"Public good" workers shouldn't be unionized

[Saint_Cad]

@magellan01

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

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

[doreen]

@magellan01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[doreen]

@magellan01

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

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

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

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

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

[jayjay]

@doreen

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

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

[vivalostwages]

@magellan01

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

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

[magellan01]

@vivalostwages

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

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

[rat_avatar]

@doreen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Saint_Cad]

@magellan01

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

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

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

Do you agree with that?

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

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

[magellan01]

@Saint_Cad

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

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

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

@Saint_Cad

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

Do you agree with that?

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

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

@Saint_Cad

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
A qualified person has the right to say I don’t accept these conditions and I am willing to leave.
[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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