5 ms·

Ah, the rooster always comes home to roost. Well funded public sector unions and their pocket politicians robbed the state coffers blind. Will we see anyone han

Ah, the rooster always comes home to roost. Well funded public sector unions and their pocket politicians robbed the state coffers blind. Will we see anyone hang to pay for this thievery? Not likely. I simply expect higher taxes in the future. This state will never learn until there's no more money left to take from its citizens.

clarkmoody 10y ago
> robbed the state coffers blind State coffers filled with their neighbors' money. Public union negotiations are always against the non-union taxpayers, which are not well represented since the politician "representative" is bought by the union. Public sector unions are the embodiment of moral hazard.
- ng12 10y ago
  I don't understand why state/federal employees are allowed to unionize at all, let alone why they have such strong ones. Are government employees actually in danger of abuse or is it just because they can?
  - neaden 10y ago
    Why wouldn't they be allowed to unionize? In America you have a right to a union.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      > Why wouldn't they be allowed to unionize? Because businesses go out of business when they can't meet their financial obligations. Or they declare bankruptcy and restructure the debt. In the meantime, their competitors pick up their slack in the various markets (labor, suppliers, sales). The same mechanisms don't exist when it comes to governments, who, by definition, have certain kinds of non-negotiable monopoly and monopsony powers.
    - ak217 10y ago
      Because their employer can't go bankrupt if they happen to bargain themselves an impossible deal.
      - jhayward 10y ago
        Of course they can. Every city, county, state, individual and corporate entity in the US can go bankrupt. The federal government can't, technically, but it can default,
        ak217 10y ago
        States and the federal government cannot meaningfully go bankrupt. The problem is described in the article. While cities and counties can technically go bankrupt, they will externalize the costs and take on debt burdens at taxpayers' expense before they do so, to an extent that private companies are not allowed to. There have been just 9 city and county bankruptcies in the United States since 2008. Only 6 of them resulted in debt shedding, representing less than $30B in debt. That's 0.06 percent of total municipalities that could theoretically go bankrupt. In that time, tens of thousands of business entities and hundreds of publicly traded companies, representing trillions of USD of capitalization, have gone bankrupt. The overall ratio of public:private sector economy in the US is roughly 1:2.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      > In America you have a right to a union. No, you don't. At least not as a universal generalization. The law is more complex than that.
    - c517402 10y ago
      IIRC FDR considered public employee unions immoral.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >In America you have a right to a union. There's an "in Capitalist America" joke in here somewhere, because you really don't have any effective right to union membership in the United States. Organizing any new union is a grinding struggle.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >Public union negotiations are always against the non-union taxpayers Public sector unions drag up wages which has a ripple effect on non-unionized and non-public unions. (citation: http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/ http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/) Public sector unions also become more powerful in concert with private sector unions and vice versa - strikes work much more effectively when they are synchronous. It's not complicated economics.
neaden 10y ago
Ah yes, theft by negotiation, why didn't those unions simply make a worse deal for their members, just like we would all expect our lawyer to do for instance if they thought it was better for society. The problem here is short sightedness and over optimism, blaming the unions is just buying into it more.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  Well, part of the problem with our current society is that the social norm is to only look out for your own interest, and the public be damned. This attitude is applicable to lawyers, who only represent their clients, to company executives, who only represent investors, to investors, who only care about their own returns, and to lobbyists, who only care about their lobby's interests. This sort of system is fine when all parties to a dispute are equally organized and powerful, but it squeezes out the general public, who are not able to mobilize as effectively. It also forces people to focus on how to win, rather than how to cooperate more effectively for mutual benefit. Unless we are willing to relax this attitude of 'only care about my own or my client's bottom line' at least a little bit, there is going to be little room for changes that are necessary to happen.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > the social norm is to only look out for your own interest We can wish upon a star that people were better, or we can put a public advocate in the room during these negotiations.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      I can't see that going well if it's the government that appoints and pays for the public advocate. And if the public advocate is an elected position, then we have the same problem as exists now -- unions are politically much more organized than the general public.
    - notliketherest 10y ago
      "put a public advocate in the room during these negotiations" The politicians that are negotiating with the unions ARE the public advocates! The problem is the unions have bought them off!!

clarkmoody 10y ago

> robbed the state coffers blind State coffers filled with their neighbors' money. Public union negotiations are always against the non-union taxpayers, which are not well represented since the politician "representative" is bought by the union. Public sector unions are the embodiment of moral hazard.

ng12 10y ago
I don't understand why state/federal employees are allowed to unionize at all, let alone why they have such strong ones. Are government employees actually in danger of abuse or is it just because they can?
- neaden 10y ago
  Why wouldn't they be allowed to unionize? In America you have a right to a union.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > Why wouldn't they be allowed to unionize? Because businesses go out of business when they can't meet their financial obligations. Or they declare bankruptcy and restructure the debt. In the meantime, their competitors pick up their slack in the various markets (labor, suppliers, sales). The same mechanisms don't exist when it comes to governments, who, by definition, have certain kinds of non-negotiable monopoly and monopsony powers.
  - ak217 10y ago
    Because their employer can't go bankrupt if they happen to bargain themselves an impossible deal.
    - jhayward 10y ago
      Of course they can. Every city, county, state, individual and corporate entity in the US can go bankrupt. The federal government can't, technically, but it can default,
      - ak217 10y ago
        States and the federal government cannot meaningfully go bankrupt. The problem is described in the article. While cities and counties can technically go bankrupt, they will externalize the costs and take on debt burdens at taxpayers' expense before they do so, to an extent that private companies are not allowed to. There have been just 9 city and county bankruptcies in the United States since 2008. Only 6 of them resulted in debt shedding, representing less than $30B in debt. That's 0.06 percent of total municipalities that could theoretically go bankrupt. In that time, tens of thousands of business entities and hundreds of publicly traded companies, representing trillions of USD of capitalization, have gone bankrupt. The overall ratio of public:private sector economy in the US is roughly 1:2.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    > In America you have a right to a union. No, you don't. At least not as a universal generalization. The law is more complex than that.
  - c517402 10y ago
    IIRC FDR considered public employee unions immoral.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >In America you have a right to a union. There's an "in Capitalist America" joke in here somewhere, because you really don't have any effective right to union membership in the United States. Organizing any new union is a grinding struggle.
crdoconnor 10y ago
>Public union negotiations are always against the non-union taxpayers Public sector unions drag up wages which has a ripple effect on non-unionized and non-public unions. (citation: http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/ http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/) Public sector unions also become more powerful in concert with private sector unions and vice versa - strikes work much more effectively when they are synchronous. It's not complicated economics.

neaden 10y ago

Ah yes, theft by negotiation, why didn't those unions simply make a worse deal for their members, just like we would all expect our lawyer to do for instance if they thought it was better for society. The problem here is short sightedness and over optimism, blaming the unions is just buying into it more.

smallnamespace 10y ago
Well, part of the problem with our current society is that the social norm is to only look out for your own interest, and the public be damned. This attitude is applicable to lawyers, who only represent their clients, to company executives, who only represent investors, to investors, who only care about their own returns, and to lobbyists, who only care about their lobby's interests. This sort of system is fine when all parties to a dispute are equally organized and powerful, but it squeezes out the general public, who are not able to mobilize as effectively. It also forces people to focus on how to win, rather than how to cooperate more effectively for mutual benefit. Unless we are willing to relax this attitude of 'only care about my own or my client's bottom line' at least a little bit, there is going to be little room for changes that are necessary to happen.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > the social norm is to only look out for your own interest We can wish upon a star that people were better, or we can put a public advocate in the room during these negotiations.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    I can't see that going well if it's the government that appoints and pays for the public advocate. And if the public advocate is an elected position, then we have the same problem as exists now -- unions are politically much more organized than the general public.
  - notliketherest 10y ago
    "put a public advocate in the room during these negotiations" The politicians that are negotiating with the unions ARE the public advocates! The problem is the unions have bought them off!!