4 ms·

Even if all workers have equal bargaining power regardless of their skills and location, that only applies to the private sector. Teachers or Firemen or whoever

Even if all workers have equal bargaining power regardless of their skills and location, that only applies to the private sector. Teachers or Firemen or whoever else mostly only have one employer - the state - which can collectively bargain on behalf of the citizenry, so the only reasonable response by employees is to collectively bargain as well.

burfog 10y ago
The state is special. It can not normally go out of business, and it has the power of taxation by force. There is thus nothing to restrain the union. The state normally also has elections. Because unions are allowed to fund election campaigns, the union effectively gets to sit on both sides of the bargaining table. The government "opposition" is a push-over.
- JetSetWilly 10y ago
  There is nothing to restrain the union? You just described how the state can not go out of business, can use force, and can set laws how it likes. Certainly in my country the state has spent much time and effort using these powers to restrain and curtail unions. If unions are unrestricted it sure is odd how all the teachers I know have poor conditions and poor pay.
  - burfog 10y ago
    Because a company can go out of business, a normal union must resist demands which will cause this. If the union asks for too much, then everybody will be unemployed. With the state, there is no such worry. The union can demand retirement at age 30, $200 per hour, 15-hour work weeks, and a pension that is 110% of normal working pay. Why not? The state can pay it; all they have to do is seize assets from the citizens. They simply raise taxes. The police will use guns to deal with any who refuse. (see Puerto Rico and Greece) When the state is in control of currency, there is also the option to just print money. (see Venezuela and Zimbabwe) This too steals from the people.
    - JetSetWilly 10y ago
      The union can demand it but they won't get it. Why do you think states just go around spinelessly giving in to fabricated and absurd union demands? I just read this in the news too, amusingly enough: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-36305132 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-36305132
      - burfog 10y ago
        That example... is a shocking display of spine. I've really never seen that before. I guess there are exceptions, or at least one exception. Meanwhile, lots of places are having trouble because they caved to the unions. A couple more notable ones are California and Detroit. Note that voters are free to take the side of the employees, either by sympathy (dumb) or to get better-qualified employees. Instead of demanding that unions be legal, simply demand that the state provide good pay. (not that you get a direct say in either, but you can lobby and otherwise make it a campaign issue)

burfog 10y ago

The state is special. It can not normally go out of business, and it has the power of taxation by force. There is thus nothing to restrain the union. The state normally also has elections. Because unions are allowed to fund election campaigns, the union effectively gets to sit on both sides of the bargaining table. The government "opposition" is a push-over.

JetSetWilly 10y ago
There is nothing to restrain the union? You just described how the state can not go out of business, can use force, and can set laws how it likes. Certainly in my country the state has spent much time and effort using these powers to restrain and curtail unions. If unions are unrestricted it sure is odd how all the teachers I know have poor conditions and poor pay.
- burfog 10y ago
  Because a company can go out of business, a normal union must resist demands which will cause this. If the union asks for too much, then everybody will be unemployed. With the state, there is no such worry. The union can demand retirement at age 30, $200 per hour, 15-hour work weeks, and a pension that is 110% of normal working pay. Why not? The state can pay it; all they have to do is seize assets from the citizens. They simply raise taxes. The police will use guns to deal with any who refuse. (see Puerto Rico and Greece) When the state is in control of currency, there is also the option to just print money. (see Venezuela and Zimbabwe) This too steals from the people.
  - JetSetWilly 10y ago
    The union can demand it but they won't get it. Why do you think states just go around spinelessly giving in to fabricated and absurd union demands? I just read this in the news too, amusingly enough: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-36305132 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-36305132
    - burfog 10y ago
      That example... is a shocking display of spine. I've really never seen that before. I guess there are exceptions, or at least one exception. Meanwhile, lots of places are having trouble because they caved to the unions. A couple more notable ones are California and Detroit. Note that voters are free to take the side of the employees, either by sympathy (dumb) or to get better-qualified employees. Instead of demanding that unions be legal, simply demand that the state provide good pay. (not that you get a direct say in either, but you can lobby and otherwise make it a campaign issue)