I’m in a union but I don’t have to be. I could freeride and get the same benefits as union employees without paying the union dues. I am largely responding to folks who trot out the recently popular but erroneous notion that federal employees are overpaid.
There are multiple levels of unionization:
-
Employees can form a union, but the employer can choose to hire non-union employees as well as union employees.
-
Once unionized, all employees must belong to the union. But the employer is free to fire the entire union if he wants, and find a new, non-union workforce.
-
Once unionized, the employer is forced to bargain with the union, and does not have the option to fire them. In the case of a unresolved dispute, a government mediator will rule.
-
A public sector union, mandated by law, and paid for with taxpayer money.
Let’s look at how the four types function:
1. In this case, the power of the union is the power to have a chunk of the workforce walk off the job. The employer can fire them, but he will lose the cost of training, and suffer expensive downtime while trying to replace them. I fully support this level of unionization, and I think it represents the best mix of negotiating power between labor and management.
The union is basically negotiating based on the value the members collectively bring to the company. They have significant leverage, but if their demands exceed the accumulated value of their skills and training and the cost of replacing the workforce, management won’t agree. But management is also constrained from gouging the employees and paying them well below their market value - they run the risk of killing the company if they do that.
A lot of trade unions in my province are set up this way. They work well, because their bargaining power stems from the values their employees provide. Thus, the union has a vested interest in making sure people do the work properly, get additional training, and in general offer more to the company than non-union alternatives. Employers actually like these unions, because they DO bring additional value and they simplify HR by providing common standards for pay and benefits (and manage those benefits for the company).
And they can still go on strike, and do. And they tend to bring in more money and benefits for their employers. My brother makes significantly more in his union job than non-union workers in the same company.
**2. **In this case, the union can essentially shut the company down completely unless their demands are met. But the employer still has the option of restarting with a non-union workforce. Of course, if the employees went on strike because they are being grossly mistreated or being paid under their market value, then the employer won’t be able to hire replacements for the same money anyway. I tentatively support this level of unionization, although it’s important to allow the employer to refuse the union as a whole.
3. Now we’re in the region where the union’s power over management is out of whack. If the employer can’t fire the union, he’s essentially a hostage. He’s now reliant on a government official to determine his cost of employment - an official who doesn’t know his business. This is destructive. It gives government too much control over labor negotiations. It puts people ignorant of business in charge of setting prices. I do not support this at all.
4. Public sector unions are a horrible idea, unless they are constrained by some form of market rule. You have a very strong imbalance of power here - not only are the employees paid with other people’s money, which limits the desire of their employers to resist their demands, but they are also voters. If they get big enough (as in California), they can wind up in a position where they can essentially vote for their own benefits. Couple that with union political muscle in terms of getting public support by staging rallies and demonstrations and their use of big money to buy politicians, and you have… California. A state that is rapidly going bankrupt primarily because there are so many people in the public sector making so much money. And every time the government tries to reign in operations costs even a little bit, the big unions mobilize and destroy the effort. The foxes are running the henhouse.
A good reform for public sector unions would be to pass a law limiting their pay and benefits so that they cannot be paid a nickel more than the average wage for private sector employees in similar occupations in the same region. There’s absolutely no reason why a government worker should make more money than the private sector person with the same job whose taxes are going to pay the public sector salaries. In fact, since government jobs are more secure than private sector jobs, I’d argue that they should make slightly less money than the private sector. Risk has a price, and a job that carries less risk of losing employment should pay less than an equivalent job that has higher risk.
+1
Very well put.
WHy can’t people see that?
Why are there people defending government/public sector unions who are paid with other people’s money. Worse also is that the government is handling our money. It’s like it’s free and endless. If they are short on money, more taxes or cut services. Usually it’s both. But where does all that money go? To the unioned workers who should be paid market value.
Why am I paying $60k to a bus driver when the market value of the bus driver is 30k? Why doesn’t the government step in and say, “Listen. this is the people’s money and we need to make sure we spend it right.”
All those union supporters. Answer this.
Would you agree with your government if they contracted out garbage collecting to their friend’s business for 100million even if there were 5 companies offering to do it for $50million? If they did that, what would the public reaction be?
Even if it’s not a friend’s business. The public would be angered if they found out that the government contracted out to a business for $100 mil when the average contract for that job is $50mil.
Would you say, that’s fair. The company deserves it.
What about your tax dollar? Don’t you want it spent properly?
Or bring it down to a personal level.
Let’s say your wife wants to buy some shoes.
They have the exact same model at two stores. One sells it for $600, the other for $300.
If your wife bought the $600, you’d be pissed no?
That’s money that could have been used for something else…
Your criticism would make a lot of sense if the only public employees were federal employees.
Do you have cites for any of these? I believe that you’re right on these, I’d just be interested in following up and learning more.
You’re very right about this. Good point I neglected to mention.
The payscales for federal employees, even with similar positions, vary across the agencies. For example, someone with my exact grade and position (GS-14) at the SEC is likely to be paid more. However, I work with private sector counsel because I secure private lender transactions (another thing most people don’t know about the government!) and the lawyers I work with from Nixon Peabody, Skadden, Goldman Sachs and Sonnenschein make a shitload more than I do, I assure you of that.
Most attorneys hired out of law school start at GS-11 if they come in through the Honors Attorney Fellowwhatthehelltheycallitnow new attorney recruitment program.
Your cite has a big problem - it does not compare comparable jobs. Update 1 admits it. USA Today shows that today federal workers do make more, but only $67K to $60K, not the massive difference shown in your source.
Still horrible? Perhaps, but during the Bush years private wages stagnated, which is a direct cause of the excessive borrowing we saw which helped cause the meltdown. Perhaps if the increase in profits and productivity was distributed better we would have had spending of money we earned instead of borrowed, and would have needed neither bailouts not stimulus.
We need to build demand, sustainable demand, and cutting government wages to match the screwing the private sector got isn’t the way to do it.
Thank you for the correction. I should have more closely read my first cite. While it seems clear that the wage disparity is not near as drastic as I first thought, one point does remain:
Other benefits for federal employees average over 30k more than private sector workers. That’s a considerable amount compensation you forgot to mention.
I don’t and never have. My wife isn’t in a union either. when my daughter was 10 she was a member of SAG (Screen Actors Guild) and I assure you the union brought lots of advantages, like getting paid in a reasonable time.
I don’t need a union where I work because talent is such a distinguishing factor that any company badly screwing employees would lose them in the first upturn. However, look how many video game developers are getting screwed, sucked in for the glamor and then worked up to burnout. For an average person without bargaining power, a union, joining with others, equalizes negotiating position with the management.
BTW, anyone claiming that government employment is safe should look at California. Teachers are being laid off left and right, and salaries are being cut through shutting down government offices a few days a month.
True, but that is not matched with job description either. I suspect the cook is doing much better working for the government than for private industry, the chemist not so much so. And as we have learned, things like health insurance have been cut more and more in the private sector, which increases the average gap - and that is not a good thing.
I’ll accept that those who think that workers should be paid the bare minimum will be upset by federal pay scales - but they need to explain who is going to buy the products the workers make. Wall Street Bankers can only buy so much. And I’m not saying the money for these wages should come out of nowhere - they should come out of the productivity improvements that companies see, which used to happen but happens no more. I’d actually like to see something similar for government employees also - you can’t measure profit or production, but you can measure productivity.
I do, and my mother did (until she retired) in the public sector. I’m a county worker, paid through a combination of county, state, and federal funds. Mom worked for a large metropolitan city and for that city’s school district paid through city funds. Both she and I are/were white collar.
In opposition to what has been posted above about public sector employees continuously receiving raises, my salary had decreased over the past four years. 0% wage increase, between 2-4% increase in cost of insurance per year (with coverage decreasing every year, leading to more out of pocket fees paid. Also remember, for most union jobs there is a distinct ceiling. Raises are not given for performance, just for hours worked. Once you hit that ceiling (7 years in my position), there is no opportunity for wage increases unless the union manages to squeak one out of the governing board. Last year and this year we’re required to take furloughs equal to a day every two weeks for the rest of the year. Positions are not being filled, leading to more cases per worker, which leads to less time to thoroughly work a case. Management (non-union, FWIW) shrugs.
I will wholeheartedly agree that there are workers that, if not unionized, would and should have been seen the door. Management, over the past six months, has found loopholes in out contract and have begun firing people.
I would suggest that the real reason for the difference is the massive rise in non-unionized private labor over the last generation. Private sector wages can’t keep up in a right-to-work environment. It’s not that public sector is too well-paid & too unionized, but that the private sector (which includes food servers, farm workers, & the like) is not well-paid enough.
I’m suspicious of public-sector unions, but then I remember that Solidarnosc was a union in a nationalized industry.
Good Heavens.
You don’t need to have a say in how GM is run. It’s a private enterprise. It’s backed by private investors, who have chosen to put their own money into it by weighing the risks and rewards of doing so. Do you want GM managers to have a say over how you live your life?
Whoops. Strike that. GM was a private enterprise.
You have all the power. You and GM can only come together and engage in a transaction if you agree to do so. That’s why it’s called a voluntary transaction. Nothing can happen between you and GM without your consent.
The government, on other hand, is going to come and take my money and give it to GM whether I want it to or not. I have no choice in that matter. It is backed up by the legal means of force.
So no, Mr Little Nemo, we do not have it backwards. You have it backwards.
Because you foolishly believe that voting for 1 out of 435 Representatives every 2 years, 2 out of 100 Senators every 6 years and 1 President every 4 years gives you a ‘say’ over public-sector unions. It doesn’t. Or rather, it barely does…measured in infinitesimal increments that are overwhelmed by the power the governmental unions yield from the other side.
But you have 100% power over your dealings with private enterprise, 100% of the time. Or at least, you can have 100% power if you want it.
But clearly, you don’t want it. You would prefer to paint yourself as a helpless victim and someone who needs to rush into the arms of Saint Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and others to save you from yourself.
Oh yeah. What we need is to have more of a downward force of wages. We must have our public sector workers compete with illegal aliens, then we will show them. Our wages are frozen or dropping. Unless you run a bank where you can feed at taxpayers money until you are full. (they never fill up).
Don’t try to hold other people wages down. If they make decent money, the private sector has to meet it. Every bodies wages go up. But if you force public wages to drop, companies can pay what they want. Where are you going to go? Where are you going to go? You should be damn happy if public workers make a good wage and get good benefits. Then you will. Unions set a bar. They fought for paid vacations and benefits that spilled over to you. They fight for safer better working conditions. I am sure you think corporations are generous and magnanimous and love to pay for vacations and health care. When the unions go, so will the benefits.
The Unions do NOT set a bar. What they do is raise the price of goods and services in the industries over which they have sway. Californians are each carrying thousands of dollars in debt because of the money borrowed to pay the salaries of the public unions, and they’re on the hook for even more money because almost every public union in the country is running a deficit in its entitlement funds. When you buy a GM vehicle, about $3,000 - $5,000 of YOUR money goes straight into the union’s health care benefit fund. Every time someone who makes less than $78/hr in wages and benefits buys a new GM car, a wealth transfer is taking place - from the poor to the well off. How can you possibly support that?
This is why I keep saying that progressives are backing the wrong horse when they support big unions, and especially big public unions. Take Wal-Mart, and the left’s never-ending attempt to push unions on that company. Do you know who would pay for that? Not ‘the rich’ - the rich don’t shop at Wal-Mart. Not the Walton family, or any of the executive - they don’t have enough money to cover the pay and benefit increases the left wants for Wal-Mart employees. No, the cost of higher labor would be transferred directly to the consumers at Wal-Mart, who are generally in the same income strata as Wal-Mart employees themselves. All you’d be doing is destroying jobs and shifting wealth between two groups of poor people - and in the process reducing the aggregate wealth of the poor community because Wal-Mart would lose market share and start laying people off.
But you can’t see past your simplistic, “Management evil - workers good!” philosophy to really see the effect this has. But when public union workers are in the top income quintile, and they’re demanding more money from taxpayers who are on average making significantly less, you’ve got a problem. If you’re a left-wing type who cares about the poor, YOU have a problem if you’re supporting these unions. You’re betraying the people who need your help, in order to support a special interest that’s on your side primarily because it throws huge sums of money at Democrat politicians.
What kind of weird fantasy world do you inhabit? Unions are under7 percent of the work force now. Yet you shudder and run in fear when they are mentioned. Do you actually believe they are a huge factor? Do you not see it will not be long before they are all gone. I believe it was you who said the Supreme Court decision was correct because it counterbalanced the corporate money with union . What an imbalance. It is the same imbalance that newspapers and TV show. The battle is over. Corporations won.
The last elections showed the Democrats can raise money in small doses from the internet. That is how they were funded. Unions did not run the Democratic platform or finance the campaign. You have to get over your anti union prejudice.
It’s really unfortunate when facts get in the way of your arguments, Mr Gonzomax. Just like when you thought the Bush administration supposedly facilitated “the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich” via the income tax, when in fact the exact opposite occurred.
Clearly, you must have missed this link.
Check out numbers 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 on the top 15. And notice the numbers of little blue donkeys to the right of each.
No one wants to talk about that link, because it disrupts the narrative. You know, that the Republicans are the party of big oil and big corporations. Exxon and Halliburton run the Republican party, while the Democrats get their funding from the people, and do not listen to the special interests.
Democrats claim they are the grassroots party. They do ‘get out the vote’ drives. They put commercials on TV asking everyone to vote more and take more of an interest in government. ACORN and other groups had as one of their key missions registering as many under-educated poor people as they possible could. Not because they were going to make thoughtful choices, but because they’d simply vote Democrat, and everyone knows it.
But when a real grassroots party rises up and takes an interest, one that wasn’t the creation of a Republican get-out-the-vote campaign or driven in any way by Republicans in Washington, suddenly they’re just ignorant rubes and must be demonized and opposed intensely.
Because Democrats only want the people to take more interest in politics if they’re the kind of people who like to vote for a Democrat.
But they’re just digging their own hole. The Democrats’ only hope to avoid electoral blowout is to stop demonizing the tea party and others on the right, and start trying to engage them in a substantive discussion on just how much government Americans really want and try to work out some kind of arrangement that can satisfy both sides.
But no, they’re wedded to this idea that an election starts a four-year dictatorship under which the government can simply ram through anything it think is good for the people, regardless of whether or not the people asked them to do it. Now the people are becoming increasingly angry, and the Democrats are responding by calling them racists and extremists. Yeah, that’ll work.
You guys are suckers. We have created corporations without consciences. They are mindless industries with a single mind, to make money. Any concessions for decent treatment and treating workers humanely has taken strikes with union workers getting killed. You must believe corporations were glad to give up the use of child labor. But of course with offshoring they jumped all over it. They have kids all over the world working long hours ,giving up their schooling and childhood. Remember the Kathy Lee controversy? How about Nike? How about Bhopal?
Too long ago? How about the financial meltdown ? The financial sector sold insurance (swaps) on CDOs. They called them swaps to avoid insurance regulations. The payout on the swaps could have been 600 trillion dollars. That is multiple more money than exiists in all the banks in the world. Do you think they could have suspected they were selling instruments they could not pay off? Do you really believe they did not know that? There in nothing benign about corporations. They are soulless and created that way. That is why they require strong and powerful counterbalance. They have to be regulated. They have to be watched carefully by legal organizations. They are thieves. They are designed that way.
It is a constant battle against their greed. Coal power plants are not cleaned up. Why? Because it would cost money to do so. So they buy off the regulators and politicians. The result, a lot of sick people and pollution that does not have to happen.
gonzomax, I have a few serious question for you:
How come there are non-union shops where the workers are treated well?
How come non-union companies pay above minimum wage?
How come non-union jobs often offer full benefit packages, including retirement and health care?
How come the U.S. has one of the highest median wages in the world, with one of the lowest rates of unionization?
I look forward to your specific, detailed responses to these questions.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm Note these tax charts from 2001 to n2010. In that Bushian propelled time the bottom 20 percent got a tax break of 744 bucks total. The top 1 percent got 342, 472 over the same time. Real numbers here.