Also, the military analogy doesn’t work. A strong military is vital to our nation’s well being. If we had no military and then wanted to sprout one that would be effective, how long do you think that would take? A year? Two Ten? Twenty? And what are the potential dangers of not having one? Pretty great, right. If there were no unions right now, how quickly could one be formed? A month? A year? And what are the potential dangers of a world without unions (but with the laws that we have on the books)? Whether they’re a good idea or not, they’re certainly not vital to our well being. So, the analogy is inapt.
All the talk of being a good worker doesn’t mean shit when only a few can reap the rewards. As long as the majority of compensation is based solely on wages or salaries, the whole system is fucked. There is no incentive for the the majority at the bottom to any harder than necessary.
An entire department could double their productivity, every person, and their wages will remain flat while management reaps the rewards for the increase since they often have a true profit sharing plans through performance bonuses.
Calling 401Ks ‘profit-sharing’ plans is bullshit also since matching funds are based on the employee’s contribution, not a percentage of profits. And those funds are often one of the first things cut, and the last to be restored.
The purpose of commerce is to enable people to make a living, not squeeze every ounce of profit out of the system to reward those at the top.
And profit-sharing plans cannot work for government employees, since we have decided it has to be a non-profit endeavor. Not really sure why, but that is the system in place in the majority of democracies.
And this thread had demonstrated countless times that most government employees are underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. They entered government because they consider the opportunity to provide their services - such as educating our country and protecting the public and making sure we don’t pollute ourselves to death, is worth more than ‘maximizing’ their income. But they damn well deserve the right to make a good living, considering they sacrifice the chance to make a great living.
And the exception to the rule are those at the top - the generals, the managers, department administrators who love to flip flop between industry and government depending on who is holding office. And their damned employees are the ones who have to deal with often conflicting policy directives every four to eight years when those flops happen.
We should be fucking grateful that anyone is left who is willing to enter public service, and not be raping them to balance fictional budget crises.
And Wisconsin’s budget woes are non-existent compared to finances of the private sector. Wisconsin’s debt is an amazing 17% of their GDP, and only 113% of their revenue. AT&T’s debt to revenue is 126%. Yet I have not heard reports of their impending bankruptcy if they don’t control costs.
I’d have to agree that it is no guarantee. But pretty darn close.
And this is not to shake a shot at you, but if you think you were canned in spite of being a stellar, model employee three times, maybe your definition of what a stellar employee is differs from most people’s.
Ultimately this really is the heart of the debate, isn’t it. You admit that the “be an ideal, ambitious worker” plan is not 100% effective. If pressed, I’m sure you’d (reasonably) admit that there is NO way to 100% guarantee income from work, no matter how much you work at self-improvement, training, selecting great employers, etc.
The question we’re all trying to ask, and that some people are solving by trading away their excellence for union limitations, is “What happens to me when I am the one that bad luck strikes?”. For you, the solution is “get back on the horse and bust my own ass to get it done.” For others, the solution is “We should all contribute so that people in that situation can breathe easy until it gets resolved.”. There is a vast middle ground there. Some part of that middle ground involves union membership (aka, trading “I will limit my excellence-based income” for “my job is less vulnerable to capricious loss”), or increased savings rates, or any number of strategies. Essentially, in the grand scheme of things, union dues are private unemployment insurance (bundled with negotiation/arbitration/legal services) by another name
I think part of what rankles the liberal-leaning folks in these discussions is your overt disdain for people who are, essentially, choosing a disaster mitigation strategy (unions) that’s just as time-tested as yours (savings and self-confidence). We are, after all, not contemptuous of you for the “folly” of savings in the midst of bank bailouts and crashes.
I apologize for repeating this anecdote, but my conservative brother once revealingly illuminated the fundamental conservative mindset for me.
We were all on a visit to Disneyland. I suggested that we should pick a place to meet up in the event that we somehow got separated or lost. My brother had a stern reaction to this. His solution? “Just don’t get lost.”
I have to agree with CalMeacham; nice as it would be, fair as it might be, this doesn’t make your job safe. You’re still at risk from those who can offer more value - or who can convince employers they can. Even then, there’s a limit to which you can add new value in some jobs; congratulations, you may be punctual, dedicated, eager, and helpful, but that isn’t that useful if there are lots of other people out there who would also be those things and can push a button. There’s an upper ceiling to the value of service you provide when you push buttons, and it’d be pretty easy to hit. Or the value you provide is greater in so small a detail that it may be easily dismissed. Or you might have employers who value something other than job ability.
The thing that bothers me most about that anecdote is that I KNOW that’s not fundamental to the idea of conservatism–my own father and brother exude compassion from every pore, while simultaneously believing that government spending and taxation are significantly out of hand, and (here’s possibly the key) that there aren’t any conservatives left to vote for anymore, just guys with a big label and a bigger anti-abortion plank who otherwise spend your tax dollars just as insolvently.
You’re hilarious.
I taught in Texas for several years. At the time, and still for all I know, it was illegal for teachers to unionize. Pay scales were appallingly low across the state. Texas was also consistently in the bottom five states for academic achievement, but I digress. While I was there, merit pay was introduced. It was a paltry sum of only a few hundred dollars and was deliberately limited in availability to only a few teachers per building so as to foster competitiveness. Who got it was up to the building principal. While it is possible that it was actually awarded for merit somewhere, my experience was that the principal’s buttbuddies got it every single year.
That can not be, management is above such things,. Management is totally fair and is just thinking about improvements in the end product. Workers are all highly valued and because each and everyone is so important and valuable, management would never do anything wrong. As a worker you have great power. Your education and experience coupled with your work ethic make you indispensable. You have nothing to fear.
Or you have been there so long that they decide to dump you and get someone younger and less experienced that they can pay a lot less to employ.
Or they decide to fill a quota–not that they would ever admit to such a thing–and jettison you because you don’t fit the right profile.
This “your job is safe if you just do everything well or better” notion is poppycock.
I do tink there is a middle ground. As far as losing one’s job, we do have unemployment insurance. And you can buy private disability insurance on the private market. If a union exists to do those things, fine. But I would NOT want to trade in the concept of a person getting rewarded for their merit. But, I’m even fine with those who want to so organize. A person should be able to willingly enter into that arrangement. That’s completely fine. But when you use the clout of numbers to blackmail an employer, and/or other workers who might be fine with doing the job you’re unhappy with for less, then you lose all empathy from me.
A hundred years ago, unions were necessary. But they’ve now served their primary purpose. In today’s world, they’re largely shake-down organization operating under some contorted imprimatur of respectability.
So, yes, there is a middle ground. I’ve never said they should be outlawed. They shouldn’t. BUt as it is today, they do more harm than good. It’s time to swing the pendulum back the other way. Significantly.
Life isn’t safe. You need to plan for disaster. And first, plan to avoid it.
WHAT!!! You want protection from those who offer more value to your employer? WOW! Just WOW!!! Here’s an idea: be the one that offers more value. And have a backup plan.
I disagree. There’s always a way to be better. I’ve done it cleaning bathrooms. I’ve done it being a parking attendant. I’ve done it being a gopher on a construction site. I didn’t do it as a stock boy. I didn’t deliver as a dishwasher in a restaurant in high school and was not invited back after the holiday rush. And I shouldn’t have been.
Then you need to put yourself in a better situation. I’ve been in jobs where there was a large degree of overlap between my strong suit and what the employer valued highly. I’ve been in jobs where what I had to offer really wasn’t of primary importance to them. I left those jobs. Good for them. And GREAT for me. You owe it to yourself to find a place in life where what you have to offer is valued. If you don’t, it might not be your fault, but you really can’t blame anyone else.
Just because the idea that the person managing employees is the one best suited to dole out raises and the like didn’t work in your situation, the concept is without merit. Brilliant. Look, cronyism is a problem in any work situation. Unionized or not.
Here’s an idea. Hold principals accountable. If a great teacher is treated unfairly, he or she can leave. If they are really that great, parents will be in arms and the principal’s job will be threatened. Oh wait, that probably won’t happen because it’s almost impossible to fire people in our schools today. I have a family member who is a teacher. she got a new principal and he didn’t take to her. So, after a time she had enough and word got out that she was not coming back the following year. Parents were up in arms and he was forced to lick her boots a bit. All worked out fine.
I’ll repeat: Being valuable and doing things better and better is no guarantee of job security.
Another neighbor of mine was let go from her classified school district position, with only 4 years to go till retirement, after she’d spent years doing a great job, always early to work, last to leave, hardly ever missed a day, etc.
They dumped her and kept the slackers who do as little as possible and shoddily when they do anything at all.
The reason? “The budget.”
Now you aren’t even funny; you’re just wrong.
In non-union states, like Texas, teachers can be dismissed at the whim of the board or (in larger districts) the personnel officer.
Even in very strong union states like the one where I teach, all that it requires for a teacher to be dismissed is for administration to actually do their job and document the teacher’s shortcomings. Some of the reasons for which a teacher can be dismissed in this state:
•Immoral conduct or indecent behavior
•Icompetency (including physical incompetency)
•Violations of ethical standards
•Unprofessional conduct
•Misrepresentation or fraud
•Willful neglect of duty
Incompetency must be documented through classroom observation, in case you were wondering. If administration has documented any of these things, they can dismiss the teacher and there is neither jack nor squat the union could do about it.
