"Public good" workers shouldn't be unionized

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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”.

Specifically, what deals do you refer to?

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.

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 :smack:

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.