7 ms·

The whole point of strikes is that they are disruptive.

by door5 8y ago

morpheuskafka 8y ago
But when government workers strike, they don't disrupt the legislatures that set their pay, they disrupt the everyday citizens who might have even been sympathetic to their cause.
- door5 8y ago
  Yes they do -- These strikes have been incredibly effective. If ordinary citizens are not sympathetic to the teachers but sympathetic to the legislators, they have a distorted view of the situation, probably from right-wing, anti-union media.
- sundaeofshock 8y ago
  I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course strikes are disruptive to the general public; that’s one of the reason people strike. Ordinary citizens who have their lives disrupted will turn to their elected officials to end the disruption. There will always be people who turn unsympathetic when workers withhold their labor. The long-term benefit is worth it.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    It causes more parents to say "screw it" and put their kids in private schools. And now those parents have a lot less reason to support public school funding.
    - door5 8y ago
      People rich enough to put their kids in private school are a tiny minority. It doesn't matter what they think. This is a working class movement for working class people.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        No, they aren't. The average private school tuition is about $10k a year [1]. Ones affiliated with religious institutions like Catholic schools often offer subsidized tuition for lower income people. It's within reach for a sizable portion of the middle class. In many states, private school tuition is tax deductible. Granted, cheaper private schools are more common in the less affluent areas (namely, the South) where it's essentially taken for granted that the moderately well off and above send their kids to private schools. If you're from a wealthy coastal city with public schools good enough that the wealthy are comfortable sending their kids there, then it's understandable why some may associate private schools as being more exclusive to the upper class. 1. https://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-school-cost-by-state https://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-sc...
        sundaeofshock 8y ago
        Median household income in the US is $65k. $10k/year/ child is not affordable for most households. You also mention religious schools. Why should a person have to indoctrinated in a religion to receive a good education?
        manfredo 8y ago
        > Median household income in the US is $65k. $10k/year/ child is not affordable for most households. Er, no? Assuming it's tax deductible most families can probably make some lifestyle changes to free up $10k. Sure it might inhibit other goals, like building up saving or consumer spending. But it's a sacrifice that many people can make if they have a strong incentive to do so (like if the local public school is crap). And this is ignoring any sort of subsidy or assistance. > You also mention religious schools. Why should a person have to indoctrinated in a religion to receive a good education? I mentioned them in context cheaper private school education. Not to mention, the fact that you immediately leapt from "religious school" to "indoctrination" indicates that you seem to be approaching this with your conclusions decided a priori and are looking to justify them rather than participate in good faith.
  - ferongr 8y ago
    As an ordinary citizen affected by, I support privatization where possible and at-will employment regimes for public servants where not. Public servants are privileged and should not have the right to strike.
    - sfkdjf9j3j 8y ago
      What do you mean specifically by "should not have the right to strike"? As in, they should have their right to free association limited? They should be forced to work under penalty of jail time?
    - RestlessMind 8y ago
      So if public servants are forbidden from striking and their employer (govt) starts abusing them, what would be their recourse? Voting might be insufficient if size of the workforce is too small to matter. In general, strike is a tool labor has against capital. Just because capital happens to be provided by taxpayers, how does that warrant a special case handling?
      - ferongr 8y ago
        They can always quit. But nobody quits from guaranteed for-life employment with generous pensions, lots of paid leave and limited workload.
        snazz 8y ago
        Public school teachers don’t have any of those benefits, at least in the US. Their pay and pension are anything but generous, they have little paid leave (where I live, maternity or paternity leave uses up paid sick days too), and they work long hours, with the expectation that they are available to answer emails practically every day. This is pretty much why there are very few public school computer science teachers who do a decent job, since the ones who can legitimately write code can get a much better job at a private company.
        cascom 8y ago
- mikeash 8y ago
  When corporate workers strike, they don’t disrupt the board members and major shareholders that set their pay, they disrupt the everyday customer who might have even been sympathetic to their cause.
  - Zach_the_Lizard 8y ago
    They do tend to disrupt profits, which in turn does disrupt the board. Since board members tend to be large shareholders or representatives of large shareholders, they would personally feel the effects of their net worth decreasing.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Strikes by government workers disrupt taxes and affect elections. What’s the difference, really?
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    Private unions are fine. Government unions are problematic because the interests of taxpayers and the government officials that negotiate with the unions are not in alignment. Government office holders benefit greatly if they take care of the government unions in terms of campaign donations, endorsements, rallies, and so on. Taxpayers not so much. Why else do government union employees get outsized retirement benefits that have caused disabling debts to local governments? That is what happens when the taxpayers' negotiator personally benefits from keeping the government unions happy happy.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I don’t see that the union is a particularly important part of what you describe. The same things could happen without a union. The misaligned incentives are the same either way.

The whole point of strikes is that they are disruptive.

by door5 8y ago

The whole point of strikes is that they are disruptive.

But when government workers strike, they don't disrupt the legislatures that set their pay, they disrupt the everyday citizens who might have even been sympathetic to their cause.

door5 8y ago
Yes they do -- These strikes have been incredibly effective. If ordinary citizens are not sympathetic to the teachers but sympathetic to the legislators, they have a distorted view of the situation, probably from right-wing, anti-union media.
sundaeofshock 8y ago
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course strikes are disruptive to the general public; that’s one of the reason people strike. Ordinary citizens who have their lives disrupted will turn to their elected officials to end the disruption. There will always be people who turn unsympathetic when workers withhold their labor. The long-term benefit is worth it.
- manfredo 8y ago
  It causes more parents to say "screw it" and put their kids in private schools. And now those parents have a lot less reason to support public school funding.
  - door5 8y ago
    People rich enough to put their kids in private school are a tiny minority. It doesn't matter what they think. This is a working class movement for working class people.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      No, they aren't. The average private school tuition is about $10k a year [1]. Ones affiliated with religious institutions like Catholic schools often offer subsidized tuition for lower income people. It's within reach for a sizable portion of the middle class. In many states, private school tuition is tax deductible. Granted, cheaper private schools are more common in the less affluent areas (namely, the South) where it's essentially taken for granted that the moderately well off and above send their kids to private schools. If you're from a wealthy coastal city with public schools good enough that the wealthy are comfortable sending their kids there, then it's understandable why some may associate private schools as being more exclusive to the upper class. 1. https://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-school-cost-by-state https://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-sc...
      - sundaeofshock 8y ago
        Median household income in the US is $65k. $10k/year/ child is not affordable for most households. You also mention religious schools. Why should a person have to indoctrinated in a religion to receive a good education?
        manfredo 8y ago
        > Median household income in the US is $65k. $10k/year/ child is not affordable for most households. Er, no? Assuming it's tax deductible most families can probably make some lifestyle changes to free up $10k. Sure it might inhibit other goals, like building up saving or consumer spending. But it's a sacrifice that many people can make if they have a strong incentive to do so (like if the local public school is crap). And this is ignoring any sort of subsidy or assistance. > You also mention religious schools. Why should a person have to indoctrinated in a religion to receive a good education? I mentioned them in context cheaper private school education. Not to mention, the fact that you immediately leapt from "religious school" to "indoctrination" indicates that you seem to be approaching this with your conclusions decided a priori and are looking to justify them rather than participate in good faith.
- ferongr 8y ago
  As an ordinary citizen affected by, I support privatization where possible and at-will employment regimes for public servants where not. Public servants are privileged and should not have the right to strike.
  - sfkdjf9j3j 8y ago
    What do you mean specifically by "should not have the right to strike"? As in, they should have their right to free association limited? They should be forced to work under penalty of jail time?
  - RestlessMind 8y ago
    So if public servants are forbidden from striking and their employer (govt) starts abusing them, what would be their recourse? Voting might be insufficient if size of the workforce is too small to matter. In general, strike is a tool labor has against capital. Just because capital happens to be provided by taxpayers, how does that warrant a special case handling?
    - ferongr 8y ago
      They can always quit. But nobody quits from guaranteed for-life employment with generous pensions, lots of paid leave and limited workload.
      - snazz 8y ago
        Public school teachers don’t have any of those benefits, at least in the US. Their pay and pension are anything but generous, they have little paid leave (where I live, maternity or paternity leave uses up paid sick days too), and they work long hours, with the expectation that they are available to answer emails practically every day. This is pretty much why there are very few public school computer science teachers who do a decent job, since the ones who can legitimately write code can get a much better job at a private company.
        cascom 8y ago
mikeash 8y ago
When corporate workers strike, they don’t disrupt the board members and major shareholders that set their pay, they disrupt the everyday customer who might have even been sympathetic to their cause.
- Zach_the_Lizard 8y ago
  They do tend to disrupt profits, which in turn does disrupt the board. Since board members tend to be large shareholders or representatives of large shareholders, they would personally feel the effects of their net worth decreasing.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Strikes by government workers disrupt taxes and affect elections. What’s the difference, really?
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Private unions are fine. Government unions are problematic because the interests of taxpayers and the government officials that negotiate with the unions are not in alignment. Government office holders benefit greatly if they take care of the government unions in terms of campaign donations, endorsements, rallies, and so on. Taxpayers not so much. Why else do government union employees get outsized retirement benefits that have caused disabling debts to local governments? That is what happens when the taxpayers' negotiator personally benefits from keeping the government unions happy happy.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I don’t see that the union is a particularly important part of what you describe. The same things could happen without a union. The misaligned incentives are the same either way.