3 ms·

While this quote makes a good point that the Government is not like other employers, I am not sure what exactly is implied about the role collective bargaining

by gisely 8y ago

While this quote makes a good point that the Government is not like other employers, I am not sure what exactly is implied about the role collective bargaining for government employees. The government can't serve as neutral party to moderate negotiations with public sector employees because they are themselves are the employer. Does this imply that public sector employees should be allowed to organize and negotiate for their interests? I think not.

User23 8y ago
We see this in California. The public employees unions are highly politically active and of course support candidates who will do their bidding. It's like if private sector unions got to choose the board and executives at their company. While that would doubtless be good for union employees (or at least leaders), it would be quite deleterious to the interests of shareholders.
- gisely 8y ago
  I agree that public sector unions becoming politically active is problematic, but it's problematic is same way that wealthy individuals throwing money into politics is. Wouldn't this better handled through campaign finance law rather than an outright crippling of public sector unions? Teachers shouldn't be allowed to buy politicians, but they I do think they should allowed organize and petition to better their working conditions. If you deprive labor of a voice then only money speaks.
  - User23 8y ago
    It's observably true that public policy in the USA is for sale to the highest bidder[1]. A corollary is that campaign finance law is absolutely ineffective, because if it were then the current state of affairs would not hold. Furthermore the system is robust to political interference, since it absolutely controls the political process. Public employee union dues are especially odious since the government is effectively collecting a payroll tax to bribe itself by way of a colluding intermediary. This is morally even worse than politicians being bribed by some private sector party. Fun aside: given the empirical proof that only money speaks already given, the statement "If you deprive labor of a voice then only money speaks" is always true, regardless of whether or not labor has a voice. [1]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
bluto 8y ago
I think this gets to public sector unions saying (or implying) "we won't vote for you unless you approve a certain amount of $ for X". The politicians then approve the $ as they'll be gone when the money runs out.

by gisely 8y ago

User23 8y ago

We see this in California. The public employees unions are highly politically active and of course support candidates who will do their bidding. It's like if private sector unions got to choose the board and executives at their company. While that would doubtless be good for union employees (or at least leaders), it would be quite deleterious to the interests of shareholders.

gisely 8y ago
I agree that public sector unions becoming politically active is problematic, but it's problematic is same way that wealthy individuals throwing money into politics is. Wouldn't this better handled through campaign finance law rather than an outright crippling of public sector unions? Teachers shouldn't be allowed to buy politicians, but they I do think they should allowed organize and petition to better their working conditions. If you deprive labor of a voice then only money speaks.
- User23 8y ago
  It's observably true that public policy in the USA is for sale to the highest bidder[1]. A corollary is that campaign finance law is absolutely ineffective, because if it were then the current state of affairs would not hold. Furthermore the system is robust to political interference, since it absolutely controls the political process. Public employee union dues are especially odious since the government is effectively collecting a payroll tax to bribe itself by way of a colluding intermediary. This is morally even worse than politicians being bribed by some private sector party. Fun aside: given the empirical proof that only money speaks already given, the statement "If you deprive labor of a voice then only money speaks" is always true, regardless of whether or not labor has a voice. [1]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

bluto 8y ago

I think this gets to public sector unions saying (or implying) "we won't vote for you unless you approve a certain amount of $ for X". The politicians then approve the $ as they'll be gone when the money runs out.