Public Employee Unions

[Amelia]

And how, exactly, is that different than the myriad of industries that largely exist because of government contracts?



Tons of unsustainable promises were made to private sector unions as well. It's interesting that conservatives are very much about "responsibility", unless responsibility requires people in positions of power, be they CEOs or politicians, actually following through. Then outright theft becomes okay, because, hey, those rubes in the union shouldn't really have expected the rules to apply to people in positions of power.

The MASSIVE difference is that the people that receive that service are LEGALLY bound to purchase it. Let’s take schools as a good example. If the teachers want to strike, their customers (the people) have no options. The money that they pay the school cannot be taken back and used somewhere else. They can’t take their business to another company. They cannot put that school out of business. In that regard, the customers are beholden to the service provider. There is no balancing power against that strike. If the teachers push to far, who cares? They will get their pay anyway and they are going to get a better contract. As I already pointed out, the politician who is ‘representing’ the people never actually has to pay for that. The people don’t even see the results until it is too late and the politician is likely sipping margaritas at his retirement home. OTOH, the fact that children are not able to go to school AND the people are still paying for that is VERY visible.

Now, compare that to a company. If the workers push to far, the company goes out of business or they replace the workers. That is simply not an option that is generally afforded to governmental agencies that use union employees. Companies have to balance this also with the real costs of doing business as a bad union deal can put them under where a bad deal with the government does… well… nothing at all to the parties involved.

So you ask how they are different. The easier question would be how are they the same? One does not resemble the other in any shape or form.

Ultimately, the public has the option of abolishing public schools if they find the process so outrageous. The fact that they don't means they don't place as high of a value on the question as you do.

Thank you for providing the symbol of the absurdity of your claim that public unions are not in a special class.

Public schools cannot be abolished. To suggest they could is the the height of disingenuity.

 

[Polk]

Of course they could. That the public doesn't choose to exercise that option is that they do not agree with your position. There is nothing absurd about that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Many a police officer wrongly accused of misconduct have been saved thanks to the representation of their public employee union, government workers are not slaves they have the right to union representation just like any other working person.

They have the right to find other work or be public servants. They dont have the right to hold taxpayers hostage for services if more money isn't given. That's extortion and thats the real problem.

And just as many guilty officers are protected from prosecution or even a loss of work for misconduct due to public union "respresentation".

Private sector unions are fine by me, public sector unions should be outlawed completely.

I am for public sector unions as was FDR, also like FDR, I am against collective bargaining for public sector unions.

 

[Amelia]

Of course they could. That the public doesn't choose to exercise that option is that they do not agree with your position. There is nothing absurd about that.

The public is over a barrel because they have few viable options when it comes to dealing with public schools.

Disbanding the schools is not an option.

Schools must stay. It's "for the children". And the workers can have sickouts and other illegal work stoppages with no negative consequences, all the while working the media and the politicians.

But I'm done with this now because you have doubled down on the disingenuous claim about the possibility of disbanding schools.


Public unions are a special class. FDR knew it. You don't have to admit it, but the consequences of the imbalance are being seen across the nation as municipal budgets are busted.



Ta.

 

[Polk]

Of course it's an option. It's just an option people don't like. You're mad that you can't convince other people to agree with you. You're "done with this" because you don't really have an argument other than wanting to whine because you're not getting your way.

 

[Flopper]

Why then do private schools out-perform public schools by such a wide margin?

Maybe we should pay less to teachers and more to the things that actually teach our kids.

There is no proof and little evidence to support your claim. "Contrary to popular belief, we can find no evidence that private schools actually increase student performance,"

Read more: Are Private Schools Really Better? - TIME

 

[Flopper]

Why don't you compare similar jobs in the public and private sectors?
Public school teachers are paid more than twice as much as private school teachers with the same credentials. In california, health & safety (fire & police) retire at 90% of their highest salary after 30 years, and their spouses can continue to to receive these benefits for a miniscule (5%-10%) reduction. Even worse, they are considered disabled if they get any type of cancer or heart problems, which makes their retirement tax free. This then makes them eligible for low income tax credits. Wake up!!!!!

In California, EC Section 48222 specifies only that private school teachers be "persons capable of teaching". There is no certification requirement nor educational requirement. Sorry, but you're comparing apples and oranges. There are many private schools that require that their teachers be certified, but there're also many that don't, particular in private elementary schools. Some of these teachers are just one step up from day care workers and are paid accordingly.

In the state I live in, over 60% of the public school teachers have advanced degrees. They have more education and more experience than private school teachers and of course they make more money.

Advanced degrees, more education and experience, and crap results.

So you think teachers with less educated and experienced are the answer. Well that would sure be a novel approach.

 

[auditor0007]

Many a police officer wrongly accused of misconduct have been saved thanks to the representation of their public employee union, government workers are not slaves they have the right to union representation just like any other working person.

They have the right to find other work or be public servants. They dont have the right to hold taxpayers hostage for services if more money isn't given. That's extortion and thats the real problem.

And just as many guilty officers are protected from prosecution or even a loss of work for misconduct due to public union "respresentation".

Private sector unions are fine by me, public sector unions should be outlawed completely.

So who should determine how much they are paid and what benefits they receive? Be specific.

 

[Harry Dresden]

1. Public employees' total compensation is 50% higher than their private sector counterparts, not counting much greater job security.

2. Public employees do not need union protection because they are already covered by civil service regulations.

3. Making contributions to their employers (politicians) is an obvious conflict of interest that would constitute a felony in the private sector.

All three of those points are weak.
1. Public employees are paid less than their private sector counterparts, after you count for age, education, and experience (the only segment this isn't true for are those with only a high school diploma).
2. That argument doesn't really hold up, because when you get rid of the union, those regulations will be the next thing out the window.
3. Unions are no different than an other interest group, which we don't restrict from donating money to campaigns.

In answer to #3, yes, unions are different from other interest groups. That is, public unions are different from other interest groups.

how are they different when they do the same thing?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Probably need to back up. Perhaps there are some other interest groups which public unions are essentially the same as.

But in general, they're vastly different from private sector unions, and the source of their funding is a large part of that.

no they are not.....they do the same thing.....and the NALC, my Union gets its funding the same way the Teamsters do....Membership...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Public and private sector unions are funded by the same source: their members.

Public sector unions are PAID by people who are supposed to be representing the taxpayers, and it's naive to expect them to do that well when their campaigns are being paid for by unions.

That's just one of the issues. Another problem is the nature of their job. They have a monopoly on the services they perform. If they choose to do a sick out or go on a "no extras at all until we get the contract we want" virtual strike and, for an example which happened here in Wisconsin, refuse to write references for students who are filling out college applications until they get their way, there's no place for those kids to turn.

The problems are not theoretical. They are on the record for everyone to see. Too many unsustainable promises made to the public unions without the natural checks and balances which exist for public sector unions.

i cant speak for any other agency.....but the PO is not allowed to strike....or do a slow down.....lose your job if you do....you sign a paper in the beginning saying you wont....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why would it?
These people work for Boeing (et al), not the mayor.
As such they cannot contribute to an election that will oust Boeing as their boss.

So corporations that are given money for a service can donate money to politicians that have influence over the contracts they get from the government but you would deny that same function to working people?

People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.
You are appraretly unable or unwilling to see the difference.

really?.....in 33 years in the PO..... i never had a say who was going to be my boss....

 

[FA_Q2]

And how, exactly, is that different than the myriad of industries that largely exist because of government contracts?



Tons of unsustainable promises were made to private sector unions as well. It's interesting that conservatives are very much about "responsibility", unless responsibility requires people in positions of power, be they CEOs or politicians, actually following through. Then outright theft becomes okay, because, hey, those rubes in the union shouldn't really have expected the rules to apply to people in positions of power.

The MASSIVE difference is that the people that receive that service are LEGALLY bound to purchase it. Let’s take schools as a good example. If the teachers want to strike, their customers (the people) have no options. The money that they pay the school cannot be taken back and used somewhere else. They can’t take their business to another company. They cannot put that school out of business. In that regard, the customers are beholden to the service provider. There is no balancing power against that strike. If the teachers push to far, who cares? They will get their pay anyway and they are going to get a better contract. As I already pointed out, the politician who is ‘representing’ the people never actually has to pay for that. The people don’t even see the results until it is too late and the politician is likely sipping margaritas at his retirement home. OTOH, the fact that children are not able to go to school AND the people are still paying for that is VERY visible.

Now, compare that to a company. If the workers push to far, the company goes out of business or they replace the workers. That is simply not an option that is generally afforded to governmental agencies that use union employees. Companies have to balance this also with the real costs of doing business as a bad union deal can put them under where a bad deal with the government does… well… nothing at all to the parties involved.

So you ask how they are different. The easier question would be how are they the same? One does not resemble the other in any shape or form.

Ultimately, the public has the option of abolishing public schools if they find the process so outrageous. The fact that they don't means they don't place as high of a value on the question as you do.

You completely missed the point of the post. It has nothing to do with the schools themselves. Public education is not going anywhere because there is a need to ensure that people have a basic education. The difference is between public and private unions which, by the way, ARE under fire and the people are starting to try and abolish them. You r entire point is moot.

Now, try and go back and actually address what I claimed rather than setting up the ‘abolish public schools’ straw man.

 

[editec]

are like Communism: Great in theory but terrible in practice. They now represent a new aristocracy which holds a knife to the throat of our democracy. If we don't give them what they demand, we will be punished...

​

 

[M14 Shooter]

So corporations that are given money for a service can donate money to politicians that have influence over the contracts they get from the government but you would deny that same function to working people?

People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.
You are appraretly unable or unwilling to see the difference.

really?.....in 33 years in the PO..... i never had a say who was going to be my boss....

You voted for mayor/sheriff/city council, yes?
Then you had a say.

 

[Polk]

The MASSIVE difference is that the people that receive that service are LEGALLY bound to purchase it. Let’s take schools as a good example. If the teachers want to strike, their customers (the people) have no options. The money that they pay the school cannot be taken back and used somewhere else. They can’t take their business to another company. They cannot put that school out of business. In that regard, the customers are beholden to the service provider. There is no balancing power against that strike. If the teachers push to far, who cares? They will get their pay anyway and they are going to get a better contract. As I already pointed out, the politician who is ‘representing’ the people never actually has to pay for that. The people don’t even see the results until it is too late and the politician is likely sipping margaritas at his retirement home. OTOH, the fact that children are not able to go to school AND the people are still paying for that is VERY visible.

Now, compare that to a company. If the workers push to far, the company goes out of business or they replace the workers. That is simply not an option that is generally afforded to governmental agencies that use union employees. Companies have to balance this also with the real costs of doing business as a bad union deal can put them under where a bad deal with the government does… well… nothing at all to the parties involved.

So you ask how they are different. The easier question would be how are they the same? One does not resemble the other in any shape or form.

Ultimately, the public has the option of abolishing public schools if they find the process so outrageous. The fact that they don't means they don't place as high of a value on the question as you do.

You completely missed the point of the post. It has nothing to do with the schools themselves. Public education is not going anywhere because there is a need to ensure that people have a basic education. The difference is between public and private unions which, by the way, ARE under fire and the people are starting to try and abolish them. You r entire point is moot.

Now, try and go back and actually address what I claimed rather than setting up the ‘abolish public schools’ straw man.

1. There is no requirement that public education be provided by teachers employed directly by the government.
2. "People" aren't trying to abolish labor unions. Companies are pushing for laws which de facto outlaw labor unions.
3. I did address your point. You claim the public has no choice, but that's not true. The public just doesn't want to exercise the choice.

 

[Harry Dresden]

People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.
You are appraretly unable or unwilling to see the difference.

really?.....in 33 years in the PO..... i never had a say who was going to be my boss....

You voted for mayor/sheriff/city council, yes?
Then you had a say.

you said people you work for.....not who works for me.....your quote....

People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

really?.....in 33 years in the PO..... i never had a say who was going to be my boss....

You voted for mayor/sheriff/city council, yes?
Then you had a say.

you said people you work for...

Yep.
You know.. the mayor, the sheriff, the city council... whoever.
All elected.

 

[krych3k]

So corporations that are given money for a service can donate money to politicians that have influence over the contracts they get from the government but you would deny that same function to working people?

People in the private sector do not vote in their employers; people in the public sector do.
You are appraretly unable or unwilling to see the difference.

really?.....in 33 years in the PO..... i never had a say who was going to be my boss....

Yes you do, you vote in your politicians that fund your employer. As a public employee, the director of your department or organisation isn't the top of the food chain, the public is. Therefore, you have an impact on your management in a way that those in the private sector typically do not. This is a crucial difference.

 

[FA_Q2]

1. There is no requirement that public education be provided by teachers employed directly by the government.

And? What’s your point? This has NOTHING to do with what we were discussing.

2. "People" aren't trying to abolish labor unions. Companies are pushing for laws which de facto outlaw labor unions.

Yes they are. The left is continually screaming about the right attempting just that. Are you now saying that is all bullshit? Have you not read some of the comments in this very thread with people that want to see an end to public sector unions?

3. I did agree your point. You claim the public has no choice, but that's not true. The public just doesn't want to exercise the choice.

No they don’t. When the teachers go on strike, they cannot take that money back and redirect it to another school. They cannot do anything at all about the situation. They can vote people in AFTER the fact and they are likely to do nothing about it anyway but the reality is that there are ZERO repercussions to the ‘business’ or the employee in these cases.