3 ms·

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 pr

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.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >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. Which serves as a useful counterbalance to corporations doing the exact same thing.

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.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>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. Which serves as a useful counterbalance to corporations doing the exact same thing.