5 ms·

There is a pretty tight formal argument that, whether one is for or against unions, public unions are clearly bad. Here is the latest thing I have read on this:

by malchow 11y ago

There is a pretty tight formal argument that, whether one is for or against unions, public unions are clearly bad. Here is the latest thing I have read on this: http://www.amazon.com/Government-against-Itself-Public-Consequences/dp/0199990743 http://www.amazon.com/Government-against-Itself-Public-Conse... EDIT: Comment below is hysterical and political. This book is a good read. Chuck Reed, former mayor of San Jose, says this about it: "Daniel DiSalvo has laid bare the harsh political realities facing mayors across the country who want to improve the quality of life in their cities. In the annual battles over cutting services, raising taxes or controlling costs to balance the budget, public employee unions usually have the upper hand. In many jurisdictions, costs are skyrocketing, taxes are up and services are deteriorating, yet fiscal reform seems impossible. This book explains how and why the narrow interests of unions in improving pay and benefits frequently overwhelm the broader interests of the people in improving services."

CPLX 11y ago
> There is a pretty tight formal argument that, whether one is for or against unions, public unions are clearly bad. Here is the latest thing I have read on this: http://www.amazon.com/Government-against-Itself-Public-Conse.. http://www.amazon.com/Government-against-Itself-Public-Conse.... Destroying public sector unions is one of the major bullet points on the right wing agenda. Posting a book funded by the Manhattan Institute (i.e. Richard Mellon Scaife, Bill Kristol, etc) should have exactly zero power to convince anyone not interested in being a part of that agenda. EDIT: Wait it gets better, the comment I am responding to was actually posted by someone who has themselves been supported by the Manhattan Institute: http://malchow.com/about/ http://malchow.com/about/ I guess that's how this all works isn't it. EDIT 2: The above commented was edited to read "EDIT: Comment below is hysterical and political. This book is a good read. Chuck Reed, former mayor of San Jose, says this about it..." And 30 second Google search reveals: "San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, in his quest to put a state pension reform measure on next year’s ballot, appears to be buddying up with the Manhattan Institute and possibly its chairman Paul Singer." http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2013/10/24/10_24_13_mayor_reed_vulture_fund_state_pension_reform/ http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2013/10/24/10_24_13_mayor_reed_... I bow to the above poster for illuminating better than I possibly could how the wealthy benefactors of the right wing movement operate on a day to day basis to influence public opinion against labor, right down to comments on HN.
- pc86 11y ago
  Feel free to make a cogent argument in favor of public sector unions rather than just saying "I've heard Republicans make your argument before, therefore I disagree with it" and making personal attacks against the poster.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    Public sector unions help protect public employees from the very strong tendency towards abuse and corruption inherent in political control of large numbers of people's salaries. They provide a counterweight to the bargaining power of government/management in sectors where it's not reasonable to expect people to change careers, and they are a subset of collective bargaining in general, which I believe is one of the cornerstones of a properly functioning labor market.
  - omginternets 11y ago
    He doesn't have to. He's dismantling a claim. The burden of proof is on the other guy.
michaelmrose 11y ago
I do not accept your premise and I have zero intention of investing money and the time required to read a book to find out what your argument is. Perhaps you could expand on it here?
mattzito 11y ago
Except that book is a pretty shallow hatchet job on the subject of public unions, with a clear agenda. The argument for public unions (aside from all of the private sector arguments that also apply to public unions) is as follows: - Government is often subject to swings in power, political party, budget crises, etc. that are much less common in private sector jobs. There's a value in giving people job stability here - case in point, a new school board is elected and decides they want to purge anyone from the science department district-wide who doesn't believe in creationism. The union acts to protect those people. - Politics, by its nature, has been bedeviled by cronyism and favoritism. Unions are one of many ways that situation can be helped, but helping to insure continuity across administrations or preventing punitive actions towards people of a different political party, for example, has real value. I'm not thrilled with the behavior of a lot of unions in the US, but I disagree with the premise that "public unions are clearly bad".
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Plenty of governments do not permit collective bargaining by their employees--including parts of the U.S. federal government--and those employees do not suffer the problems you imply they should. Federal workers, even unorganized federal workers, are generally well-protected from political interference and politically-motivated layoffs. There are arguments for public unions, but protecting employees from political machinations is not one of them--especially since unions themselves are usually politically active, attempting to influence elections and legislation.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    Non-unionizable federal workers directly benefit from the efforts of the unionized ones.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      As do workers in the private sector. The higher prevailing market wages are why private sector bosses are so desperate to dismantle public sector unions.
hackuser 11y ago
malchow: I think the other poster raises a legitimate point: Is it true you are connected to the Manhatten Institute, the publisher of that book? What is their agenda on this issue? There's no reason not to have full disclosure.
- notacoward 11y ago
  > There's no reason not to have full disclosure. ...especially when this entire conversation thread is all about requiring disclosure from other people.
spopejoy 11y ago
HAHAHAHAHA you think quoting a mayor is a reasonable defense of a anti-public-union screed. It's their freaking day job to face off against unions, they are management.

by malchow 11y ago

CPLX 11y ago

> There is a pretty tight formal argument that, whether one is for or against unions, public unions are clearly bad. Here is the latest thing I have read on this: http://www.amazon.com/Government-against-Itself-Public-Conse.. http://www.amazon.com/Government-against-Itself-Public-Conse.... Destroying public sector unions is one of the major bullet points on the right wing agenda. Posting a book funded by the Manhattan Institute (i.e. Richard Mellon Scaife, Bill Kristol, etc) should have exactly zero power to convince anyone not interested in being a part of that agenda. EDIT: Wait it gets better, the comment I am responding to was actually posted by someone who has themselves been supported by the Manhattan Institute: http://malchow.com/about/ http://malchow.com/about/ I guess that's how this all works isn't it. EDIT 2: The above commented was edited to read "EDIT: Comment below is hysterical and political. This book is a good read. Chuck Reed, former mayor of San Jose, says this about it..." And 30 second Google search reveals: "San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, in his quest to put a state pension reform measure on next year’s ballot, appears to be buddying up with the Manhattan Institute and possibly its chairman Paul Singer." http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2013/10/24/10_24_13_mayor_reed_vulture_fund_state_pension_reform/ http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2013/10/24/10_24_13_mayor_reed_... I bow to the above poster for illuminating better than I possibly could how the wealthy benefactors of the right wing movement operate on a day to day basis to influence public opinion against labor, right down to comments on HN.

pc86 11y ago
Feel free to make a cogent argument in favor of public sector unions rather than just saying "I've heard Republicans make your argument before, therefore I disagree with it" and making personal attacks against the poster.
- CPLX 11y ago
  Public sector unions help protect public employees from the very strong tendency towards abuse and corruption inherent in political control of large numbers of people's salaries. They provide a counterweight to the bargaining power of government/management in sectors where it's not reasonable to expect people to change careers, and they are a subset of collective bargaining in general, which I believe is one of the cornerstones of a properly functioning labor market.
- omginternets 11y ago
  He doesn't have to. He's dismantling a claim. The burden of proof is on the other guy.

michaelmrose 11y ago

I do not accept your premise and I have zero intention of investing money and the time required to read a book to find out what your argument is. Perhaps you could expand on it here?

mattzito 11y ago

Except that book is a pretty shallow hatchet job on the subject of public unions, with a clear agenda. The argument for public unions (aside from all of the private sector arguments that also apply to public unions) is as follows: - Government is often subject to swings in power, political party, budget crises, etc. that are much less common in private sector jobs. There's a value in giving people job stability here - case in point, a new school board is elected and decides they want to purge anyone from the science department district-wide who doesn't believe in creationism. The union acts to protect those people. - Politics, by its nature, has been bedeviled by cronyism and favoritism. Unions are one of many ways that situation can be helped, but helping to insure continuity across administrations or preventing punitive actions towards people of a different political party, for example, has real value. I'm not thrilled with the behavior of a lot of unions in the US, but I disagree with the premise that "public unions are clearly bad".

snowwrestler 11y ago
Plenty of governments do not permit collective bargaining by their employees--including parts of the U.S. federal government--and those employees do not suffer the problems you imply they should. Federal workers, even unorganized federal workers, are generally well-protected from political interference and politically-motivated layoffs. There are arguments for public unions, but protecting employees from political machinations is not one of them--especially since unions themselves are usually politically active, attempting to influence elections and legislation.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Non-unionizable federal workers directly benefit from the efforts of the unionized ones.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    As do workers in the private sector. The higher prevailing market wages are why private sector bosses are so desperate to dismantle public sector unions.

hackuser 11y ago

malchow: I think the other poster raises a legitimate point: Is it true you are connected to the Manhatten Institute, the publisher of that book? What is their agenda on this issue? There's no reason not to have full disclosure.

notacoward 11y ago
> There's no reason not to have full disclosure. ...especially when this entire conversation thread is all about requiring disclosure from other people.

spopejoy 11y ago

HAHAHAHAHA you think quoting a mayor is a reasonable defense of a anti-public-union screed. It's their freaking day job to face off against unions, they are management.