Red Mosquito

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So what are public sector workers supposed to do if they feel they are getting shit upon?

Why can't public workers adopt less dramatic, more discreet ways to sway the government their way? Like companies do. But corruption lobbying requires lots of money and they're simply too lazy for that.

surfndestroy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:Really, you don't understand why people have an issue with public sector unions.

I can understand people having a issue with individual unions or union demands/tactics. What I don't get is the blanket hatred. I also don't get why public sector unions are particularly objectionable. I understand the taxpayers fund their salaries, but really, if we demanded that every public sector worker earns minimum wage then they would lose a whole lot of talent to the private sector.

I am against public sector unions because they usually have a government mandated monopoly on the service or are so highly subsidized as to make them a de facto monopoly for all but the very rich. As such, the incentive to stay in business and be competitive is not there to the employer. In my eyes when public sector workers go on strike, it is a form of extortion.

If Honda workers want to go on strike, I have plenty of options. When DMV workers go on strike, I have no options as mandated by the government. Honda has an incentive to keep salaries realistic (including benefits) whereas governments do not. They have the incentive to ensure services are provided. The bigger government gets, the more dependant on this monopoly we are and the services they provide. There is no incentive to negotiate competitive salaries, hence you see some outrageous benefits that have a huge costs that does not affect the politician negotiating the contract. The politician's outlook is too short to care about the cost of benefits.

I actually have no issue with private sector unions. I think some of the rules could be better. I think union a worker should be able to opt out of the union and have his/her dues lowered to cover their share of contract negotiations and union representation on work related issues. I think it is asinine to force an employee to give part of his salary to support political causes they do not believe in. Many would scream bloody murder if the company did this but seem to not mind when a union does.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So what are public sector workers supposed to do if they feel they are getting shit upon?

Why can't public workers adopt less dramatic, more discreet ways to sway the government their way? Like companies do. But corruption lobbying requires lots of money and they're simply too lazy for that.

They do that as well. Even without strikes California has an outsized union influence. Planning and land use restrict housing near employment areas, either forcing people to live 60 miles away from work or downsize and be dependent on public transit while living closer to work. Now that many are dependent on this system, we will see ever increasing fare and tax hikes. It's all for workers rights and justice, mind you.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

stip wrote:some people here sure don't like unions.

Yeah, I don't get it.

I won't have any problem with unions if it weren't for the Wagner Act.

Electromatic wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Electromatic wrote:What are they fighting for? I haven't heard one story with grievances

They came to terms on pay and benefits but the union doesn't want to budge on work rules. Currently, if they call in sick one day and then work a non-scheduled day they get OT as their sick time counts towards their 40 hours. Many of their work rules pre date widespread computer usage so all payroll and reports are generated only on hard copy. Being asked to type is exploitative, apparently.

The above illustrates the reason I generally side against unions. They aren't fighting against oppression, they are fighting for nonsense.

Electromatic wrote:Of course, I just don't think having an adversarial relationship with your employer and clientele is a good idea or a good way to act.

We're not talking about ending sweatshops here, we're talking...a disagreement over overtime.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So what are public sector workers supposed to do if they feel they are getting shit upon?

Decide public sector work isn't for them. The government has not taken their option of working elsewhere, unlike they have with citizens and getting those government mandated monopoly services.

Seems like a path that will always put government agencies at a disadvantage for quality workers.

If taxpayers suffer from poor service as a result they might have an incentive to increase funding. As it stands we are paying princely sums for sullen employees with high school educations. I think FDR is on record as being against public sector unions. We're public sector employees exploited prior tobeing oorganized?

stip wrote:Basically people's hostility towards unions is not 'oh they're corrupt or can be wasteful, etc.' Because that can apply to ANY business or ANY organization. We think about it in those terms because the larger consolidated interests that govern the media are hostile to labor. Labor reporting as a journalistic beat is also currently essentially non-existent, so no one is covering these issues from any perspective beyond management.


The question is whether or not you think workers are legitimate stakeholders in an organization, or simply a biological means of production. And when you think about it in those terms the case for unions is much stronger.

Electromatic wrote:

stip wrote:Basically people's hostility towards unions is not 'oh they're corrupt or can be wasteful, etc.' Because that can apply to ANY business or ANY organization. We think about it in those terms because the larger consolidated interests that govern the media are hostile to labor. Labor reporting as a journalistic beat is also currently essentially non-existent, so no one is covering these issues from any perspective beyond management.


The question is whether or not you think workers are legitimate stakeholders in an organization, or simply a biological means of production. And when you think about it in those terms the case for unions is much stronger.

I have a huge stake in my company, I'm not in a union. I think we have great employees and I think we're treated fairly, if I didn't, I'd leave and find a new job

Electromatic wrote:

stip wrote:Basically people's hostility towards unions is not 'oh they're corrupt or can be wasteful, etc.' Because that can apply to ANY business or ANY organization. We think about it in those terms because the larger consolidated interests that govern the media are hostile to labor. Labor reporting as a journalistic beat is also currently essentially non-existent, so no one is covering these issues from any perspective beyond management.


The question is whether or not you think workers are legitimate stakeholders in an organization, or simply a biological means of production. And when you think about it in those terms the case for unions is much stronger.

I have a huge stake in my company, I'm not in a union. I think we have great employees and I think we're treated fairly, if I didn't, I'd leave and find a new job

I'd leave and find a new job

stip wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:Really, you don't understand why people have an issue with public sector unions.

I can understand people having a issue with individual unions or union demands/tactics. What I don't get is the blanket hatred. I also don't get why public sector unions are particularly objectionable. I understand the taxpayers fund their salaries, but really, if we demanded that every public sector worker earns minimum wage then they would lose a whole lot of talent to the private sector.

I am against public sector unions because they usually have a government mandated monopoly on the service or are so highly subsidized as to make them a de facto monopoly for all but the very rich. As such, the incentive to stay in business and be competitive is not there to the employer. In my eyes when public sector workers go on strike, it is a form of extortion.

If Honda workers want to go on strike, I have plenty of options. When DMV workers go on strike, I have no options as mandated by the government. Honda has an incentive to keep salaries realistic (including benefits) whereas governments do not. They have the incentive to ensure services are provided. The bigger government gets, the more dependant on this monopoly we are and the services they provide. There is no incentive to negotiate competitive salaries, hence you see some outrageous benefits that have a huge costs that does not affect the politician negotiating the contract. The politician's outlook is too short to care about the cost of benefits.

I actually have no issue with private sector unions. I think some of the rules could be better. I think union a worker should be able to opt out of the union and have his/her dues lowered to cover their share of contract negotiations and union representation on work related issues. I think it is asinine to force an employee to give part of his salary to support political causes they do not believe in. Many would scream bloody murder if the company did this but seem to not mind when a union does.

Presumably you also support banning corporations from engaging in political causes. After all, that is also spending shareholder money.

stip wrote:Lobbying is expensive. Are you okay with labor lobbying as well?

surfndestroy wrote:

stip wrote:Lobbying is expensive. Are you okay with labor lobbying as well?

As long as an employee is able to have his dues reduced to opt out of every non salary salary negotiation and contract conflict, sure. It's bad enough that if you want to work at many employees you lose your freedom of association as part of that employment. But to lose your political power in oder to work, that's just ridiculous.

You forget that Board of Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to earn profit for shareholders. As far as I am aware, union executives do not hold any such responsibility to their union members, and as such get caught up in political initiatives that have absolutely nothing to do with garnering their members a higher wage or better working conditions.

Nice talking down regarding FDR, if he only understood unions. I love that argument that if he was only as smart as me he'd see things differently. Their is no philosophical reason for his stand, just stupidity.

stip wrote:apparently BART management also refused to go to arbitration. If this was really over something that inconsequential and stupid they likely would have done it.

And if the union and management agreed on the major financial issues (wages, benefits, etc) AND management admits that this sick days stuff is hardly an epidemic there would not be a strike over this from either side because that would be, well, really fucking stupid. And it looks the wages/benefits offer the bart workers got was pretty good (although keep in mind this is following a round or two of givebacks, so some of this might be just making up lost ground).

The issue is over how much of a say workers should have in how their organization is run. that's important. the example(s) furnished are pretty petty examples of this, being used deliberately because it paints the union in a bad light. It's propaganda.

simple schoolboy wrote:

stip wrote:apparently BART management also refused to go to arbitration. If this was really over something that inconsequential and stupid they likely would have done it.

And if the union and management agreed on the major financial issues (wages, benefits, etc) AND management admits that this sick days stuff is hardly an epidemic there would not be a strike over this from either side because that would be, well, really fucking stupid. And it looks the wages/benefits offer the bart workers got was pretty good (although keep in mind this is following a round or two of givebacks, so some of this might be just making up lost ground).

The issue is over how much of a say workers should have in how their organization is run. that's important. the example(s) furnished are pretty petty examples of this, being used deliberately because it paints the union in a bad light. It's propaganda.

My understanding is that management opted for arbitration for the whole thing, while the union only warmed to arbitration after the financial and benefit details has been agreed to. If these

Having a say in the organization is fine and well, but why exactly should public sector workers have the right to strike after policy makers give them a monopoly on a critical service? Does the taxpaying public have an obligation to just give in? Is it really propaganda to point out the petty work rules that have to be written in stone? Are union members of this caliber incapable of such flexibility?

If you were merely concerned about workers having a stake, perhaps we should move away from this adversarial system and towards the Germans, where unions have a seat on the board and strikes not common, at least compared to their neighbors.