5 ms·

Why would you support public sector unions? They face a very different dynamic than ones faced in the private sector. Here's a good write up: http://www.hoove

Why would you support public sector unions? They face a very different dynamic than ones faced in the private sector. Here's a good write up: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43266 http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/432...

nknighthb 13y ago
The parts of that article I don't believe are factually incorrect are parts I fundamentally disagree with. Trying to convince me public sector unions are bad by linking me to a conservative think tank rattling off a list of things public employees fight for/against is a bad idea. I fight for/against the exact same things. So the answer to your question is, I'm a bleeding heart pinko commie bastard, that's why. Have a glass of vodka, comrade.
- tater 13y ago
  Thats the strategy, divide and conquer, make the private sector hate the public sector, make the nonunion workers hate the union workers, etc. As soon as they have enough haters to form a critical mass, the hated group gets shit on and they repeat the process with the next group.
- dantheman 13y ago
  Just so you know, I wasn't trying to insult you or start a fight. I think there are two interesting sections that most people may not have thought of/considered: THE POWER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS & THE DISTORTION OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICS e.g. Correction officers’ unions are powerful forces in states like California and New York; they push for the construction of more prisons and for longer sentences for criminals (so that there are more people for correction officers to guard). Their activities in California are a case in point. In the last eight years they have spent $10 million on state politics — either in direct contributions to politicians or in spending on ballot initiatives relating to crime and punishment. They have mounted full-scale political campaigns. For instance, the California corrections union has attacked public officials, such as the Los Angeles district attorney, who supported an alternative to the union-favored “three-strikes law.” Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in February of this year noted that “the three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers’ union and that is sick!” In 1999 the union even successfully opposed a proposal to permit the California attorney general to prosecute brutality in prisons.
hallp 13y ago
It's a little humorous that they are talking about unions disrupting the political system when corporations spend infinitely more money on lobbying government.
- derleth 13y ago
  Unions are corporations, too. If unions protect workers from management, who protects workers from unions?
  - casiotone 13y ago
    This is fucking absurd. Unions are unions OF WORKERS. A unions political power comes from the combined power of its members, who are citizens of the state and can thus be considered an accurate reflection of the citizens wishes. A corporation's political power comes from the top, and does not reflect anyone's wishes but the CEO.
    - derleth 13y ago
      > Unions are unions OF WORKERS. But there's still someone in charge. Who polices them? > A unions political power comes from the combined power of its members, who are citizens of the state and can thus be considered an accurate reflection of the citizens wishes. By this argument, we don't need anyone watching the government because it is elected by the people and so represents the will of the people.
      - derleth 13y ago
        Does anyone have refutations to these points, or are union people going to disagree by downvoting?
      - casiotone 13y ago
        > But there's still someone in charge. Who polices them? The union members vote on union matters. Do you know how unions work at all? Why are you talking as if you're an authority on unions when you don't even know this stuff? > By this argument, we don't need anyone watching the government because it is elected by the people and so represents the will of the people. Don't be ridiculous. The point is that a democratic organisation of workers exercising the collective political will of those members using the collective funds of those members, is quite clearly compatible with democracy, infinitely more so than companies spending billions to exercise the will of a small group of people at the top.

nknighthb 13y ago

The parts of that article I don't believe are factually incorrect are parts I fundamentally disagree with. Trying to convince me public sector unions are bad by linking me to a conservative think tank rattling off a list of things public employees fight for/against is a bad idea. I fight for/against the exact same things. So the answer to your question is, I'm a bleeding heart pinko commie bastard, that's why. Have a glass of vodka, comrade.

tater 13y ago
Thats the strategy, divide and conquer, make the private sector hate the public sector, make the nonunion workers hate the union workers, etc. As soon as they have enough haters to form a critical mass, the hated group gets shit on and they repeat the process with the next group.
dantheman 13y ago
Just so you know, I wasn't trying to insult you or start a fight. I think there are two interesting sections that most people may not have thought of/considered: THE POWER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS & THE DISTORTION OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICS e.g. Correction officers’ unions are powerful forces in states like California and New York; they push for the construction of more prisons and for longer sentences for criminals (so that there are more people for correction officers to guard). Their activities in California are a case in point. In the last eight years they have spent $10 million on state politics — either in direct contributions to politicians or in spending on ballot initiatives relating to crime and punishment. They have mounted full-scale political campaigns. For instance, the California corrections union has attacked public officials, such as the Los Angeles district attorney, who supported an alternative to the union-favored “three-strikes law.” Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in February of this year noted that “the three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers’ union and that is sick!” In 1999 the union even successfully opposed a proposal to permit the California attorney general to prosecute brutality in prisons.

hallp 13y ago

It's a little humorous that they are talking about unions disrupting the political system when corporations spend infinitely more money on lobbying government.

derleth 13y ago
Unions are corporations, too. If unions protect workers from management, who protects workers from unions?
- casiotone 13y ago
  This is fucking absurd. Unions are unions OF WORKERS. A unions political power comes from the combined power of its members, who are citizens of the state and can thus be considered an accurate reflection of the citizens wishes. A corporation's political power comes from the top, and does not reflect anyone's wishes but the CEO.
  - derleth 13y ago
    > Unions are unions OF WORKERS. But there's still someone in charge. Who polices them? > A unions political power comes from the combined power of its members, who are citizens of the state and can thus be considered an accurate reflection of the citizens wishes. By this argument, we don't need anyone watching the government because it is elected by the people and so represents the will of the people.
    - derleth 13y ago
      Does anyone have refutations to these points, or are union people going to disagree by downvoting?
    - casiotone 13y ago
      > But there's still someone in charge. Who polices them? The union members vote on union matters. Do you know how unions work at all? Why are you talking as if you're an authority on unions when you don't even know this stuff? > By this argument, we don't need anyone watching the government because it is elected by the people and so represents the will of the people. Don't be ridiculous. The point is that a democratic organisation of workers exercising the collective political will of those members using the collective funds of those members, is quite clearly compatible with democracy, infinitely more so than companies spending billions to exercise the will of a small group of people at the top.