Public-sector unions: why must they exist?

[zsdersw]

I'd like someone to justify with facts and sound logical reasoning why public-sector unions must exist. What essential purpose do they serve? Why must they have collective bargaining rights?

I made bold the two things I want to see but fully expect will not be presented.

 

[lothar]

They shouldn't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

 

[zsdersw]

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.

Actually, I think it does matter. Private businesses and companies are not funded by taxpayers.

 

[spacejamz]

To prevent underage kids from working 16 hours days in state and city administration buildings.

 

[Texashiker]

Why should any union exist?

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.

 

[soundforbjt]

Actually, I think it does matter. Private businesses and companies are not funded by taxpayers.

Some are indirectly. Farm subsidies, energy credits, etc. Those corps paying zero to negative tax rates are being paid by taxpayers.

 

[lothar]

Some are indirectly. Farm subsidies, energy credits, etc. Those corps paying zero to negative tax rates are being paid by taxpayers.

The government is free to revoke those subsidies.

 

[The-Noid]

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.

I think you are confusing labor laws and unions.

They are very different concepts.

Lax labor laws == labor arbitrage. Unions don't fix that.

People in no way need a union to fix what is going on at Foxconn, just get rid of the labor arbitrage that anyone is able to use in China. Laws on maximum number of hours worked, a higher minimum wage, minimum working conditions, etc. In a country of 1.2B, there are simply too many people willing to work for a union to change that. Only the government is able to sort out situations like Foxconn and the Chinese government as of now is not willing to.

 

[QuantumPion]

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

I'd rather have a job working 16 hours a day in a semiconductor fab rather than spending every waking moment as a subsistence farmer or starving on the street unemployed because the unions teamed up with government to give themselves a monopoly on labor.

 

[bfdd]

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.

Wouldn't happen sorry. This is the stupidest argument ever. Also, you're the employer of public union employees, you'd have them work 16-18 hour days for minimum wage and no benefits? You're trashy if that's the case.

 

[rudder]

The fact that the government is who they work for does not change anything.

THis is the sole reason why public-sector unions should not exist. Imagine as a unionized government worker being able to elect people who will give you sweet benefits... taxpayer be damned. Plus you can't have public workers with the ability to go on strike.

 

[CitizenKain]

I'd like someone to justify with facts and sound logical reasoning why public-sector unions must exist. What essential purpose do they serve? Why must they have collective bargaining rights?

I made bold the two things I want to see but fully expect will not be presented.

Maybe you should explain why they shouldn't.

 

[Texashiker]

I think you are confusing labor laws and unions.

They are very different concepts.

I was answering Hayabusa Riders question about why unions exist at all. Unions helped bring about changes to labor long before the government did.

Why do companies like wal-mart fire people who talk about unions, because the company does not want to provide benefits or pay a liveable wage.

Why do public sector jobs need unions? They dont.

 

[rudder]

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.

Foxconn is an example why a country needs good labor laws and the ability to enforce them. Tennessee is a right to work state. Nissan workers have consistently voted down union representation. I don't see them working 16-18 hours days.

 

[nageov3t]

Maybe you should explain why they shouldn't.

it's a weird concept that seems exclusive to public unions when they can band together and elect whichever politician promises them the most pork.

even if I was in a private-sector union, there isn't anything I could do to "elect" the CEO of the company.

 

[bfdd]

Maybe you should explain why they shouldn't.

Because government is already a union of the public people. It's something that is silently agreed upon by all and it's a public service. You should not be able to form little groups and lord control over such things, I think political parties need to go too. I think it is treacherous that politicians hold more loyalty to their party than their people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually, I think it does matter. Private businesses and companies are not funded by taxpayers.

Being funded by taxpayers is not sufficient reason to make people subject to abuses of their superiors, poor working conditions, and the shifting of political winds.

I don't consider them second class citizens. I'll say it now for the inevitable "but they are so lazy" and "they can't be fired if they don't do" crowd. I don't support private or public unions abusing their powers any more than I do management. That is not what I am advocating. I am saying however that they are citizens and workers first and that takes priority over who writes the check.

 

[lothar]

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.

Show me proof that employees that work for Toyota and Honda in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama are working 16-18 hours a day for minimum wage with no benefits.

 

[soundforbjt]

The government is free to revoke those subsidies.

And the 3.3 billion lobbyists spent last year guarantees things like that won't happen.

 

[Texashiker]

Show me proof that employees that work for Toyota and Honda in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama are working 16-18 hours a day for minimum wage with no benefits.

Example of a company that pays good wages to keep the unions out.

 

[shadow9d9]

Doesn't matter who the employer is. Workers have a right to organize.

 

[The-Noid]

Example of a company that pays good wages to keep the unions out.

I think there have already been enough threads showcasing that the government pays high wages. Does that need to be brought up again?

 

[Texashiker]

I think there have already been enough threads showcasing that the government pays high wages. Does that need to be brought up again?

The federal government might pay good wages.

Local governments do not have the luxury of endless taxation to pay good wages.

 

[rudder]

Being funded by taxpayers is not sufficient reason to make people subject to abuses of their superiors, poor working conditions, and the shifting of political winds.

Civil service protections. Government workers have more protections that the private sector. Again, why is it a good thing for public employees with the ability to vote in the people who determine pay and benefits? Government is not like a private company which declare bankruptcy and nullify labor contracts.

Would you like to see the Air Traffic control employees form another union with the ability to strike? ATC is a function provided by the government. It is required at this time for safe air travel. Do you know how much money would be lost daily if ATC personnel were to go on strike?

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

Well said.