2 ms·

You could make the same argument for any sort of negotiation the government engages in with a private citizen or corporation. I really don't see the difference

by moftz 6y ago

You could make the same argument for any sort of negotiation the government engages in with a private citizen or corporation. I really don't see the difference between a worker employed by the government and one employed by a private corporation. Both want to pay the worker as little as possible. Both want to provide as little protections in the workplace as possible.

lettergram 6y ago
As an employer, I like as many protections as possible; more protections mean less lawsuits, higher work satisfaction (in many cases) and less knowledge loss. There's a long-term incentive to have protections. Regarding pay, I think competition takes care of that as well. That's why it's fine for a private business, they have a good metric for negation because they need "profit". It's why many auto manufacturers who had unions had to leave the states, but Toyota who was able to negotiate later in the union era is able to out-compete. In contrast, the government has no metric for how much is too much pay for a given job. Further, the government union is essentially going to take more money from the constituents at the point of a gun (government's main purpose is a monopoly on force). I don't think that's appropriate.