8 ms·

So labor should just take whatever management and politicians feel like giving them like obedient little servants? How has that worked out in the past? Do we fe

by CPLX 11y ago

So labor should just take whatever management and politicians feel like giving them like obedient little servants? How has that worked out in the past? Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressures to ensure the rights of workers and to avoid the inherent issues involved in political control of a large group of government workers?

jallmann 11y ago
You have a point, but civil labor usually has an advantage their private-sector counterparts don't: they elect their bosses. Public unions multiply that power. Whether that's a net benefit for society at large, I'm not going to discuss here.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > civil labor usually has an advantage their private-sector counterparts don't: they elect their bosses. I don't understand this: All unions elect their own leaders, as far as I know. Public sector unions do not elect the heads of the departments where they work, if that's what you mean; the FOP doesn't choose the police chief. If you mean that union members also have votes in general elections, along with the rest of the public, that's true but their influence is limited (there are many other voters), the 'bosses' are a few steps over their heads (the mayor is elected, not the police chief), and finally, that's the point of democracy: Everyone should have influence, from union members to managers to even Repulicans and Democrats.
- ethbro 11y ago
  I think it might be more accurate to say they elect their bosses' bosses' ... bosses' boss. Unless I've been missing the police captain races on my local ballot?
  - Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
    In many American jurisdictions sheriffs, prosecutors, mayors, town councils, and even judges are elected. In that case essentially all of the leadership with which a police union might be negotiating is elected. So yes, a police officer's direct boss wouldn't be elected, but in terms of negotiation both a police captain and the rank and file would be aligned in wanting higher pay, making it harder to be fired, etc. In small jurisdictions there would be few layers between a sheriff's deputy and the actual elected sheriff. Also, some of the leadership has a conflict of interest. The prosecutor, one of the ultimate police bosses, cannot work against the police interests without also jeopardizing his own career as the police can stop working with him and get him voted out. This is one of the many reasons why prosecutors tend to treat police brutality cases very differently than if the suspect were an ordinary citizen. Likewise a sheriff might face similar issues since he is elected but his staff is not. Unlike a private sector union, a public sector union can essentially never bankrupt the government, so there is no natural check against their power. Bankrupt your company with absurd work rules? You'll be on the street eventually.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      I agree with the majority of your points. I'd just say that 80% of the US population lives in urban areas (from the census information I found), which are likely to be served by larger public service departments with more unelected middle management. They may choose to side with the lowest ranks of police, but it's not as bad as a simple "my direct boss didn't pay me enough, let's all vote him or her out." That said, the prosecutor-capture (especially since that's a route for aspiring politicians) and state-supported-zombie points are well made. But as a somewhat pro-union point, remember that public employees aren't bonused anywhere near private sector employees. At least for teachers, which I'm most familiar with. The idea that one could be in the Top 10% of performers for your job and be making less than others simply because of seniority is... strange.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Note that "urban area" in the U.S. encompasses not just big cities, but all the surrounding suburbs, unincorporated counties, and small towns. E.g. all but the most rural parts of Virginia are an "urban area": http://www.virginiaplaces.org/regions/graphics/urban2004.png http://www.virginiaplaces.org/regions/graphics/urban2004.png. And even in pretty urban areas, municipal government is pretty thin. E.g. in Baltimore County (suburbs just north of Baltimore), the police chief is nominated by the County Executive (a directly elected position), and approved by the County Council (a directly elected legislative body with seven people).
      - Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
        >I'd just say that 80% of the US population lives in urban areas (from the census information I found), which are likely to be served by larger public service departments with more unelected middle management. Except for the absolute largest cities, like NYC, many urban police departments are going to be a lot smaller and less hierarchical than you'd think. Also, many areas considered urban still elect their sheriffs. For instance, Arlington, VA (home of the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetery) has 10-20 story buildings and elects its sheriff, as does neighboring Alexandria, VA (a colonial city that predates DC). I believe all cities and counties in VA elect sheriffs. >They may choose to side with the lowest ranks of police, but it's not as bad as a simple "my direct boss didn't pay me enough, let's all vote him or her out." In a place with elected leadership and limitless funds, so long as your union has enough critical mass, it's in the best interests of all members of the police force to push for higher wages, more stringent work rules, etc. Why wouldn't they do this? There are no consequences for failure and lots to gain. It's not like a company where middle management wants to keep costs down; in the government your importance has to do with the size of your budget and number of reports and there's no negative feedback. In fact, because of how budgeting works in America, every dollar must be spent, and any savings will end up with a smaller budget next year. If anything, middle management is aligned with these demands. The exceptions are agencies like WMATA or the MTA, where a significant portion of revenue comes from fares or advertisements. These are more likely to fight unions, but they are still state (or multi-state and Federal in the case of WMATA) agencies that at the end of the day answer to politicians and can still get government bailouts. >But as a somewhat pro-union point, remember that public employees aren't bonused anywhere near private sector employees Many public sector employees have absolutely sweet benefits, though. Good healthcare, good pensions or retirement funds, unions to go to bat for them, extreme job security, limited hours, etc. For certain classes of work government employees do make more than their private sector counterparts, but this is mostly related to low end work. At the high end the government absolutely pays worse, you're right. The max salary in the normal Federal general schedule is roughly $160K. I think this is part of the reason for demanding absurd rules and benefits, since salaries are set by law, not on the market, and the electorate doesn't want to hear about (or pay for) top talent making big bucks. Politicians respond to these incentives and cap salaries.
rayiner 11y ago
> So labor should just take whatever management and politicians feel like giving them like obedient little servants? When you're the boss (which you are when it comes to public workers), that's exactly what you want. Do you wish your cops were something other than "obedient little servants?" Doesn't it seem like the whole problem with cops in the U.S. is that they don't think they work for you?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I want all labor to be paid appropriately, cops included. I do not want them protected when they've violated the law, or are grossly negligent in their duties. Can't unions negotiate for fair wages while also throwing the bad apples to the wolves?
  - protomyth 11y ago
    > Can't unions negotiate for fair wages while also throwing the bad apples to the wolves? No, not really. Its the nature of the beast that unions need to protect all their member. A noble goal with a noble origin, but it gets pretty perverted in the extreme its been taken to. For example, school union members that are no longer allowed to teach students but cannot be fired (search on cases in both LA and NYC). You would think rationality would prevail but then you run into the other problem. Union membership totals determine power. More members, more money to lobby, which gives you more influence. There is a reason the California Correctional Peace Officers Association continues to advocate for laws that will put more people in jail. At this point, for government workers, we as a country would be much better off without government worker's unions.
    - ssmoot 11y ago
      I don't see how the original transparency comment has anything at all to do with union busting.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        If the union is the primary agent blocking transparency then one possible solution is to remove the block.
koolba 11y ago
> So labor should just take whatever management and politicians feel like giving them like obedient little servants? They can choose to work in the private sector. Nobody is forcing them to work for the public sector. > How has that worked out in the past? Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressures to ensure the rights of workers and to avoid the inherent issues involved in political control of a large group of government workers? The alternative is that public sector unions funnel money to career politicians. The latter are signing checks using other people's money (i.e. the tax payers) and it's in their (the politicans') interest to give in to union demands as they get a voting block come election season.
oldmanjay 11y ago
We don't call them civil masters. They work for us. The conditions of that employment are definitely our business, and the only reason to keep it from us can only be intended to hurt us in our role as the billpayers
joeclark77 11y ago
You misunderstand the problem. The problem is that in the public sector, "labor" and "management" are on the same side of the negotiating table, shaking hands and slapping backs about how much money they're going to bleed from the taxpayer. Our "public servants" generally stand to personally benefit from increasing spending and worsening performance. That's not a dynamic that exists in a for-profit business.
LordKano 11y ago
So labor should just take whatever management and politicians feel like giving them like obedient little servants? When they're public servants, yes. Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressures to ensure the rights of workers and to avoid the inherent issues involved in political control of a large group of government workers? Why is that the goal? A shift in public attitude should result in a change in public servant staffing and behavior.
- panzagl 11y ago
  Because you don't want someone clearing out the FDA, FAA, or whatever when they're elected and making their third cousin an air traffic controller because he's too drunk to keep his current job at Denny's
  - LordKano 11y ago
    You're right, I don't want any of that. It's not going to happen because it would be career suicide.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
      Tell it to James Garfield.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > > Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressures to ensure the rights of workers and to avoid the inherent issues involved in political control of a large group of government workers? > Why is that the goal? The reason it became the goal is that there was a time when it wasn't, and people saw what that became once the people in power realized what it enabled them to do, and said, "Hey, that sucks, we should stop that." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
anigbrowl 11y ago
I'm fine with unions for corporations, that's two private collectives bargaining their mutual economic interests. Capital generally has an advantage in negotiations so it seems only fair that individuals should be able to pool their labor as a counter-negotiating tactic, and this too is a market strategy. When someone is working for the public the considerations are entirely different and I am much less sure about the ethics or wisdom of allowing collective bargaining. I feel the same way about government procurement/contracting, treating the public interest as just another market participant often seems to result in moral hazard and other unwanted outcomes. I don't have a good theoretical answer for this but I think we badly need to revisit the issue.
- jethro_tell 11y ago
  >When someone is working for the public the considerations are entirely different. How so? People don't work in the public sector because the are doing everyone a favor. They are working there because they are being compensated in some way. I think that they should be able to negotiate for what the market will bear. Do you work for the private sector but think that people who work in the public sector should do you some sort of favor? That's pretty rude isn't it? I don't think highly of police unions, but I do think they have the right to get the benefits and income that the market will bear. I do think that the better thing to do would be to pass laws that require external investigations, mandatory prosecution for wrong doing and mandatory auditing. If you want police offices wearing cameras with sound 80% of the time, pass an law/ordinance that has auditing requirements and a budget.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    A public entity is not an organization participating according to the rules of the market. "What the market will bear" with regard to a public entity has no meaning.
    - rqebmm 11y ago
      The state is absolutely an organization participating in the market. It has special abilities, but it still competes.
bcg1 11y ago
That's a nice theory, but here's how it really works in practice: gov extracts taxes with threats of prison -> civil "servants" paid with tax money -> unions tax civil "servant" salaries via automatic payroll deduction -> unions use money to "lobby" (bribe) politicians with campaign donations -> politicians set government policy for taxation and civil service There ARE some rights being violated here, but it is not the civil "servant"'s rights
- adrianbg 11y ago
  Unions originated in response to maltreatment of workers. How would you solve that problem without them?
  - brownbat 11y ago
    I think that's a really important question that shouldn't be downvoted. However, I think the answer is through workplace safety laws (OSHA), fair labor standards act provisions for minimum wage and overtime, ERISA (which sets minimum standards for retirement and health plans), Civil Rights Act provisions, ACA, the Federal Employment Compensation Act, and others. Unions originated in an era where you could find children working 14 hours in a sweatshop for a starving wage, with locked doors that prevented escape in case of fire, around dangerous machinery that would take off limbs in a blink with victims never compensated and unable to work again. The case for unions in that era is different than the case for unions today. Worker concerns today, serious as they may be, are categorically different from the concerns of that time. The case for unions today also has to grapple with concerns about rent seeking, keeping dangerous/unfit employees on the job, and reducing job availability or promotion for capable newcomers. But note that the alternative to unifying workers trade-by-trade or workplace-by-workplace is to just unify enough of the electorate to fix obviously broken labor practices through legislation. It sounds much harder, but we've done it repeatedly, and it doesn't have the same down-sides.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    Well with respect to public servants consider what Franklin Roosevelt said: "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." That is to say, the place to protect public servants is through ballot, not collective bargaining. EDIT: Source http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445
CamperBob2 11y ago
Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressure Public-sector unions are an excellent way to ensure they're not.

by CPLX 11y ago

jallmann 11y ago

You have a point, but civil labor usually has an advantage their private-sector counterparts don't: they elect their bosses. Public unions multiply that power. Whether that's a net benefit for society at large, I'm not going to discuss here.

hackuser 11y ago
> civil labor usually has an advantage their private-sector counterparts don't: they elect their bosses. I don't understand this: All unions elect their own leaders, as far as I know. Public sector unions do not elect the heads of the departments where they work, if that's what you mean; the FOP doesn't choose the police chief. If you mean that union members also have votes in general elections, along with the rest of the public, that's true but their influence is limited (there are many other voters), the 'bosses' are a few steps over their heads (the mayor is elected, not the police chief), and finally, that's the point of democracy: Everyone should have influence, from union members to managers to even Repulicans and Democrats.
ethbro 11y ago
I think it might be more accurate to say they elect their bosses' bosses' ... bosses' boss. Unless I've been missing the police captain races on my local ballot?
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
  In many American jurisdictions sheriffs, prosecutors, mayors, town councils, and even judges are elected. In that case essentially all of the leadership with which a police union might be negotiating is elected. So yes, a police officer's direct boss wouldn't be elected, but in terms of negotiation both a police captain and the rank and file would be aligned in wanting higher pay, making it harder to be fired, etc. In small jurisdictions there would be few layers between a sheriff's deputy and the actual elected sheriff. Also, some of the leadership has a conflict of interest. The prosecutor, one of the ultimate police bosses, cannot work against the police interests without also jeopardizing his own career as the police can stop working with him and get him voted out. This is one of the many reasons why prosecutors tend to treat police brutality cases very differently than if the suspect were an ordinary citizen. Likewise a sheriff might face similar issues since he is elected but his staff is not. Unlike a private sector union, a public sector union can essentially never bankrupt the government, so there is no natural check against their power. Bankrupt your company with absurd work rules? You'll be on the street eventually.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    I agree with the majority of your points. I'd just say that 80% of the US population lives in urban areas (from the census information I found), which are likely to be served by larger public service departments with more unelected middle management. They may choose to side with the lowest ranks of police, but it's not as bad as a simple "my direct boss didn't pay me enough, let's all vote him or her out." That said, the prosecutor-capture (especially since that's a route for aspiring politicians) and state-supported-zombie points are well made. But as a somewhat pro-union point, remember that public employees aren't bonused anywhere near private sector employees. At least for teachers, which I'm most familiar with. The idea that one could be in the Top 10% of performers for your job and be making less than others simply because of seniority is... strange.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Note that "urban area" in the U.S. encompasses not just big cities, but all the surrounding suburbs, unincorporated counties, and small towns. E.g. all but the most rural parts of Virginia are an "urban area": http://www.virginiaplaces.org/regions/graphics/urban2004.png http://www.virginiaplaces.org/regions/graphics/urban2004.png. And even in pretty urban areas, municipal government is pretty thin. E.g. in Baltimore County (suburbs just north of Baltimore), the police chief is nominated by the County Executive (a directly elected position), and approved by the County Council (a directly elected legislative body with seven people).
    - Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
      >I'd just say that 80% of the US population lives in urban areas (from the census information I found), which are likely to be served by larger public service departments with more unelected middle management. Except for the absolute largest cities, like NYC, many urban police departments are going to be a lot smaller and less hierarchical than you'd think. Also, many areas considered urban still elect their sheriffs. For instance, Arlington, VA (home of the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetery) has 10-20 story buildings and elects its sheriff, as does neighboring Alexandria, VA (a colonial city that predates DC). I believe all cities and counties in VA elect sheriffs. >They may choose to side with the lowest ranks of police, but it's not as bad as a simple "my direct boss didn't pay me enough, let's all vote him or her out." In a place with elected leadership and limitless funds, so long as your union has enough critical mass, it's in the best interests of all members of the police force to push for higher wages, more stringent work rules, etc. Why wouldn't they do this? There are no consequences for failure and lots to gain. It's not like a company where middle management wants to keep costs down; in the government your importance has to do with the size of your budget and number of reports and there's no negative feedback. In fact, because of how budgeting works in America, every dollar must be spent, and any savings will end up with a smaller budget next year. If anything, middle management is aligned with these demands. The exceptions are agencies like WMATA or the MTA, where a significant portion of revenue comes from fares or advertisements. These are more likely to fight unions, but they are still state (or multi-state and Federal in the case of WMATA) agencies that at the end of the day answer to politicians and can still get government bailouts. >But as a somewhat pro-union point, remember that public employees aren't bonused anywhere near private sector employees Many public sector employees have absolutely sweet benefits, though. Good healthcare, good pensions or retirement funds, unions to go to bat for them, extreme job security, limited hours, etc. For certain classes of work government employees do make more than their private sector counterparts, but this is mostly related to low end work. At the high end the government absolutely pays worse, you're right. The max salary in the normal Federal general schedule is roughly $160K. I think this is part of the reason for demanding absurd rules and benefits, since salaries are set by law, not on the market, and the electorate doesn't want to hear about (or pay for) top talent making big bucks. Politicians respond to these incentives and cap salaries.

rayiner 11y ago

> So labor should just take whatever management and politicians feel like giving them like obedient little servants? When you're the boss (which you are when it comes to public workers), that's exactly what you want. Do you wish your cops were something other than "obedient little servants?" Doesn't it seem like the whole problem with cops in the U.S. is that they don't think they work for you?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I want all labor to be paid appropriately, cops included. I do not want them protected when they've violated the law, or are grossly negligent in their duties. Can't unions negotiate for fair wages while also throwing the bad apples to the wolves?
- protomyth 11y ago
  > Can't unions negotiate for fair wages while also throwing the bad apples to the wolves? No, not really. Its the nature of the beast that unions need to protect all their member. A noble goal with a noble origin, but it gets pretty perverted in the extreme its been taken to. For example, school union members that are no longer allowed to teach students but cannot be fired (search on cases in both LA and NYC). You would think rationality would prevail but then you run into the other problem. Union membership totals determine power. More members, more money to lobby, which gives you more influence. There is a reason the California Correctional Peace Officers Association continues to advocate for laws that will put more people in jail. At this point, for government workers, we as a country would be much better off without government worker's unions.
  - ssmoot 11y ago
    I don't see how the original transparency comment has anything at all to do with union busting.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      If the union is the primary agent blocking transparency then one possible solution is to remove the block.

koolba 11y ago

> So labor should just take whatever management and politicians feel like giving them like obedient little servants? They can choose to work in the private sector. Nobody is forcing them to work for the public sector. > How has that worked out in the past? Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressures to ensure the rights of workers and to avoid the inherent issues involved in political control of a large group of government workers? The alternative is that public sector unions funnel money to career politicians. The latter are signing checks using other people's money (i.e. the tax payers) and it's in their (the politicans') interest to give in to union demands as they get a voting block come election season.

oldmanjay 11y ago

We don't call them civil masters. They work for us. The conditions of that employment are definitely our business, and the only reason to keep it from us can only be intended to hurt us in our role as the billpayers

joeclark77 11y ago

You misunderstand the problem. The problem is that in the public sector, "labor" and "management" are on the same side of the negotiating table, shaking hands and slapping backs about how much money they're going to bleed from the taxpayer. Our "public servants" generally stand to personally benefit from increasing spending and worsening performance. That's not a dynamic that exists in a for-profit business.

LordKano 11y ago

So labor should just take whatever management and politicians feel like giving them like obedient little servants? When they're public servants, yes. Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressures to ensure the rights of workers and to avoid the inherent issues involved in political control of a large group of government workers? Why is that the goal? A shift in public attitude should result in a change in public servant staffing and behavior.

panzagl 11y ago
Because you don't want someone clearing out the FDA, FAA, or whatever when they're elected and making their third cousin an air traffic controller because he's too drunk to keep his current job at Denny's
- LordKano 11y ago
  You're right, I don't want any of that. It's not going to happen because it would be career suicide.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    Tell it to James Garfield.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> > Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressures to ensure the rights of workers and to avoid the inherent issues involved in political control of a large group of government workers? > Why is that the goal? The reason it became the goal is that there was a time when it wasn't, and people saw what that became once the people in power realized what it enabled them to do, and said, "Hey, that sucks, we should stop that." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

anigbrowl 11y ago

I'm fine with unions for corporations, that's two private collectives bargaining their mutual economic interests. Capital generally has an advantage in negotiations so it seems only fair that individuals should be able to pool their labor as a counter-negotiating tactic, and this too is a market strategy. When someone is working for the public the considerations are entirely different and I am much less sure about the ethics or wisdom of allowing collective bargaining. I feel the same way about government procurement/contracting, treating the public interest as just another market participant often seems to result in moral hazard and other unwanted outcomes. I don't have a good theoretical answer for this but I think we badly need to revisit the issue.

jethro_tell 11y ago
>When someone is working for the public the considerations are entirely different. How so? People don't work in the public sector because the are doing everyone a favor. They are working there because they are being compensated in some way. I think that they should be able to negotiate for what the market will bear. Do you work for the private sector but think that people who work in the public sector should do you some sort of favor? That's pretty rude isn't it? I don't think highly of police unions, but I do think they have the right to get the benefits and income that the market will bear. I do think that the better thing to do would be to pass laws that require external investigations, mandatory prosecution for wrong doing and mandatory auditing. If you want police offices wearing cameras with sound 80% of the time, pass an law/ordinance that has auditing requirements and a budget.
- rayiner 11y ago
  A public entity is not an organization participating according to the rules of the market. "What the market will bear" with regard to a public entity has no meaning.
  - rqebmm 11y ago
    The state is absolutely an organization participating in the market. It has special abilities, but it still competes.

bcg1 11y ago

That's a nice theory, but here's how it really works in practice: gov extracts taxes with threats of prison -> civil "servants" paid with tax money -> unions tax civil "servant" salaries via automatic payroll deduction -> unions use money to "lobby" (bribe) politicians with campaign donations -> politicians set government policy for taxation and civil service There ARE some rights being violated here, but it is not the civil "servant"'s rights

adrianbg 11y ago
Unions originated in response to maltreatment of workers. How would you solve that problem without them?
- brownbat 11y ago
  I think that's a really important question that shouldn't be downvoted. However, I think the answer is through workplace safety laws (OSHA), fair labor standards act provisions for minimum wage and overtime, ERISA (which sets minimum standards for retirement and health plans), Civil Rights Act provisions, ACA, the Federal Employment Compensation Act, and others. Unions originated in an era where you could find children working 14 hours in a sweatshop for a starving wage, with locked doors that prevented escape in case of fire, around dangerous machinery that would take off limbs in a blink with victims never compensated and unable to work again. The case for unions in that era is different than the case for unions today. Worker concerns today, serious as they may be, are categorically different from the concerns of that time. The case for unions today also has to grapple with concerns about rent seeking, keeping dangerous/unfit employees on the job, and reducing job availability or promotion for capable newcomers. But note that the alternative to unifying workers trade-by-trade or workplace-by-workplace is to just unify enough of the electorate to fix obviously broken labor practices through legislation. It sounds much harder, but we've done it repeatedly, and it doesn't have the same down-sides.
- JackFr 11y ago
  Well with respect to public servants consider what Franklin Roosevelt said: "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." That is to say, the place to protect public servants is through ballot, not collective bargaining. EDIT: Source http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445

CamperBob2 11y ago

Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressure Public-sector unions are an excellent way to ensure they're not.