4 ms·

> unions for public-sector employees have always been more controversial in the United States than unionization in general. For good reason. Unions pool worker

> unions for public-sector employees have always been more controversial in the United States than unionization in general. For good reason. Unions pool workers' interests against the opposing interests of the employer; which means for public unions, they go against the interests of the public at large. There are countless examples of this. Naturally, in a country with a deep history of skepticism of centralized government authority, people don't view public-sector unions very favorably.

entropicdrifter 3y ago
>Naturally, in a country with a deep history of skepticism of centralized government authority, people don't view public-sector unions very favorably. This feels contradictory to the sentiment in the preceding statement at first glance. If the people are generally skeptical of centralized government authority, why would they also be skeptical of unions who push back against that centralized authority, as opposed to seeing themselves as on the same side?
- klyrs 3y ago
  As I understand it, it's the rank-and-file "unelected" government employees that are perceived as the real problem. And all government spending is always bad. And unions are commie pinko bastards. And taxes are always bad. Add it all up, and government employee unions are corruption on corruption, fighting to screw the voter out of their tax dollars.
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
An argument of the left, however, goes that the employer of public-sector employees isn't actually the public at large, but rather a state controlled by the bourgeoisie that only claims to represent the public interest. In that case, both the public at large and public-sector employees are on the same side and both deserve union protection.
throw0101c 3y ago
> For good reason. Unions pool workers' interests against the opposing interests of the employer; which means for public unions, they go against the interests of the public at large. There are countless examples of this. Or against the politicians / political class. And given the amount of gerrymandering that goes on in the US, whether the elected politicians actually accurately represent the public at large is debatable. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP See also "Teachers are now five times more likely to have a side gig than the average full-time worker": * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/4/17164718/teachers-work-part-time-jobs https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/4/17164718/te... * https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/07/01/about-one-in-six-u-s-teachers-work-second-jobs-and-not-just-in-the-summer/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/07/01/about-one... Perhaps some public sector employees need unions because they're getting steam-rolled. (Of course some unions (e.g., police) may be too powerful.)
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  The police ones aren’t actually unions. In most countries they aren’t even called that.

entropicdrifter 3y ago

>Naturally, in a country with a deep history of skepticism of centralized government authority, people don't view public-sector unions very favorably. This feels contradictory to the sentiment in the preceding statement at first glance. If the people are generally skeptical of centralized government authority, why would they also be skeptical of unions who push back against that centralized authority, as opposed to seeing themselves as on the same side?

klyrs 3y ago
As I understand it, it's the rank-and-file "unelected" government employees that are perceived as the real problem. And all government spending is always bad. And unions are commie pinko bastards. And taxes are always bad. Add it all up, and government employee unions are corruption on corruption, fighting to screw the voter out of their tax dollars.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

An argument of the left, however, goes that the employer of public-sector employees isn't actually the public at large, but rather a state controlled by the bourgeoisie that only claims to represent the public interest. In that case, both the public at large and public-sector employees are on the same side and both deserve union protection.

throw0101c 3y ago

> For good reason. Unions pool workers' interests against the opposing interests of the employer; which means for public unions, they go against the interests of the public at large. There are countless examples of this. Or against the politicians / political class. And given the amount of gerrymandering that goes on in the US, whether the elected politicians actually accurately represent the public at large is debatable. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP See also "Teachers are now five times more likely to have a side gig than the average full-time worker": * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/4/17164718/teachers-work-part-time-jobs https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/4/17164718/te... * https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/07/01/about-one-in-six-u-s-teachers-work-second-jobs-and-not-just-in-the-summer/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/07/01/about-one... Perhaps some public sector employees need unions because they're getting steam-rolled. (Of course some unions (e.g., police) may be too powerful.)

dontlaugh 3y ago
The police ones aren’t actually unions. In most countries they aren’t even called that.