3 ms·
> Collective bargaining should not control the taxpayer dime. Why on earth not? An employer is an employer. Many public sector unions in other countries are v
by arcticbull 5y ago
> Collective bargaining should not control the taxpayer dime.
Why on earth not? An employer is an employer.
Many public sector unions in other countries are very well regarded, such as CUPE in Canada (with 700,000 members, they represent 5% of Canadian workers).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- changoplatanero 5y agoat the very least i believe a public sector union in a democracy shouldn't have the right to strike and keep their jobs. You can't hold the rest of the country hostage like that. The government belongs to the people and the people's right to have a functioning government supersedes your right to strike.
- arcticbull 5y agoOk, but who's going to look out for the employment rights of the individuals? Wouldn't you argue that's even more important the larger the employer gets? The way it tends to work in Canada is that if certain essential workers strike and it harms the public, they can be ordered back to work. Seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.
- salawat 5y agoNot really. If you can just order someone back to work without sitting down at the negotiating table... You're kinda hosed from the Union/labor front. Like it or not, even the Government is liable to pay a fair wage. If the Public is so darn stingy they won't even vote in people to seriously fund the execution of crucial services, that's their problem.
- arcticbull 5y agoFor sure, it's a balance, which is why back to work legislation is used sparingly. It also has been given a very high bar by recent Supreme Court rulings.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoSeems like a hollow threat because you can't actually force anyone to work. I think all collective bargaining should rely on the power of the workers to stop working and the cost to employers to hire replacements. Any laws that deviate from this and prevent parties from doing so are a morally bankrupt.
- arcticbull 5y agoYou can certainly fine them until they do, which is generally how this works.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI haven't seen that and to be honest, am a little skeptical. If someone quits their job, they can be fined? For how long?
- arcticbull 5y agoThis is how most return-to-work legislation in Canada has historically been structured, and it has worked.
- changoplatanero 5y agoi believe you still can quit your job but the thing you can't do is refuse to work while also preventing the government from hiring someone else to do your job, aka striking
- rpmisms 5y agoThe idea is that private sector pressure will keep Government employees roughly at par with private salaries. I don't mean direct pressure, simply that people won't work there.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoThe individual right to not be exploited supersedes the collective right to functioning government. This is a natural right that cannot be taken away by anyone including a government. We have a right to not be exploited. We don't have a right to functioning government.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoWith a private company, the owners can sell their stake or shut down. Citizens can not opt out of paying taxes.
- arcticbull 5y agoI don't think that changes anything other than making the need for collective bargaining even more important. Those providing the essential services deserve every bit as much representation as those providing non-essential service. Especially since their employer has even more power.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoBut the taxpayer owners have less power. Seems like a bad system IMHO as a tax payer.
- arcticbull 5y agoOf course the group who stands to be pushed back on would view it as a "bad system." Just as most employers view unions as a "bad system" however, they have numerous real-world benefits.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoYeah, and numerous real-world costs. Reasonable people can still disagree on the priority and balancing of these costs and benefits as there is rarely a factually correct answer.