4 ms·

The state doesn't need to perfectly represent the public to represent the public. Their only leverage is not doing their job. How, exactly, is not doing their

• ry7frhhbt 4y ago
  This is more conflating of synonyms. Just because the state represents the public in the literal sense doesn't mean it actually represents the desires of needs of the public in the sense of an abstract representation. The pedantry is important because in the former case the public has less reason to care if the activity is impeding the persuits of their representative beuracracy if those activities aren't representations of things the public actually cares about (or wants in the fashion they're being persued) Further, because public sector workers still represent agents of the public until they're let go. If the state abuses its agents too thoroughly for them to perform their tasks, or simply enough to have an impact its agents well-being, then the union represents a corrective force to the state's shortsightedness. This is an important dynamic because workers are only easily replaced if the next group doesn't also come to feel similarly aggrieved enough to unionize and strike. Further still, I'd point out that equating the state to the public it serves is only useful if the argument assumes that the public should be free to abuse its agents without ethical qualm.
  • AbrahamParangi 4y ago
    You’re saying that public sector unions can be good because sometimes their interests are aligned with that of the public and sometimes the state is not. This does not generally happen, though the unions will say it does. On average, the conflict is as I described. On average, a typical person does not benefit from the union position. The edge case is not interesting.