The end of public employee unions? Let's hope so

I have no problem with private sector unions, and their right to collective bargaining.
Some people fail to realize that public sector unions are a completely different animal, which has a strangle hold on tax payers. If you don't believe me, check out places like Detroit, which was pretty bankrupted by public sector unions.

There's no bargaining with public sector unions, all they have to do is get a "yes man" politician in office, and the pubic gets ass raped.

 

That would be awesome! Even the liberals "God", FDR, spoke out against them.

 

As the American worker is close to being as well.

 

Thank you for your input; you're one of a handful in here who has a grasp on what unions are and how they benefit workers.

I worked union (private sector) my entire working career; my union and the company formed a working partnership in which both benefited from; the company made very good money and we had good paying jobs with excellent benefits. I have a company supplied-union negotiated pension plan in addition to a 401.k plan because of this partnership as well.

So many young people today have never worked in a union represented workplace; all they know is what the their company tells them (99% of the time totally false, because they don't want them to unionize) and what they read/hear from conservative news sources. Too bad for them because they could actually change the destiny of their lives if only they studied labor history in this country and really grasped what the labor movement is all about.

If only they were more open to learning and thinking about the benefits of collective bargaining...........

 

Good points. And for me, the sticky point is this:

If one is NOT in a/the union, why would they 'expect' to be represented by the same, should the need arise?

One reason I joined a union 30+ years ago, was because I knew that union had a 'lawyer' that came with that membership. I paid my dues AND made use of that lawyer a few times, in significant rulings. I never felt guilty about going to the union, when I knew I was being mistreated or when my job was in jeopardy; right/wrong, I wanted to be represented by another party when difficulty at work arose... so I joined the union and paid my dues.

All I'm saying to people is: If you want to be represented by the union, pay up. If not, then opt out (you get no representation, if you aren't a member). I think that should be the overall principle.

 

Amen!! The propaganda of a certain set of 'greedy' and 'uncaring' people, has convinced many to reject unions. There is zero doubt that workers and their families have suffered as a result.

 

The problem is you take one city which had poor leadership such as Detroit and label all unions based on the actions on one city where management (local politicians) and the union had contracts they couldn't afford. Does that sound rational to you to stereotype unions and municipalities based on the actions of a few?

Imagine a public sector workforce with workers making between minimum wage and say $15 per hour with a poor if any benefits package. You are not going to get the same level of service you'd get with a workforce of people who make better money and have a decent benefits package. In other words, you get what you pay for. Most people that I know who work in jobs with the above described conditions have little loyalty nor motive to be productive because they feel under appreciated and under compensated.

Whether you are private or public sector should make no difference; labor contracts are simply business agreements much like you would have with a vendor, subject to the laws of the state. If the public wants services, it comes along with a price tag. I can only speak for myself in this but I want services from people who are well paid to do their jobs and are carrying out their jobs in a career-minded attitude.

 

The real problem with today's unions is that they achieved what they originally set out to and laws now exist to protect the worker from the early abuses.

So now, they must justify their existence by extorting their members from ivory towers with the promise of giving them more than they deserve.

This is, of course, at the expense of the very jobs/industries they purport to defend.

Public employee unions take this one step further, because they can. The taxpayer well is even more faceless and nearly bottomless.



Good riddance to both.

 

#1-I support the existence of PRIVATE sector unions.
#2-public sector unions are a cancer, a tumor in the neck of the economy
#3-the suffering/declining wages of the middle class has been brought about by policies DEMOCRATS have supported, including trade deals which competitvely hurt the US, embracing of large-scale illegal and legal immigration, and lunatic job-theft programs like the H1B
#4-the liberals/leftists wanted to help the middle classes of Brazil, China, India and elsewhere grow and develop - and now they got their wish, as they are now competing with the american middle class for jobs.

Perhaps you can explain how a union would effectively stop a non-manufacturing company from moving its operations to Brazil if its american workforce formed/threatened to form a union?

 

People need to read their history books; public unions could not even exist until there were laws passed to allow them, which did not occur until the late 1950s and 60s. There is no wage/benefit collective bargaining for any of the 17 million federal employees, and the core function/existence of public and private sector unions are vastly different.

The purpose of government is not to provide jobs, it is to provide services for the general population, and anything that inhibits such services is wrong and unacceptable, including the workers forming a union, on multiple levels. The basic reasoning for forming a union in the private sector does not exist in the public, as there is no "company" to strike back against; the workers are there to perform a service for all of their fellow citizens, at the lowest possible cost (lowest taxes) possible. If that is not acceptable to the workers, they are free to enjoin private sector employment.

 

Setting up unions against tax payers was always idiotic to the very core.

 

Yet it is Republicans that have dome everything to bust Unions. Your opinion are not reality. Companies do not care about their workers in todays age very few do.

 

Because as public workers they already enjoy civil service protections private sector workers do not; they do not have to deal with seeing their colleagues laid off in bad times and have to work twice as hard and more hours for less pay to keep their jobs. They do not have to worry about missing their kids' soccer practices because the boss called them into a meeting at 4:55 pm, etc. They already have a legion of advantages private sector workers do not.

Really? Who in the private sector is getting a pension these days? Or lifelong, gold-plated health benefits for them and their families, at practically no cost? Walk into a medical facility and compare your private sector deductibles and coverage to that of the public sector workers; I walk in and have a $40 for each visit - the public worker doesn't have to pay anything.

Really? Says who?

Stop with the juvenile strawman, no one said that the public workers should be dumped out. The fact is at one time, public workers accepted lower salaries for a decent pension, now you have public workers getting paid six figure salaries and retiring in their early 50s with six-figure pensions and ridiculous health benefits. That is not acceptable, nor sustainable.

This might come as a shock, but I support private sector unions fully, but again, they are fundamentally different animals than public ones.

I knew the history before you were born, kid. None of those benefits were initiated by public sector unions, so perhaps you should read your history before attacking someone else. You are clearly out of your depth.

 

When you combine all of their benefits, including subsidized health care, job security that they never have to realistically worry about being laid off, rock-solid set hours that they never have to worry about being called in on a Sunday morning to have to work out of the blue, etc., their comp would be well over $100K. Plus they have a pension and retirement health benefits that do not exist in the private sector.

As for research, if you are interested I can point you to websites that show the salaries and pensions of public workers in places like NY, where both are well into the 6 figures.

- - - Updated - - -

You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that there is no relation whatsoever, and when you add in the wholly despicable and corrupt politicians buying votes of the public workers using taxpayer money to improve their salaries and benefits, not only does your argument go off the rails, but so does the local economy.

 

There are what, 4 million people in Denmark? You are going to honestly try and compare the US with Denmark?

Another poster desperately short on their history. Go look up which party and presidents have signed horrendous trade deals like NAFTA and TPP which are anathema to the american worker, which party embraces importing large numbers of illegal aliens totally undercutting the american working classes, etc. I'll give you a hint: that party starts with a "d".

 

Private unions couldn't exist until there were laws to foster them, so if we are going to the history books, maybe we should look for something other than Spark notes.

I don't support public unions and I am a lefty at times depending on the zodiac chart and the amount of fiber in my diet and a few other things. Their power is in their power as a member of the public. Anything that gives people disproportionate power over public policy is, by its very existence, anti-democracy and I am very egalitarian like that. Teachers, firemen, police and the like should be heard as to any relevant information they have to the public discourse, but they should not be allowed to dictate anything.

Outside the public sector, I support right to work laws in so much as a worker should not be forced to pay over any of their money to an organization with which they do not desire to associate, nor be forced to be a member of a group they do not like or suffer being subject to the capricious whims of unions. Of course, those who wish to associate and bargain collectively should be free to do so, so being for right to work does not make me anti-worker.

 

Again, while I support the existence of private sector unions, in a mobile, global economy, where a company can simply pick up its workforce and move across borders easily with today's technology, there is no realistic way that unions are going to make a difference, or could have. It is a pipe dream to think that IBM, HSBC or any other company not manufacturing a physical product - which is today the vast majority of the workforce since most manufacturing is now done in China, will not simply pack up and move across state or national borders if threatened by a union.

 

5659715
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/befolkning-og-befolkningsfremskrivning/folketal

Seems to be the partisan in you speaking. That is not what I see and hear from your politics. Are Democrats making unions illegal or Republicans? Who is against a raise of the minimum wage? Republicans or Democrats?
Denmark might be smaller. Does not mean it can't be emulated in the USA. It is the typical weak response you hear time and time again.

 

Besides Detroit, public employee unions bankrupted NYC in 1974, and have done so to other municipalities around the country. The pension bomb for public workers is going to destroy and bankrupt many other cities in the next 10-15 years. This is a national problem, not subject to just a "few" places.

When Giuliani ran NYC, he put in quality managers who ran the city excpetionally well - and he did not give raises to the workers, they were the same exact people before he came into office as after. If the workers do not feel the salary is sufficient, they can leave and go work in the private sector - which is EXACTLY what happens in the federal government, where NONE of the 18 million federal workers can collectively bargain for wages. Why is that acceptable for federal workers, and not city/state?

WRONG. Public workers are there to fulfill a service, and the public deserves to have it done at the lowest possible cost, i.e, lowest taxes. When you have a situation where the public workers are now making more than their private sector counterparts, plus get to retire in their 50s with gold-plated pensions and health benefits, which will eventually bankrupt their city if not stopped, you are going to have an uprising/taxpayer revolt; is that what you seek?

Sorry but as a taxpayer, I will not accept seeing my kids in school suffer from reduced staffing/supplies or my roads in terrible shape so that some public workers, who spent 25-year "careers" working nice, steady 9-5 jobs with a total job security that I never had/layoffs held over my head every day in the private sector, so that public employees can retire at age 50 with a fat retirement package.

Not going to happen any longer, not with middle class workers suffering from wage declines - the democratic machine of buying votes from public workers while throwing middle class taxpayers under the bus is now so, so over.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

IT WAS BILL CLINTON who signed NAFTA, it is Obama who has signed TPP, it was LBJ and Teddy Kennedy who pushed for mass immigration from the 3rd world in 1965, it has been under primarily democratic leadership around the country that has bankrupted Detroit, RI, NYC and CA.

Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

 

Look to China for an example of what things look like when employees have no rights to collective bargain.

 

All due respect for answering me back, but you dodged my question. And you cited one of the most expensive places in the U.S. to live. Someone living in NYC whose salary package is $100k is not rich. Try raising a family on that in NYC. But OK, let's go with that ...

If you were the mayor of NYC, one of the most expensive places to live in the whole U.S., and you were responsible for the well-being and safety of your citizens, and all public employee unions were eliminated, and the employees had to simply take what you decided, what would you cut? Police and firefighters take up the largest part of the budget, so to make a difference, you'd have to aim your pen at them. What would you cut?

Or, you can put yourself into the Pacific Northwest, which is not cheap to live in, but not the most expensive either, where the median salary package (including benefits) is in the 70k range, what would you cut if you could?

Mike, all I'm trying to do here, is make it real. Come on, man ... Take the plunge like a City Manager or Mayor would have to, and answer me straight.

You are the City Manager. You are responsible for the well-being and safety of your citizens. You are responsible for your employees. You now have the power because there are no unions or contracts.

What would you cut?

 

Even if the court strikes down this union action, the democrats will continue to try to get around the ruling until they get the result that they want. It is what they do.

 

It will take something somewhat of a 'movement' to place more in favor of the working people... but it CAN and likely WILL happen in due time.

Things can be changed, but they won't be change by people who have your particular vision. There are always the type in this world, who 'think' that people cannot change things. In reality, they've proven over and over again... that they can.

- - - Updated - - -

You are on the money!! Thanks for sharing the perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. One need NOT be a social/historical scholar, to align what you point out above with 'reality'.

 

You nailed it (again)!! The unionized shop I worked in, was filled with professionals that had a stake in their jobs and the loyalty to match. The product we were putting out was high-quality and consistent.