3 ms·

I've not really seen good support for public sector unions are bad (though clearly a fair number have negotiated sweetheart deals). Places like California do re

I've not really seen good support for public sector unions are bad (though clearly a fair number have negotiated sweetheart deals). Places like California do relatively well even with high rates of public sector unionization. In terms of workers, the govt can't go "out of business" so seems pretty rational to join a union in that context? The other issue is politicans are total idiots. I've done enough work in govt to know that the folks making policy NEVER EVER ask the folks in charge of delivering on something what small changes would make things 100x more efficient, fraud resistant and more. For example, PPP loans. Everyone in govt knows that employers make payroll tax payments every other week, file quarterly reports and annual W-2's and W-3's for staff. So if you are going to do a paycheck protection program - two options. One, use the data YOU ALREADY HAVE ON FILE to auto generate loans (2.5 months of payroll) using a simple signup form with very little risk of fraud - funds can only go into the same payroll accounts deposits made from etc. Instead, we got a totally stupid system where massive fees were paid to folks who had no clue to supposedly screen folks using easily alterable documents. The fraud if they care to look is going to be high AND the pain was extreme for folks applying. All of which could have been avoided. My point - a unionized workforce would not have messed this up as badly as a bunch of whacko political appointees with no clue, so I'm not necessarily against public sector unions if it helps with retention.

bumby 6y ago
I go back and forth on my opinion of public unions but since you said you weren’t aware of the argument of why some feel they aren’t favorable, I’ll play devils advocate. Typically, in private union shops there is a check and balance between union demands and the viability of a business. Meaning, if a union gets too greedy they create a threat to their own existence by potentially driving their employer out of business. I witnessed this in the automotive sector when unions had to renegotiate their rates in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Workers brought in afterwards were often making less than half of what they would have made if brought in before renegotiation. I don’t think that same check exists (or is at the very least slower and weakened) in the public sector because the govt is a monopoly and can often raise taxes. Sure citizens can try to elect politicians that buffer this but at best it’s a process that takes years to enact and at worst is ineffectual. Because they have a captive “customer” base and a “company” that can’t go out of business, it provides a theoretical avenue for extortion. Besides all of that, civil servants are intended to serve the populace (hence the term servant) and not be strictly motivated by personal gain; they generally take an oath, meaning they are expected to answer to a higher calling. (I also have lots of reasons to believe public unions are beneficial but like I said, just wanted to potentially give a side you weren’t familiar with) Regarding PPP, there’s been some good links in this thread that show public sector unions are quite strong despite the dwindling private sector unions. Meaning government policies are not enacted devoid of union influence. High level policies will almost always be driven by political appointees so I have doubts that an even more unionized public sector would impact on these policies
- random5634 6y ago
  Sorry - I meant to focus on argument from workers point of view. Govt jobs, you can get basically a job for life if you are not a total idiot. Not for everyone of course. One model I've seen some pretty large success with is employee ownership of companies. They seem to tolerate the total disaster flake outs less than unions do. I've seen unions fight for the drunk guy who hit someone with a forklift. My exposure to employee ownership shows it is complicated and there can be problems, but for whatever reason stuff happens. Collectives on the other hand didn't really work - too many opinions? I know berkeley's collectives all fell apart.
  - bumby 6y ago
    Ah, ok. Yes, from the workers point of view, I can't personally why one wouldn't want to be part of a union outside of paying dues. With the government job security, that always struck me as a reason to not need a union. Why pay dues if the largest benefit is already provided? (Of course there are other benefits, but I imagine job security is usually near the top)

bumby 6y ago

I go back and forth on my opinion of public unions but since you said you weren’t aware of the argument of why some feel they aren’t favorable, I’ll play devils advocate. Typically, in private union shops there is a check and balance between union demands and the viability of a business. Meaning, if a union gets too greedy they create a threat to their own existence by potentially driving their employer out of business. I witnessed this in the automotive sector when unions had to renegotiate their rates in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Workers brought in afterwards were often making less than half of what they would have made if brought in before renegotiation. I don’t think that same check exists (or is at the very least slower and weakened) in the public sector because the govt is a monopoly and can often raise taxes. Sure citizens can try to elect politicians that buffer this but at best it’s a process that takes years to enact and at worst is ineffectual. Because they have a captive “customer” base and a “company” that can’t go out of business, it provides a theoretical avenue for extortion. Besides all of that, civil servants are intended to serve the populace (hence the term servant) and not be strictly motivated by personal gain; they generally take an oath, meaning they are expected to answer to a higher calling. (I also have lots of reasons to believe public unions are beneficial but like I said, just wanted to potentially give a side you weren’t familiar with) Regarding PPP, there’s been some good links in this thread that show public sector unions are quite strong despite the dwindling private sector unions. Meaning government policies are not enacted devoid of union influence. High level policies will almost always be driven by political appointees so I have doubts that an even more unionized public sector would impact on these policies

random5634 6y ago
Sorry - I meant to focus on argument from workers point of view. Govt jobs, you can get basically a job for life if you are not a total idiot. Not for everyone of course. One model I've seen some pretty large success with is employee ownership of companies. They seem to tolerate the total disaster flake outs less than unions do. I've seen unions fight for the drunk guy who hit someone with a forklift. My exposure to employee ownership shows it is complicated and there can be problems, but for whatever reason stuff happens. Collectives on the other hand didn't really work - too many opinions? I know berkeley's collectives all fell apart.
- bumby 6y ago
  Ah, ok. Yes, from the workers point of view, I can't personally why one wouldn't want to be part of a union outside of paying dues. With the government job security, that always struck me as a reason to not need a union. Why pay dues if the largest benefit is already provided? (Of course there are other benefits, but I imagine job security is usually near the top)