Public employee unions inherently cause a conflict of interest, and should be abolished.
Except for the part where they are forced to live within the city limits, and pay property taxes to the city.
How is there a conflict of interest?
So then you’d argue that you and I have no business criticizing a police union for
-
Publicly opposing the Mayor,
-
Setting up a picket line.
-
Speaking up for members of their union who are being disciplined or accused of crimes.
-
Making it difficult to discipline their members or discharge members who are deemed incompetent,
-
Calling for a boycott of a movie by Quentin Tarantino.
-
Endorsing Donald Trump or other political candidates.
-
Threatening a strike or work slow down.
Because that’s “Not anyone’s business but the union members”?
If not, and you do feel that you and I have the right to criticize police unions for their involvement in political causes not directly related to policing the city as well as making it difficult to fire or discipline cops deemed bad at their jobs, and engage in public protests then shouldn’t we have the right to criticize teacher’s unions for similar behavior.
Really?
Public employees can vote for, campaign for, and donate money to their bosses. The conflict is inherent.
Also, some of the very largest campaign donors are the AFSCME, the National Educational Association, and the American Federation of Teachers. All of whom give 99% of their political donations to the Democratic Party.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
You don’t think that’s ever so slightly biased?
And private employees can buy stock in their companies and complain to their board of directors about their bosses. So what? I don’t understand what’s so horrible about this conflict of interest. An individual teacher has no significant influence; the union as a whole can and does. Sounds like perfectly typical union behavior to me.
Just because there’s some rough analogy in the private sector doesn’t exculpate teachers unions.
Besides, the great majority of employees in the private sector are not unionized. So, like a teacher, most private sector employees have little influence. But they don’t have a powerful union behind them.
That’s not what I said.
I’ll say it again now so you don’t mistake it again.
You have a right to have an opinion about anything, including what a union does.
You have no right to expect a union to do what you want if you are not a member of that union – unless the union is interfering improperly with your business.
In the context of this discussion, that means you have no business telling a union what issues to be involved in or what to negotiate for. You do have a right to complain if a union does something like telling its members not to do their jobs and threatening public safety. But that wasn’t the issue until you brought up police unions.
You are smart enough to know the difference too.
By that ridiculous logic, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote for the elected representatives who decide how much you pay in taxes. It’s a conflict of interest, because you might want low taxes rather than to pay your fair share for government services.
Public employees are employees and should have the same rights as any other.
Then all politics is a conflict of interest.
Gosh, maybe the Democratic Party is better for teachers so they support that party.
You walked in here and started an entirelyi new conversation. Good for you. You found an exception. Yes, there are certain times when union actions are your business (not all of them in your list, but I don’t think it’s worthy discussing them in detail). Those times are very very limited. They relate to when a union might interfere with public safety in a direct and illegal way. This doesn’t mean you can tell unions what to do in any circumstance, such as the way the OP did.
Glad we got past that. Can we continue?
PS everyone please quote the comments they are responding to so as to eliminate confusion. Thanks.
These are the items from the OP that dalej42 or anyone else has no business telling a union not to do. It’s not anyone’s business but the union’s whether it endorsed some protest or calls for something to happen.
If you don’t like their suggestions, you can oppose them. You can even criticize the union for making the proposal. You can’t tell them they can’t make the proposal or try to force them not to.
So then we do have a right to complain about a union encouraging members to strike(not doing their job) and taking actions that we feel negatively impact the quality of education that students or negatively impact society?
If so, while the OP was quite silly you seem to have misspoken when claiming that he was poking his nose into stuff that “wasn’t his business”. Wouldn’t you agree?
Does that mean we can’t punish police unions who take political stances or engage in protests we don’t like?
If not, why do teachers unions get special protection?
You also seem to be dramatically walking back your earlier claims.
If the strike is legal, you can complain, but you have no right to criticize the union for striking. Striking is an accepted part of labor-management relations, and is enshrined in labor law.
In general, you only have a right to tell a union it’s business if it’s overstepping its authority. You can criticize it if you want - for instance, you could say the union should be happy with a contract offer and has no good reason to strike - but you can’t claim the right to force the union not to strike or something like that.
It’s a subtle difference, I know. The point is that how a union is run is its business, not yours. Only if and when they overstep their bounds in a way that affects you directly could you claim the right to do more than just whine about it.
You can complain about anything you want. But claiming the right to interfere with an organization simply because you disagree with how it “negatively impacts society” is beyond your bounds, and I hope you can see why.
You can’t punish them for political stances. Who the hell are you to tell them what to do politically?
Protests? No, you can’t mess with that either - with the possible exception of a protest that oversteps their authority or violates their fundamental job duties.
I’m not walking back one bit. I’m explaining what I meant before and expanding on it now that you’ve brought up new situations.
In general, you have no say in what a union does unless you are a member. I don’t see why that’s even controversial. It’s usually none of your business.
Ah, if it’s “legal”.
Should police unions then have the right to declare a strike?
If they’re legally prohibited from doing so, then should we at least allow them to enage in a work slow down, as the NYPD unions rather clearly did earlier this year?
Also since you feel the OP had “no business” telling the teachers unions what political positions to take, do you believe that people have no right to criticize of punish police unions that endorse Donald Trump, as some have done so?
Would you also agree that people who condemned police unions for “disrespecting” Mayor DiBlassio were overstepping their bounds and “sticking their noses” where they had “no business”?
If it’s legal, yes. I already said that.
What possible alternative answer is there?
I don’t know. You want to debate the finer points of labor law? I don’t.
You are making two mistakes here.
First, you’re mistaking “criticism” with the claims made earlier in this thread. You have, of course, every right to criticize anyone or anything you want to. Some here claimed to have greater authority - to have some kind of claim to force unions to do, or not do, certain things based on the vague idea that what unions do affect them. That’s the ridiculous idea I was responding to. You can’t force unions not to do something you don’t like simply because they represent workers who are paid by taxpayers.
Second, you jumped into a conversation about other issues and threw in new ones. I was discussing the general idea of telling unions what to do as I described above. Of course there are exceptions. Of course we can regulate certain things that unions do - and we do. But in general, unions should act on behalf of their members, not you, and if you don’t like that, that’s too bad. You can complain, cajole, criticize, oppose, protest, etc. all you want, but you can’t claim to have the right to force a union to do anything you want, otherwise it would cease to be a union.
If there were such a thing a s bankers union, and they donated 99% of their money to the Republican Party, and lobbied for special employment rules, etc. you’d be all over that like white on rice.
Wouldn’t you?