4 ms·

I don't know what else you'd call it if an unelected organization uses the governments money & power to do things that the public doesn't want. I am open to usi

by nickff 5y ago

I don't know what else you'd call it if an unelected organization uses the governments money & power to do things that the public doesn't want. I am open to using different terminology, in case you have any suggestions.

woodruffw 5y ago
Normally we'd call that a "civil service." They don't traditionally answer to the electorate, because the electorate appoints their boss(es). And, whether you like it or not, must of the public does want its teachers to be supportive of children who aren't straight or cis.
- nickff 5y ago
  I think the civil service is supposed to execute the laws of the jurisdiction, and defer to the elected branches when there are policy decisions to be made. If the unions are making their own policies, it doesn't really matter whom the electorate has appointed. I would use the same term ('subvert') for a government contractor siphoning government funds for activities outside their contract terms. I really don't know what else to call this.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    I think a concrete example of a law being broken by teachers not being actively homophobic or transphobic would be a substantive contribution to this discussion. Until then, it's not clear what law or regulation the teachers represented by the CTA are violating.
    - nickff 5y ago
      It seems like the CTA is attempting to make policy, without obviously violating laws. Areas without clear policies either require clarification by the elected officials, or should be left to individuals in the field. Unions and corporate lobby groups have no place in making policy.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Shaping policy is one of the raisons d'être for unions. Why did you think they exist?
        nickff 5y ago
        Unions shaping policy is a very controversial subject, and I believe that there is no widespread consensus on whether it should or should not be permitted. It is one of the arguments made against public-sector unions, in that they have an improper influence on government policy, and thus undermine the democratic process. I thought unions existed to collectively bargain for compensation and working conditions. When working conditions are related to policy, they can negotiate with the employer for 'concessions' (or agreements as the case may be). One (potential) problem occurs when the politicians and the unions agree on something, and enter into contracts with the purpose of 'locking-in' policy decisions beyond the politicians' terms.
        pseudo0 5y ago
        In the case of workplace conditions and such, sure. But there's a huge issue of moral hazard when it comes to unions lobbying or influencing public policy more generally for their own benefit, for example with prison guard unions opposing the legalization of marijuana. Locking people in cages for the sale of a relatively harmless plant might benefit the prison guards, but that benefit is vastly outweighed by the harm to society.

by nickff 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

Normally we'd call that a "civil service." They don't traditionally answer to the electorate, because the electorate appoints their boss(es). And, whether you like it or not, must of the public does want its teachers to be supportive of children who aren't straight or cis.

nickff 5y ago
I think the civil service is supposed to execute the laws of the jurisdiction, and defer to the elected branches when there are policy decisions to be made. If the unions are making their own policies, it doesn't really matter whom the electorate has appointed. I would use the same term ('subvert') for a government contractor siphoning government funds for activities outside their contract terms. I really don't know what else to call this.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  I think a concrete example of a law being broken by teachers not being actively homophobic or transphobic would be a substantive contribution to this discussion. Until then, it's not clear what law or regulation the teachers represented by the CTA are violating.
  - nickff 5y ago
    It seems like the CTA is attempting to make policy, without obviously violating laws. Areas without clear policies either require clarification by the elected officials, or should be left to individuals in the field. Unions and corporate lobby groups have no place in making policy.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Shaping policy is one of the raisons d'être for unions. Why did you think they exist?
      - nickff 5y ago
        Unions shaping policy is a very controversial subject, and I believe that there is no widespread consensus on whether it should or should not be permitted. It is one of the arguments made against public-sector unions, in that they have an improper influence on government policy, and thus undermine the democratic process. I thought unions existed to collectively bargain for compensation and working conditions. When working conditions are related to policy, they can negotiate with the employer for 'concessions' (or agreements as the case may be). One (potential) problem occurs when the politicians and the unions agree on something, and enter into contracts with the purpose of 'locking-in' policy decisions beyond the politicians' terms.
      - pseudo0 5y ago
        In the case of workplace conditions and such, sure. But there's a huge issue of moral hazard when it comes to unions lobbying or influencing public policy more generally for their own benefit, for example with prison guard unions opposing the legalization of marijuana. Locking people in cages for the sale of a relatively harmless plant might benefit the prison guards, but that benefit is vastly outweighed by the harm to society.