4 ms·

Collective bargaining evens out the power imbalances between workers and their employers. It doesn't really matter if the employer is the government or a privat

Collective bargaining evens out the power imbalances between workers and their employers. It doesn't really matter if the employer is the government or a private company. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about collective bargaining and democracy since the two are unrelated. There are other ways to handle public sector unions. For example, in Canada the military is not part of a union but their pay is tied to other public sector employees who are unionized. This makes sense since you don't want the military going on strike. When the union employees go on strike to get better pay and benefits the military also gets the same increases. You could do something similar in the US by tying police salaries and benefits to another public sector group like teachers or nurses. I have the feeling that this would be extremely unpopular with the police.

falcrist 6y ago
> Collective bargaining evens out the power imbalances between workers and their employers. The reason it's strange is because if the government is a democracy (representative or direct), there should already be a mechanism for collective bargaining. The fact that this is often insufficient strikes me as a pretty strong indictment of our systems of government.
- vkou 6y ago
  In a private company, there is also a mechanism for collective bargaining, without a union. The workers could just buy up all the outstanding stock, and replace the board. And yet, nobody considers that to be sufficient to deny workers their right to organize.
  - falcrist 6y ago
    That's generally only possible in a public company ("public" meaning "publicly traded"). Even then, I don't think the stockholders are under any obligation to sell to you, so you still may not be able to purchase a controlling interest in the company. So if the board holds a controlling interest, you're out of luck.
    - vkou 6y ago
      The politicians you elect, likewise, have no obligation to actually follow through on their campaign promises.
      - falcrist 6y ago
        In the case of politicians, you can simply vote them out next election. Board positions can be lifetime appointments.
        ryanbrunner 6y ago
        This feels like quibbling. In both cases, the mechanism proposed as an alternative to collective bargaining is wildly unrealistic. With a corporation, you need to buy a controlling interest of shares. With the "voting as collective bargaining" approach for public sector employees, you have a chance once in a while (depends where you live, but 4-5 years in most places) to try and convince a plurality of the overall population that the concerns of your profession outweigh the many, many other considerations people have in choosing who they vote for. Either way, both options are not realistically achievable by nearly any union (ironically, I could see police as one exception - "tough on crime" policies, which are usually favourable to police unions, tend to be popular among voters, at least up until June 2020).
        falcrist 6y ago
        With voting, you don't actually have to convince a plurality. You only have to convince a small percentage of the population (often <5%) to sway an election.
- fredophile 6y ago
  I believe your argument is that in a democracy, public sector employees can vote for politicians who will represent their interests and this is equivalent to collective bargaining. Please let me know if I've misunderstood you because I don't want to argue against a straw man. Let's consider teachers as an example. The top search result in Google tells me that 2% of the population of the US are teachers. With collective bargaining they can do work to rule, go on strike, and other job actions to pressure the government to improve working conditions. With voting they don't have a large enough voting block to push through candidates that will improve their working conditions. They would somehow need to convince over 48% of the population, assuming no gerrymandering, to also vote for the candidate that they want. That seems like a big thing to ask just to ensure an annual cost of living increase.
  - falcrist 6y ago
    It's not just direct voting. There are plenty of other ways to influence culture to sway other voters. And given the limited number of candidates and the frequency with which our elections come down to a few percent, they certainly wouldn't have to sway 48% of the population to influence how elected representatives treat them.
    - fredophile 6y ago
      Can you give me an example, other than voting, of how democracy is collective bargaining? You're not considering wedge issues? What if the candidate that would improve your working conditions also has a stance on an issue that you are strongly opposed to? For example, do you vote for the candidate who will give you a small raise but also disagrees with you on abortion? What if all of the candidates feel like siding with you would alienate more people than your voting bloc would bring?
      - falcrist 6y ago
        Can you give me some examples, other than voting, of what constitutes democracy? > You're not considering wedge issues? Maybe our systems of government shouldn't have this weakness. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the "strong indictment".
baddox 6y ago
> This makes sense since you don't want the military going on strike. What’s unique here? Isn’t the whole point of all strikes that the employer doesn’t want the employees to go on strike?
- fredophile 6y ago
  Some services are more important than others. If teachers go on strike kids miss some school; if nurses go on strike people die. The military fits into the "people die" category in terms of likely consequences from a strike. Edit: just to be clear, I don't mean to imply that teachers aren't important, just that the immediate consequences of them all missing work is less severe than some other occupations.
  - baddox 6y ago
    Do you really think that more people would die if the US military went on strike? Besides, the US military already has a mechanism to force people to work for the military.
    - fredophile 6y ago
      My original comment was about the Canadian military and was an example of how groups like the police don't necessarily need unions so you're the one bringing the US military into this. I can't speak for the US military but the Canadian military is active domestically doing search and rescue, responding to natural disasters, counter terrorism, etc. People will die if those activities need to take place and the military is on strike. They doesn't account for other important work like embassy staff. I know the US military provides embassy security. How many people would die if no US embassies had armed people with guns protecting them? It's also important to consider that when you're talking about the military who dies matters more than how many people die. How many civilian drone strike casualties would it take to get the same attention that Benghazi got? What mechanism does the US military have to force people to work in the event that the whole military is on strike? Are they going to charge the entire military if they go on strike? Everybody walks down into the brig and the last man in locks the door behind them?

falcrist 6y ago

> Collective bargaining evens out the power imbalances between workers and their employers. The reason it's strange is because if the government is a democracy (representative or direct), there should already be a mechanism for collective bargaining. The fact that this is often insufficient strikes me as a pretty strong indictment of our systems of government.

vkou 6y ago
In a private company, there is also a mechanism for collective bargaining, without a union. The workers could just buy up all the outstanding stock, and replace the board. And yet, nobody considers that to be sufficient to deny workers their right to organize.
- falcrist 6y ago
  That's generally only possible in a public company ("public" meaning "publicly traded"). Even then, I don't think the stockholders are under any obligation to sell to you, so you still may not be able to purchase a controlling interest in the company. So if the board holds a controlling interest, you're out of luck.
  - vkou 6y ago
    The politicians you elect, likewise, have no obligation to actually follow through on their campaign promises.
    - falcrist 6y ago
      In the case of politicians, you can simply vote them out next election. Board positions can be lifetime appointments.
      - ryanbrunner 6y ago
        This feels like quibbling. In both cases, the mechanism proposed as an alternative to collective bargaining is wildly unrealistic. With a corporation, you need to buy a controlling interest of shares. With the "voting as collective bargaining" approach for public sector employees, you have a chance once in a while (depends where you live, but 4-5 years in most places) to try and convince a plurality of the overall population that the concerns of your profession outweigh the many, many other considerations people have in choosing who they vote for. Either way, both options are not realistically achievable by nearly any union (ironically, I could see police as one exception - "tough on crime" policies, which are usually favourable to police unions, tend to be popular among voters, at least up until June 2020).
        falcrist 6y ago
        With voting, you don't actually have to convince a plurality. You only have to convince a small percentage of the population (often <5%) to sway an election.
fredophile 6y ago
I believe your argument is that in a democracy, public sector employees can vote for politicians who will represent their interests and this is equivalent to collective bargaining. Please let me know if I've misunderstood you because I don't want to argue against a straw man. Let's consider teachers as an example. The top search result in Google tells me that 2% of the population of the US are teachers. With collective bargaining they can do work to rule, go on strike, and other job actions to pressure the government to improve working conditions. With voting they don't have a large enough voting block to push through candidates that will improve their working conditions. They would somehow need to convince over 48% of the population, assuming no gerrymandering, to also vote for the candidate that they want. That seems like a big thing to ask just to ensure an annual cost of living increase.
- falcrist 6y ago
  It's not just direct voting. There are plenty of other ways to influence culture to sway other voters. And given the limited number of candidates and the frequency with which our elections come down to a few percent, they certainly wouldn't have to sway 48% of the population to influence how elected representatives treat them.
  - fredophile 6y ago
    Can you give me an example, other than voting, of how democracy is collective bargaining? You're not considering wedge issues? What if the candidate that would improve your working conditions also has a stance on an issue that you are strongly opposed to? For example, do you vote for the candidate who will give you a small raise but also disagrees with you on abortion? What if all of the candidates feel like siding with you would alienate more people than your voting bloc would bring?
    - falcrist 6y ago
      Can you give me some examples, other than voting, of what constitutes democracy? > You're not considering wedge issues? Maybe our systems of government shouldn't have this weakness. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the "strong indictment".

baddox 6y ago

> This makes sense since you don't want the military going on strike. What’s unique here? Isn’t the whole point of all strikes that the employer doesn’t want the employees to go on strike?

fredophile 6y ago
Some services are more important than others. If teachers go on strike kids miss some school; if nurses go on strike people die. The military fits into the "people die" category in terms of likely consequences from a strike. Edit: just to be clear, I don't mean to imply that teachers aren't important, just that the immediate consequences of them all missing work is less severe than some other occupations.
- baddox 6y ago
  Do you really think that more people would die if the US military went on strike? Besides, the US military already has a mechanism to force people to work for the military.
  - fredophile 6y ago
    My original comment was about the Canadian military and was an example of how groups like the police don't necessarily need unions so you're the one bringing the US military into this. I can't speak for the US military but the Canadian military is active domestically doing search and rescue, responding to natural disasters, counter terrorism, etc. People will die if those activities need to take place and the military is on strike. They doesn't account for other important work like embassy staff. I know the US military provides embassy security. How many people would die if no US embassies had armed people with guns protecting them? It's also important to consider that when you're talking about the military who dies matters more than how many people die. How many civilian drone strike casualties would it take to get the same attention that Benghazi got? What mechanism does the US military have to force people to work in the event that the whole military is on strike? Are they going to charge the entire military if they go on strike? Everybody walks down into the brig and the last man in locks the door behind them?