Break the government Union movement

[Spinoza]

Seems like states around the US are starting to move towards breaking up their unions for state employees. Policeman, Firefighters, Teachers, Nurses. Was wondering what everyone thinks about this.

[SnerpGoodWord]

I see no reason that government employees should be a privileged class, so in general I'm opposed to any laws that grant them anything not generally available to private sector employees in the same state.

[James Fletcher]

Unions are mostly parasitic, unnecessary bureaucracies these days.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

I see no reason that government employees should be a privileged class, so in general I'm opposed to any laws that grant them anything not generally available to private sector employees in the same state.

Although private sector employees all have the right to have a union. If anything this is removing some of the priveldge that private workers have from government employees.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

Although private sector employees all have the right to have a union.

But that union can't exert political influence to vote themselves a pay raise. That is a right that those in the private sector do not have.

I would be fine with public unions as long as they cannot deduct dues from paychecks or have closed shops. I don't object to their existence. What I object to is the viscous cycle where money is paid by the govenment in salaries, deducted automatically into union coffers, and used to lobby said government without any say on the part of the actual employees. Which is the standard state of affairs in most blue states.

[MariconesUnited]

I generally dislike both unions and most large organizations. Some unions have grown much too large and abusive. Here in Quebec the corruption in the construction sector is systemic. Our premier has been forced to launch an inquiry into the whole ordeal and as a response the entirety of construction workers have been forced out of work by the unions. Most commentators claim the mafia is involved. Very clearly these people are abusing their power over the rest of the population.

[ZephyrusX]

Work has such an enormous impact on every facet of our life. If you take away our right to collective bargaining, you will be taking away the means through which workers negotiate the standards of their life. If you just don't care, you might want to consider the fact that an unsatisfied employee generally results in poorer productivity.

There are examples of unions that abuse the amount of power that they have, but there are also plenty of examples of unions that work towards win-win relationships with management. Library unions in Canada (academic and public, anyway) generally have a good working relationship with management.

Is collective bargaining not included in the Bill of Rights? If this is actually happening, I think the states are setting a very poor example of democracy. But some how it doesn't really surprise me, at the same time.

[MariconesUnited]

Good points Zeph. Life isn't black and white. That's why I find myself amused whenever someone blames socialism or capitalism or government or any one specific organization for all our woes.

[ZephyrusX]

No, nothing is really all that black and white. I've been a member of a fairly weak union in the past - Teamsters (coincidentally, they were run by the mafia in the past, if I recall correctly ). I won't name the corporation I was working for at the time, but the union stunk of corruption. While I was there, the union rep negotiated a fairly weak renewal of our contract, and then, several months later, he was promoted into some other department with very nice benefits attached. Everyone was pissed. But no one actively participated in the union. When the time for renewing our contract came around, some people showed up and asked for higher wages, but that is it. They more or less expected the union rep to spoon feed them and took for granted that he would be on their side.

That is not how democracy works. I hate to say it, but workers really have to get off their asses and get involved in union politics if they expect to get the most out of that institution. Otherwise, someone will take advantage of their weaknesses. A union in it self doesn't guarantee the power to negotiate in the workplace. Only an active workforce that is more or less coherent in their values and goals can achieve that. Outsourcing that responsibility to an organization like Teamsters does not equate 'collective bargaining' in my mind; not unless the workers will actively participate.

Having said that, I do think unions can do a better job of providing outreach. I'm sure one reason why workers generally do not participate much in their unions is that they don't have the slightest idea what is going on.

My point really is that unionization is only a tool towards collective bargaining. Whether or not it is used well is really up to the people who compose that union. I think that the whole rhetoric behind the anti-union movement will legitimize what the State's are doing, but much of that rhetoric sits on shifty grounds at best. It is a shame really.

And that concludes my little rant on unions.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Good points Zeph. Life isn't black and white. That's why I find myself amused whenever someone blames socialism or capitalism or government or any one specific organization for all our woes.