6 ms·

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.

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.

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.