3 ms·
Ehh I think there is definitely a value in allowing a large group of employees to collectively negotiate as one entity with their employer (if only to ensure pa
by sbarre 11y ago
Ehh I think there is definitely a value in allowing a large group of employees to collectively negotiate as one entity with their employer (if only to ensure parity of resources & skills at the negotiating table) but the results should definitely be public (for public service employees).
- pc86 11y agoThe most commonly cited issue with this line of reasoning is that the root reason for private sector unions (massive power disparity between employers and employees) simply don't exist in the public sphere. Public sector employees often vote for or against their current bosses directly.
- hackuser 11y ago> Public sector employees often vote for or against their current bosses directly. That's a very weak bargaining position: Give us what we want or our members, a small minority of the electorate, won't vote for you in two years. Why should they be weaker than other unions?
- snomad 11y agoIt isn't just the vote of the membership. It is the dollars of the organization. In California, the California Teachers Union and SEIU are regularly 2 of the top 3 campaign spenders.
- wfo 11y agoSo you're saying now that they've banded together as a union, they have bargaining power collectively whereas without it they would have none?
- mikeash 11y agoAre you really saying that there is no power imbalance between the government and the people it employs? The power imbalance is, if anything, much worse here.