Public-sector unions: why must they exist?

[Texashiker]

You have experience working in developing, emerging and frontier markets? You are comparing apples and oranges. There is no equivalence here. Keep trying but you are blowing your argument.

As I said before, please come back when you get some real life work experience.

 

[The-Noid]

As I said before, please come back when you get some real life work experience.

Always attack the person when your argument is proven wrong.

I love logical fallacies as well.

 

[Exterous]

The benefit packages are indeed very lavish by private-sector standards.

Because taxpayers should not be held hostage to a group of public employees who collectively think they're worth more and more each year.

My wife is a public employee and part of a public employee union. Oddly enough she has not gotten a single raise in the last 3 years and only a 1% raise the two years before that. So it seems that public employees don't necessarily get more and more each year. Pay freezes are the norm around here and have been for some time

As for the benefit packages? Yeah - not seeing the awesome benefits packages either.

Last two places I worked (private companies) wanted $501.36 and $420.37 a month to cover 2 people 100% with no deductible. Her 'lavish benefits' wanted $562.56 a month for the same coverage. Thank god shes a public employee so we can bask in all the lavish-ness of that benefit

While I think some places are certainly out of control people need to stop treating public unions as the large generalized evil boogie man and deal with the exceptions

 

[The-Noid]

Just an FYI.

The argument for labor unions in the public sector is because the government is a monopoly. When working with a monopolistic employer, whether it be private or public sector, you must have collective bargaining to insure concessions. If we allowed multiple governments, the fair market would set what a true government wage should be. Without there isn't a market directed rate for the supply and demand of wages, only a set rate.

Set rates = bad = needs union.

Do I get a cookie?

 

[spacejamz]

My wife is a public employee and part of a public employee union. Oddly enough she has not gotten a single raise in the last 3 years and only a 1% raise the two years before that. So it seems that public employees don't necessarily get more and more each year. Pay freezes are the norm around here and have been for some time

As for the benefit packages? Yeah - not seeing the awesome benefits packages either.

Last two places I worked (private companies) wanted $501.36 and $420.37 a month to cover 2 people 100% with no deductible. Her 'lavish benefits' wanted $562.56 a month for the same coverage. Thank god shes a public employee so we can bask in all the lavish-ness of that benefit

While I think some places are certainly out of control people need to stop treating public unions as the large generalized evil boogie man and deal with the exceptions

This story just means that your union leaders are driving more expensive cars and live in bigger houses than the others

 

[Darwin333]

Obviously because the public might be a really shitty employer who forces their employees to work in slave like conditions that are horribly unsafe.

 

[Darwin333]

Why should any union exist? If you believe workers ought to have collective rights then they do. If not then they don't. The fact that the government is who they work for does not change anything.

Sure it does. The public provides essential services that can't be replaced in any reasonable time frame which means the ones that do have the ability to protest can literally hold an entire populace for ransom.

Also, since public sector workers ARE part of the public they are essentially negotiating with themselves with no adversary.

 

[Texashiker]

Always attack the person when your argument is proven wrong.

You have proven nothing, except that you have no experience to base your opinions on.

 

[theeedude]

Sure it does. The public provides essential services that can't be replaced in any reasonable time frame which means the ones that do have the ability to protest can literally hold an entire populace for ransom.

So does the phone company. So do hospitals. Should they be prevented from negotiating contracts too, or only unions?

 

[Darwin333]

Do you want to go back to working 16 - 18 hours a day for minimum wage and no benefits?

Foxconn and apple is a good example of why people need unions. Companies turn billions of dollars in profits, pay employees a few hundred dollars a month.

How does that apply to public work in the United States? I won't even get into the labor laws we have on the private side since this is a discussion about public unions.

 

[Darwin333]

And no one has noticed how bad things have gotten in the private sector in the last twenty years? I remember the benefits I had at one company I worked at were way better than the goverment's. Now the benefits at that company are pitiful.

Private sector workers have lost alot in the last couple of decades. Maybe they need to organize more.

Unfortunately those benefits packages, which you think private sector should unionize and demand more of, are for the most part completely unsustainable and are driving more and more local and state governments broke. Granted the private sector businesses would go to jail for using the same fuzzy math that the .gov does but that is a whole other issue.

What is truly sad about this entire debate is that a fuckton of people who were promised pensions and benefits long after the quit working for local/state governments and who are indeed counting on those pensions will not receive them. It isn't really a matter of if but when in more places than you care to believe. They won't be able to raise taxes enough or cut enough spending in other areas to make up the difference (I am sure they will try though but it will only buy them a short period of time) and at the end of the day the people counting on and expecting their pension are going to get hosed.

The union negotiators as well as the .gov knew that the fuzzy math would eventually crumble but it will be on someone elses watch so why should they care. They got the benefits from cutting the deal (support from the union for reelection, donations, reelected as union boss, etc..) and I would wager most are retired by now.

 

[Darwin333]

So does the phone company. So do hospitals. Should they be prevented from negotiating contracts too, or only unions?

I didn't say unions, just public unions. I wouldn't have a problem with a no-strike law on private hospitals especially if they are the only one serving a region. These days the average person can switch to 3 or 4 different phone companies in a days time if they so choose.

BTW, I am not against ANYONE negotiating contracts. I am against a large group of the public getting together and negotiating with the public with virtually no checks and balances on that groups power. If workers at a private hospital negotiate wages that are unsustainable the hospital eventually goes bankrupt which means there are two sides in the negotiations. There really aren't two sides in a negotiation between a large group of the public and the public.

 

[Throckmorton]

Working for government is worse than the private sector in a lot of ways. For example you can't individually negotiate for a higher salary. The salaries are set by the legislative branch which is subject to political whims. Right now the public seems to think government workers are making a lot of money and get great benefits, when we don't. A couple years ago the state and counties wanted to cut our pay 10%, which the union negotiated to 10% for state and 5% for Maui County with corresponding furlough days.

If anything my union needs to be stronger. There is a mail room clerk who is probably the busiest person at the county, and he makes something like $9/hr. Lifeguards make about the same.

 

[The-Noid]

You have proven nothing, except that you have no experience to base your opinions on.

Another logical fallacy.

That makes three.

 

[The-Noid]

Working for government is worse than the private sector in a lot of ways. For example you can't individually negotiate for a higher salary. The salaries are set by the legislative branch which is subject to political whims. Right now the public seems to think government workers are making a lot of money and get great benefits, when we don't. A couple years ago the state and counties wanted to cut our pay 10%, which the union negotiated to 10% for state and 5% for Maui County with corresponding furlough days.

If anything my union needs to be stronger. There is a mail room clerk who is probably the busiest person at the county, and he makes something like $9/hr. Lifeguards make about the same.

You have explained in detail why unions were allowed in the government sector to begin with.

The government is a monopoly employer who is able to set the rates for salary. There is no supply and demand equilibrium when it comes to government wages.

The question becomes do unions really fix this or should there be some sort of labor arbitrator (independent party) that would set the rates for government jobs. Arguably there is inefficiency in the unionized structure, however you would end up with a czar or panel structure as the alternative.

 

[soundforbjt]

Unfortunately those benefits packages, which you think private sector should unionize and demand more of, are for the most part completely unsustainable and are driving more and more local and state governments broke. Granted the private sector businesses would go to jail for using the same fuzzy math that the .gov does but that is a whole other issue.

What is truly sad about this entire debate is that a fuckton of people who were promised pensions and benefits long after the quit working for local/state governments and who are indeed counting on those pensions will not receive them. It isn't really a matter of if but when in more places than you care to believe. They won't be able to raise taxes enough or cut enough spending in other areas to make up the difference (I am sure they will try though but it will only buy them a short period of time) and at the end of the day the people counting on and expecting their pension are going to get hosed.

The union negotiators as well as the .gov knew that the fuzzy math would eventually crumble but it will be on someone elses watch so why should they care. They got the benefits from cutting the deal (support from the union for reelection, donations, reelected as union boss, etc..) and I would wager most are retired by now.

Yet, the CEO's and upper managements's salaries & compensations have gone through the roof while they're cutting workers & their pay and benefits. If the companies (and for that matter public & gov as well) really cared and had better management, this wouldn't be as big an issue.

 

[soundforbjt]

Do you not understand the difference between labor laws and unions?

You are horribly botching your argument.

Unions do absolutely nothing to prevent labor arbitrage.

I think what he's trying to say is that unions were in a large part responsible for the labor laws we enjoy today.

 

[lothar]

I guess that is why apple rakes in billions in profits, and the people at foxconn make a few hundred dollars a month?

Those Foxconn workers earn 10-100x more than what people working on rice paddies earn doing manual labor.

 

[The-Noid]

I think what he's trying to say is that unions were in a large part responsible for the labor laws we enjoy today.

Simply put, comparing labor laws and unions in the US to EM is a terrible comparison.

China needs labor laws, unions wouldn't help the problem unless you unionized millions to hundreds of millions of Chinese employees and were able to have them act as a class. At the current time we see more workers willing to come from mainland to work on the coast, than there are jobs in China.

If you want to make the Foxconn argument it is with government regulation, it's not something unions will fix.

Economists would make the argument that laws and regulation comes with development of a country. Hopefully in China we see the same.

 

[spacejamz]

Those Foxconn workers earn 10-100x more than what people working on rice paddies earn doing manual labor.

Foxconn workers got raises earlier this month...

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-18/...n-technology-group-apple-suppliers?_s=PM:TECH

The base pay for workers who have successfully completed a probation period jumps to 2200 to 2500 RMB ($349 to $397) a month, Foxconn said. The state-minimum is 1500 RMB (about $238).

 

[micrometers]

Logically I think that public sector unions are problematic because of conflicts of interest, since public sector unions tend to be huge factors in early primaries not to mention school board elections and thus IMO earn a disproportionate amount of power over management in that way.

I don't think that unions really help build a prosperous economy which tends to be at the mercy of outside forces of population growth and demand and so forth. Employers tend to tolerate unions when demand for their products is good. When demand collapses, unions don't really have any answers that I can tell.

 

[The-Noid]

Logically I think that public sector unions are problematic because of conflicts of interest, since public sector unions tend to be huge factors in early primaries not to mention school board elections and thus IMO earn a disproportionate amount of power over management in that way.

I don't think that unions really help build a prosperous economy which tends to be at the mercy of outside forces of population growth and demand and so forth. Employers tend to tolerate unions when demand for their products is good. When demand collapses, unions don't really have any answers that I can tell.

I am not sure the comparison between private unions and public unions is appropriate. Both are setup for different purposes.

Private unions work towards a stakeholder society, rather than a shareholder society and attempt to maximize value to all stakeholders of a company.

Public unions are setup because there is a single monopoly employer and rates for labor are unreliable due to the fact that the employer both set rates and chooses employment numbers. If there were multiple governments there would be comparability. Due to the monopolistic nature of price setting (in this case labor) there must be a strong party on the other side that is able to restrict the supply of labor against the demand for labor. In this case a union.

 

[Darwin333]

Yet, the CEO's and upper managements's salaries & compensations have gone through the roof while they're cutting workers & their pay and benefits. If the companies (and for that matter public & gov as well) really cared and had better management, this wouldn't be as big an issue.

Even though I might partially agree with you, a CEOs pay is not relevant to the current discussion.

 

[Darwin333]

I am not sure the comparison between private unions and public unions is appropriate. Both are setup for different purposes.

Private unions work towards a stakeholder society, rather than a shareholder society and attempt to maximize value to all stakeholders of a company.

Public unions are setup because there is a single monopoly employer and rates for labor are unreliable due to the fact that the employer both set rates and chooses employment numbers. If there were multiple governments there would be comparability. Due to the monopolistic nature of price setting (in this case labor) there must be a strong party on the other side that is able to restrict the supply of labor against the demand for labor. In this case a union.

Unions do not restrict the supply of labor and the free market will determine if the .gov pays far to little for a specific job because very few if any will work for the pay they are offering. The .gov DOES have to compete for labor with private employers.

 

[micrometers]

I am not sure the comparison between private unions and public unions is appropriate. Both are setup for different purposes.

Private unions work towards a stakeholder society, rather than a shareholder society and attempt to maximize value to all stakeholders of a company.

Public unions are setup because there is a single monopoly employer and rates for labor are unreliable due to the fact that the employer both set rates and chooses employment numbers. If there were multiple governments there would be comparability. Due to the monopolistic nature of price setting (in this case labor) there must be a strong party on the other side that is able to restrict the supply of labor against the demand for labor. In this case a union.

actually, there are multiple governments in municipalities that government workers can play off each other.

blah blah blah, pro-union rhetoric is often downright Soviet in how it depicts the evils of supply and demand. They really are no different from the cartels of old, and IMO far LESS justified than economic cartels.