefighting, political office, etc. is not community service. It is a job. If you want service then look for people in orange vests picking up trash on the freeway. I work for the state and the state is an employer like IBM or the corner store down the street and should be held to employment standards like everyone else.

Well, yeah you do kind of serve the public, and you're not just doing a job. The difference is that for many employees in the private sector, their customers choose to deal with them, and they may go elsewhere if they aren't satisfied. The reason that government service is termed as such is that hypothetically, you realize when you take a government job that your 'customers' have much more limited choices (if any). Therefore (again, hypothetically and optimally) when one takes a job in public service, they commit to providing for the greater good of the community.
The state is not an employer like a store, for the reasons stated above. In addition, governments do not have the freedom to allocate funds as they may choose. Just because you or a firefighter wants a raise, and some council members want to give you a raise, does not mean that it can just happen.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

I would also contend that your statement shows that you have no experience in a public sector jobs, teachers (from my experience), police and firefighters (from those I know) put up with quite a lot of abuse in their jobs precisely because they "serve the public" and job actions are considered when the conditions they work in are such that they cannot do their job. Would you go out and get a bachelor's degree and pay for tests to do you job if you couldn't earn a living wage to feed you family? Teachers won't so we fight for decent pay along with the right to not be abused by parents and students. Do you pay for your office supplies to do your job? I do because in some districts supplies are not adequate. I know police officers that are frustrated because they want to be out doing their job but are stuck doing needless paperwork.

I have worked in public sector jobs for 10 years. My degree (albeit a bachelors) is in public administration...which covers topics like this, believe it or not. I did find, as an aside, that many/most of the instructors or speakers or officials I contacted during school were pretty firmly in the pro-union camp, and probably 95% of them were what would be termed 'liberal'.
When you decided to become a teacher, did you know what teaching paid? I would be astounded to hear that so many teachers graduated and suddenly realized that in most districts, teaching pays shit. I know teachers. I know they sometimes have to buy supplies.
And cops and paperwork go hand-in-hand...IME, any paperwork is, to a cop, needless paperwork.

Originally Posted by Manda JO

What about agreeing to do the job for the year, and then at the end of the year (or five, or ten) wanting to discuss your options? Why is that chutzpah?

Public agencies have more difficulty affording this opportunity. That's why many public service jobs are in grid or scale systems. It's very easy to see what you will make and when. Want more money than that? Get a promotion or change jobs.
Look, I've been in a public sector job for years. I haven't had a step raise or cost of living raise in years. Retirement match has been cut. Do I want a union? Nah. The government can't afford to give me that stuff, and I'm cool. Possibility of unpaid furlough days? Ok, whatever. Times are tough.

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

I've talked to corrections officers in KY who were paid under $23,000 a year (which doesn't help attract or retain quality officers), have no training for new hires (creates a very unsafe working environment when you're dealing with inmates), don't have access to weapons (again, safety), and don't have radios that work inside the walls of the prison. Officers that were friends with the warden got the plum shifts and assignments.

These guys were fighting tooth and nail for a union because the state sure as hell wasn't changing things out of the goodness of their hearts. So you can take your soft lighting and milder coffee and...never mind this ain't the pit.

ETA: Other government employees that often have poor working conditions: Nurses, road crews, inner city school teachers, sanitation workers, probation officers, social workers.

My recommendation? Don't be a prison guard in Kentucky.

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Yet again, despite your demands that others work on your behalf, for your good and at their expense. Initial expectations, salary schedules, benefits packages, etc... can all be modified by continuing negotiation. The idea that those working for the public good cannot try to negotiate for a better life, to say nothing about collectively bargaining to avoid abuses by management, and must simply accept management's position as divine fiat, is absurd. If you think that negotiation shows "chutzpah", you don't understand what the word means.

Agreeing with a certain pay and benefit package upon accepting employment, then strong-arming your employer to provide more than was agree because you now 'want a better life?' Chutzpah. Yeah, I know what it means.

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

How authoritarian. In a free society, the level of a worker's compensation should be the result of a negotiation between equals, not a present handed down by some all-powerful overlord. Workers are free to band together and price their labor at whatever the level the market will bear. That's free enterprise, baby. And if you don't like it, move to someplace more repressive.

I could have phrased that differently...you are informed what the benefits/salary of the position are. Workers banding together and demanding a certain wage isn't showing what the market will bear! They are banding together to demand more than the wage that the market settled on for that job. That ain't free market, that's ain't free enterprise. Baby.

[casdave]

It is a basic human right that you are free to associate.

Stripping union rights is an infringement.

Its no real coincidence that among the first people the extremists incarcerate are the union leaders.

They are at the forefront of the struggle for rights, and their power to ensure the safety of those rights comes from a collective will. Undermining that voice is the first step in totalitarianism.

Seems like some folks want lots of freedom for everyone who happens to hold their point of view p- the real test is how you cope, negotiate and accommodate opposition.

Anything else falls far short of civilisation.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

My recommendation? Don't be a prison guard in Kentucky.

Is that supposed to be funny? So you admit there do exist poor working conditions for public employees in this country? Because this is what you said originally: "Honestly, what US government employee really has to deal with poor 'working conditions?' "

These conditions aren't exclusive to COs in KY, by the way. Having a union gives them a voice to address them. And this doesn't just affect the COs or the inmates, but it effectively endangers the public. I like knowing there are well-armed, well-trained, and well-paid men and women keeping the bad guys from escaping the prisons in my state.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

I've published a paper on the effects of a physician's strike. I've also worked in healthcare during the same physician's strike. This was in Canada, incidentally, so don't freak out.

Based on my observations at the time, many if not most of the doctors worked at least their normal hours, trying to avoid any actual medical problems during the strike, while still making the point about working conditions, and admittedly, inconveniencing the general public. If you can't strike because you're a 'public good' worker, you've no other option but to leave the job or go somewhere else. This isn't good for the public good.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Invisible Chimp

If you have a problem with these, it sounds like you should blame the legislatures, not unions. The "3 percent at 50" was even bipartisan with little debate, so you can't blame the evil liberals either.

That demonstrates exactly what many people feel the problem with public sector unions is: they've become a powerful interest group in their own right, sufficiently powerful that many governments bow down before them. Government decisions then get made based on what's best for the unions, rather than what's best for the people as a whole.

It's worth noting that until recently the very idea of public sector unions was seen as absurd. Both President Franklin Roosevelt and George Meany, the first head of the AFL-CIO, spoke out against the idea. When a private company negotiates with a union, the company management faces two competing forces: the union's demands and the financial needs of the company. Management strives to find the best balance between those two forces. But with a public union, "management" (aka the government) has no personal motivation to balance the union's demands against sound, long-term financial decisions. From a politician's perspective it's usually better to give the powerful and focused unions what they want, while there's no powerful interest group on the other side to argue against them.

[Lemur866]

It's kind of rich that people demand that teachers and cops should do their jobs out of altruism, and therefore should accept lower pay and crappier working condidtions than they would for a private employer.

Hey, they have the privelege of working for the public good! Except, how much exactly should a teacher expect in lower salary in return for being able to work for the public good? How much of a pay cut would YOU take, to serve the public good? Probably zero, right?

[Airbeck]

If you treat public workers like slaves, then exactly what sorts of people are you going to get to be public workers? Will you ultimately have to use work release prisoners or something? If your goal is to not have any public workers at all, then by all means continue on stripping away rights. I have a feeling that you do want someone to do these jobs though, right? Why are you so hostile to those people then?

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

That demonstrates exactly what many people feel the problem with public sector unions is: they've become a powerful interest group in their own right, sufficiently powerful that many governments bow down before them. Government decisions then get made based on what's best for the unions, rather than what's best for the people as a whole.

It's worth noting that until recently the very idea of public sector unions was seen as absurd. Both President Franklin Roosevelt and George Meany, the first head of the AFL-CIO, spoke out against the idea. When a private company negotiates with a union, the company management faces two competing forces: the union's demands and the financial needs of the company. Management strives to find the best balance between those two forces. But with a public union, "management" (aka the government) has no personal motivation to balance the union's demands against sound, long-term financial decisions. From a politician's perspective it's usually better to give the powerful and focused unions what they want, while there's no powerful interest group on the other side to argue against them.

Yeah cuz corporate interests are vastly unheard inside legislatures, mainly because they don't have money or lobbyists or any motivation to reduce the number of public employees or get their wages and benefits cut.


In other words, if you take out the lobbying efforts of public employee unions, do you reaaaaaaly think legislators will finally legislate only based on what's good for the public. You think the only thing holding these guys back from truly serving the public that elects them are the public sector unions? Don't you think, maybe, the public sector union members know a little something about what's good for them and their communities as well? As opposed to sitting back and letting legislators always bow to the money of corporate interests?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Honestly, what US government employee really has to deal with poor 'working conditions?'

Unionized ones? Public employees have unions and good working conditions. Why change a system that's working?

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Yeah, you can always improve conditions; hell, I'd love softer lighting and less ambient noise. And an ergonomic keyboard. And a milder coffee blend, that's not so hard on my stomach. And....

What fantasy world do you live in? Public employees aren't asking for mood music and gourmet coffee. They want decent working conditions, fair salaries, and protection from arbitrary management.

My last contract negotiation had some wild demands. We hadn't had a raise in eight years. Our opening position was to ask if our salaries could be raised by the amount that inflation had gone up those eight years. We didn't get that of course.

[Airbeck]

How dare you bully your poor helpless government like that

/sarcasm

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I couldn't agree more. IMO, collective bargaining and striking should be disallowed by all public employee groups for which a person cannot be replaced the next day with a non-union worker. It is a matter of both responsible spending of public dollars and safety. I agree that there existence results in a form of blackmail.

So what's your plan? Socialism? The government just decides how much salary people get paid and it's illegal to refuse to work? Because that's what you're saying, comrade. I don't suppose you're volunteering to let the government decide your salary though.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Agreeing with a certain pay and benefit package upon accepting employment, then strong-arming your employer to provide more than was agree because you now 'want a better life?' Chutzpah. Yeah, I know what it means.

No, you obviously do not.

Here's a good definition: an employee signs a contract , fulfills the conditions of their contract, and engages in collective bargaining to improve the nature of their employment. Others, who benefit from that person's profession, demand that those whose work provides a benefit for the public good must work in whatever conditions and for whatever compensation their superiors deem fit, and must meekly accept it and not try to negotiate.

"Work to improve my life, and how dare you try to peacefully and legally negotiate an improvement to your own, in exchange for services rendered?!?"

That, is chutzpah.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

How dare you bully your poor helpless government like that

/sarcasm

Yes, it's real fun being in a public service union. It's illegal to go on strike. So our negotiations basically consists of begging.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

How dare you bully your poor helpless government like that

/sarcasm

It's funny how Righties are all about defending the poor, helpless governmentbythepeople when public unions are negotiating their contracts, but then attack that same government as bloated, wasteful socialism every other time...

[Little Nemo]

I'd be interested if Sicks Ate thinks there are other jobs out there where you're expected to work thirty or forty years for your starting salary. Most businesses routinely increase the salaries of long term employees.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

I have worked in public sector jobs for 10 years. My degree (albeit a bachelors) is in public administration...which covers topics like this, believe it or not. I did find, as an aside, that many/most of the instructors or speakers or officials I contacted during school were pretty firmly in the pro-union camp, and probably 95% of them were what would be termed 'liberal'.
When you decided to become a teacher, did you know what teaching paid? I would be astounded to hear that so many teachers graduated and suddenly realized that in most districts, teaching pays shit. I know teachers. I know they sometimes have to buy supplies.
And cops and paperwork go hand-in-hand...IME, any paperwork is, to a cop, needless paperwork.

I would be interested in what your public sector job is. It seems the majority of pro public-service union are discussing are ones that are dangerous or one in crappy conditions. Do you draw a distinction between police, fire and teacher unions as opposed to DMV workers, courthouse janitors, etc.?

I'm also curious if you see a distinction between providing a service to the community and community service. The state (and let's throw county/city in there to) provides services to the public. To do this, they need to hire people to provide those services. I don't "serve the public" although I do provide a public service. I work for the state (technically LEA) to provide those services but there is nothing in that that presupposes I should make sacrifices other don't have to simply because I work in a public sector job.

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

There is another point against unionizing public workers. Any 'labor action' by publc workers is not to the detriment of an 'unfair, uncooperative' corporation; it's against the public they are supposed to be serving.

See police officer's 'blue flu' or similar actions by fire departments. Or threats by sanitation workers to quit collecting. It's bullying, hurting citizens or putting them in danger in order to strongarm more benefits. Basically, extortion to modify an existing employment contract.

The other point I have a problem with is that your position seems to assume that "public service" is non-optional. Not trying to setup a strawman but I want you to clarify your position. I choose to be a teacher but I suppose it applies to police, firemen, ATCs, etc. If I choose to strike because of unsafe conditions, more pay, lower class size or whatever, I do not get paid while I strike. Let me say that again - I do not get paid if I do not do my job. So now we've eliminated that I owe you my services because you are paying me. What obligation do I owe the public to be a teacher simply because I'm qualified. Am I allowed to leave teaching? If so, why can I not leave temporarily until conditions or pay improves. If the courthouse janitors walk out unless they get $20/hr and you don't want to pay it because private janitors get $15/hr, fire the workers and hire scabs at $15/hr.
In other words, why do I owe the public anything? Who are you to say I can't make demands for certain concessions and if I don't get them, I'll leave teaching? Can I at some point say "I choose not to serve the public anymore." or am I required to continue on as a sanitation worker, teacher, police officer, etc. You see, the point you're missing is that the State is obligated to provide the service, not a particular worker (or collectively all workers) unless the choose to. If the worker chooses not to pick up your trash, the City can choose to meet their demands OR hire new sanitation engineers a la Reagan and the FAA. The State is required to provide a free public education, but that does not obligate teachers as individuals to be in the classroom. I can leave if I no longer desire to work under those terms or you can change the terms if I (meaning the collective teachers) are that valuable to you.

So answer this question: if I do serve the public, under what conditions will you allow me to no longer serve the public or consequently am I enslaved to serving the "common good" in perpetuity?



My father was management in the private sector and I grew up anti-union because I heard stories of how they abused the system. When I became a teacher, I was anti-union but after seeing how the union protected teachers from the abuses of the system, I am 100% pro-union and a conservative.

Address these issues for me:
1) Should I be required to work outside of my contracted hours for no pay because I serve the public?
2) Should I be required to pay for my own supplies simply to do my job because I serve the public?
3) Should I be required to provide paper, pencils and other educational supplies to my students out of my own money because I serve the public?
4) Should I accept verbal abuse from students and parents and in some cases physical abuse from students because I serve the public?
5) Should I accept intimidation from administrators because they choose to take actions that violate state law and they do not want me to take advatage of legal protection?

Please note that not one of those involves money except the working outside of contract hours. To be honest, it's not even the extra pay but if I'm required to work 4-6pm, my son doesn't get picked up from school. One of the reasons I accept the shit pay and inner-city conditions was that my kids have me to be with them after school and the summer and not a babysitter.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

In other words, if you take out the lobbying efforts of public employee unions, do you reaaaaaaly think legislators will finally legislate only based on what's good for the public. You think the only thing holding these guys back from truly serving the public that elects them are the public sector unions?

Did I say that public sector unions are the only thing holding legislators back from truly serving the public? If not, then why are you trying to pin that viewpoint on me?

Obviously there are many things that influence legislatures and other governing bodies, but at the moment public sector unions are the main driving force behind skyrocketing spending by state and local governments (up 60% in a decade) which has sent several states and many cities into disaster mode over the past few years.

Don't you think, maybe, the public sector union members know a little something about what's good for them and their communities as well? As opposed to sitting back and letting legislators always bow to the money of corporate interests?

You imply that we face an either/or letting public sector unions control legislatures or letting corporate interests do so. In fact we face no such choice.

[Chronos]

Any attempt to prohibit a group of people from unionizing is absurd on the face of it. Suppose that the police don't form an official union. But now suppose that their working conditions are intolerable. So all of them talk together, and decide that they're all going to call in sick every day until their working conditions are improved. What can the city do? Well, it can fire them, of course. Refusing to come to work is certainly a valid grounds for firing someone. But that still leaves the city without a police force, and if the conditions are that intolerable, they're going to have a hard time replacing them. It could fire only a few of them, but that doesn't address the issue of the rest of the force refusing to come in to work. So the city finds itself forced to address the intolerable conditions.

What happened here? A group of people decided that conditions were bad enough to warrant taking a risk, they exercised their right of free assembly to come to an agreement with each other on this point, and by refusing to work they get the problems fixed. But the net effect works out just the same way as if they had officially been unionized and went on strike. A law against official unions is completely unenforceable, since an unofficial union can do anything an official one can do.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

How authoritarian. In a free society, the level of a worker's compensation should be the result of a negotiation between equals, not a present handed down by some all-powerful overlord. Workers are free to band together and price their labor at whatever the level the market will bear. That's free enterprise, baby. And if you don't like it, move to someplace more repressive.

Look around. Economically speaking, this ain't a free society. The one percent has things fairly well corralled.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

How authoritarian. In a free society, the level of a worker's compensation should be the result of a negotiation between equals, not a present handed down by some all-powerful overlord. Workers are free to band together and price their labor at whatever the level the market will bear. That's free enterprise, baby. And if you don't like it, move to someplace more repressive.

Pretty much.
It's a very, very weird view that those whose jobs are some of the most essential for public welfare should be the least able to actually engage in collective negotiation in order to secure their personal welfare. Sicks' view, beyond being fairly idiosyncratic, is pretty much wholly unsupported by logic or how business is actually conducted. Teacher salary schedules, for example, are revised all the time. The idea that when I sign my contract I'm not only agreeing to this year's pay scale but to being locked into 20+ years of regimented increase is, shall we say, a bit off.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by CheeseDonkey

I once heard an interesting opinion that I would like to get your thoughts on.

An individual once told me something to the effect of individuals in an organization that exists to protect or support the public good, like police officers, firemen and governmental employees, shouldn't be allowed to unionize because once they unionize they stop caring about the good of the public and start caring mainly about the good of themselves. She cited a couple instances where, police officers who had done "ungood" things got their jobs back by the force of the union, which in her opinion was obviously not good for the public.

What are your thoughts on that opinion? Does it makes sense, or is it hogwash?

Two possibilities -- either this individual is:

1. A committed communist who believes that workers can and should be motivated solely by the public good with no thought to their own selfish interests, or

2a. An idiot or
2b. A hypocrite

(The two sub-cases are distinguished only by whether the individual genuinely doesn't understand the inanity of the argument, or whether he does understand but uses it anyway in the hope of scoring some sort of point.)

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Any 'labor action' by publc workers is not to the detriment of an 'unfair, uncooperative' corporation; it's against the public they are supposed to be serving.

I'd comment on the equation of "the public" with "the government", but I already covered that -- some people really do believe in communism, and thus consider the distinction to be illusory or irrelevant.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

When you take the job, you're told what your salary and compensation will be.

Geez, I had no idea how many people here still believed in the political philosopy that says government fiat works better than free-market give-and-take....

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

I'd comment on the equation of "the public" with "the government", but I already covered that -- some people really do believe in communism, and thus consider the distinction to be illusory or irrelevant.

I like the weirdness of the position, too. Teachers should be haggard, paying for basic supplies out of their own pockets, terrified of losing their jobs for no reason, forced to work unreasonable hours for no additional compensation, saddled with unreasonably sized classes, held to irrational standards and performance metrics... and if they object then it's their objection that's bad for the public.

Of course, it's weird enough to argue that people whose jobs contribute to the public good must always place the public good above their own personal welfare, rather than finding an acceptable balance. I'm sure that we could, for instance, run police, fire, education (etc) on the cheap if we press-ganged folks and set them up in gulags, releasing them only long enough to do their jobs, too. But "the public good" is not the only standard that we use.

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Geez, I had no idea how many people here still believed in the political philosopy that says government fiat works better than free-market give-and-take....

I haven't had time to reply to much, but I wanted to address this, since I already clarified what I meant by that statement a few posts ago.

My 'told' I meant that you know what the pay and benefits are when you take the job. I don't know what's so fiat-like about that...that's the case at any job.

That doesn't make it any less free-market; if I post a job at $24k and nobody with appropriate quailfications applies, that's the market telling me that I am not offering what the market demands. If a qualified individual agrees to take said job at $37k, then the market has worked. I think I got a good deal by hiring that person for that amount, and that person is satisfied (hopefully) because they feel that is a fair rate for their labor.

[Scarlett67]

Anyone who thinks public employee unions are a bad thing is welcome to take over my husband's job. He's a CNA working on the locked dementia unit at the state veterans' home. Thanks to the recent loss of collective bargaining, working conditions and schedules have been getting worse. There are no more written work rules, and yet he can be fired immediately for breaking a rule he doesn't know exists. Because no one wants to work there anymore, or they hire people who soon quit once they find out what it's like, the facility is seriously understaffed. But they won't work short-handed, which means that everyone is working mega-overtime, double shifts and/or working your days off, often with little to no notice. He's lucky if he gets to keep his every other weekend off and every other Tuesday and Friday. But he hasn't had two days off in a row for months now. This is a job in which he deals constantly with bodily fluids and violent residents, and he has to stay calm and professional. It's no cakewalk, and there's no phoning it in. He has to be at 100% for the entire shift.

But hey, if you think having a "union" job is a stroll down Easy Street, come on down.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

My 'told' I meant that you know what the pay and benefits are when you take the job. I don't know what's so fiat-like about that...that's the case at any job.

It's odd that you do not grok that at every other job, you accept an initial starting figure and then can renegotiate at later points. Your claim that you accept a job and then cannot attempt to negotiate is, indeed, accepting a pay scale, in perpetuity, by fiat.

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

It's odd that you do not grok that at every other job, you accept an initial starting figure and then can renegotiate at later points. Your claim that you accept a job and then cannot attempt to negotiate is, indeed, accepting a pay scale, in perpetuity, by fiat.

I get it. If you want that privilege, I recommend taking a job were you know from the outset that you will be able to negotiate. Taking a government job where you know you may not negotiate your way out of a pay structure is not fiat; it's a condition of your employment.