NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Since almost no one supports that why would they defend it?Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;
it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.
Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?
You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.
You realize that the problems are not all related to the fact that there have been bad contracts negotiated with unions who are colluding with the politicians to get them in power in the first place. That can translate into lesser wages in an industry where those wages were not set at appropriate levels in the first place. That is just one benefit that the taxpayers will receive though.
The real benefits stem from having more control over your workforce - being able to get rid of teachers that are not carrying their weight and hire new teachers. Getting rid of seniority practices that reward time warming a chair over skills. More flexibility in who you can hire. The list goes on.
The question that you have to answer is where the balancing force is for a public sector union? That is a VITAL piece that is missing from the public sector. In a private sector union the company and the workers come to an equitable agreement through negotiations that balance the needs of the company to generate profit and the needs of the worker to generate an income and benefits. In a public sector there is nothing balancing the other side of that equation. Further, they are negotiating with people that they have invested millions into for obtaining the office they hold with promise of further donations if they support the unions. IOW, they are on the same side. That hoses the taxpayer.
Finally, there is nothing to be gained at all in paying higher wages than justified by the added value of a worker. It causes companies to go out of business and municipalities to run out of money. Those teachers are not getting paid out of thin air - they are paid by the rest of us and our taxes. The economy is not getting anything by taking my dollars and transferring more to a teacher or any other public sector employee than they are worth.
You seem to be inferring that teachers are now going to have to live on the wages of a pauper suddenly because they are no longer part of a public sector union (sucking some of their wages off the top I might add) and that is flatly false.
Well how much should a person with a master's degree, and charged with one of the most important tasks in our society, i.e., educating our children, make??