Public Sector Unions?

[Lamaack558]

Hi everyone. I am new to this forum. I've always had an instinct that unions are good for society, and all that. But I'm actually sort of questioning their utility when it comes to government employees. I never really thought about it before, but maybe it really doesn't matter all that much whether the public employees have a union, because state governments are much less likely to bully labor around than the private sector. Am I off base here?

[Red Commissar]

While working for the government in some form does give you some benefits, it doesn't mean it's any better in terms of how the labor is treated. Case and point- look at teachers. Teachers are routinely laid off in large numbers when budget problems hit, and the reasoning is always the same- we have to make "sacrifices". Public frevor is turned against it because it's their tax dollars paying said teachers.

Just recently we've seen in Providence, Rhode Island that all teachers were fired. That's just as bad as you'd see in the private sector.

[Hoplite]

While working for the government in some form does give you some benefits, it doesn't mean it's any better in terms of how the labor is treated. Case and point- look at teachers. Teachers are routinely laid off in large numbers when budget problems hit, and the reasoning is always the same- we have to make "sacrifices". Public frevor is turned against it because it's their tax dollars paying said teachers.
To play devil's advocate, if a state goes broke paying ALL it's teachers and this isnt able to pay ANY of its teachers, is that better than a state laying off some of it's teachers so as to be able to keep others?

As to the OP, unions for the public sector are illegal currently and are opposed by many because of the influence and power such an organization could potentially wield.

Take a look at the California Teacher's Union. It's an extremely powerful organization both on behalf of the teachers but it's also grown to the point where it's started veering off on it's own agenda and lost sight of what it was supposed to do.

If there were some kind of mechanism in place to keep a union for government employees from becoming a political force, I'd be for it.

[syndicat]

To play devil's advocate, if a state goes broke paying ALL it's teachers and this isnt able to pay ANY of its teachers, is that better than a state laying off some of it's teachers so as to be able to keep others?

As to the OP, unions for the public sector are illegal currently and are opposed by many because of the influence and power such an organization could potentially wield.

Take a look at the California Teacher's Union. It's an extremely powerful organization both on behalf of the teachers but it's also grown to the point where it's started veering off on it's own agenda and lost sight of what it was supposed to do.

If there were some kind of mechanism in place to keep a union for government employees from becoming a political force, I'd be for it.

so you have no problem with the dictatorship over workers that exists in all workplaces? then you're not for the liberation of the working class friom oppression and exploitation. Every worker has the right to self-manage -- control -- their own work.

Almmost all unions, whether in public or private sector, in the USA have problems with an overpaid bureaucracy that wields too much power. That's a completely separate question from organizing rights for workers.

Why should public sector workers have less say in the governance of their communities than anyone else?

As to teachers unions, they were formed as a protection against arbitrary authority, just as in private industry. Teachers could be fired for no particular reason, or for political reasons.

[Hoplite]

so you have no problem with the dictatorship over workers that exists in all workplaces? then you're not for the liberation of the working class friom oppression and exploitation. Every worker has the right to self-manage -- control -- their own work. In principal, I agree. However we have to work with what we have now. We're barely up to crawling now, we need to work up to being able to stand up, then running.

We are not READY for a completely independent system. People are still too deep under the influence of mass consumption, of greed, of selfishness.


Almmost all unions, whether in public or private sector, in the USA have problems with an overpaid bureaucracy that wields too much power. That's a completely separate question from organizing rights for workers.
That is a separate issue, however I think we need to exercise extreme caution when we propose to put an overpaid bureaucracy with too much power in a position of power and influence over people who run our countries, lest we exchange one government for another.


Why should public sector workers have less say in the governance of their communities than anyone else? I agree they should have a say and it should be as much as anyone else. My concern is that the implementation of this will, inadvertently, hand too much power over to individuals who are not our government.

If you can control the people that run our government, you can control the government and that potential gives me cause for concern.


As to teachers unions, they were formed as a protection against arbitrary authority, just as in private industry. Teachers could be fired for no particular reason, or for political reasons.
That was, indeed, the purpose of ALL unions. However many have mutated beyond their original purpose. The California Teacher's Union is an example, it has become corrupt, it protects bad teachers, has no regard for the well-being of the school system itself, and does it's own share of politicking.

It needs reform, not disillusion. It needs to be restrained to it's original purpose; protecting workers and giving them a way to organize and fight for their rights.

[gestalt]

I never really thought about it before, but maybe it really doesn't matter all that much whether the public employees have a union, because state governments are much less likely to bully labor around than the private sector. Am I off base here?

Unfortunately.

One only has to look at recent history and current events to see government, like capital, attempt to exploit its employees for the bare minimum of expenditure and rescind all gains made in their labor struggles. Increasingly the efforts are to eliminate or privatize certain public services (e.g., education) in favor of corporate alternatives.

In practical terms, the Wagner Act excluded public employees and in the following decades, while private sector workers enjoyed modest gains in standard of living and working conditions, the government sphere lagged behind. For the scant rights which have been recognized since organization began, collective bargaining chief among them, many governments criminalize something so basic as the strike. Civil service also carries a, dare I say, higher chance of political termination.

The critiques of public sector unions in this thread are equally applicable to private sector ones. The AFL-CIO is no less a labor aristocracy than the NEA.

The argument that government employee unions might have too much say over bureaucratic operations would sound far less convincing were one to apply the same logic to private employees and businesses.

Just an aside, but the idea that unions "protect bad teachers" is education reformist nonsense. Every state, school board and school administration has the means to remove ineffective educators from the classroom. Placement can be denied and, after due process has been carried out which is all "tenure" actually entails, the teacher can be fired and decertified.

[Klaatu]

...state governments are much less likely to bully labor around than the private sector. Am I off base here?

Well, just look at what is actually going on in Wisconsin. Sure looks like "bullying" to me... In fact it looks far worse than that!