"THE FREE MARKET HAS FAILED"

Post Reply New Topic

I should say they generally should not have the ability to unionize or what a public sector union can do should be curtailed.

The issue is that the people that are supposed to represent the taxpayers are getting campaign contributions from the union that provides politicians the incentive to promise the unions more and more, even if those promises can't be met.

A private sector union, has to deal with the business owner whom will simply shut down the business and walk away if he/she gets pushed into something where there is no way to make a profit.

What about the campaign contributions from employers that provide politicians with incentives to curtail collective bargaining rights? Or from manufacturers that provide politicians with incentives to water down consumer protection regulations? Or from lawyers that provide politicians with incentives to refrain from tort reform?

The use of money to gain access to decision makers is not limited to unions--and if your concern is the corruption of the political class then perhaps you should turn your attention to campaign financing, rather than public sector unions.

I'm not talking about private sector unions, I'm talking about Public Sector Unions where taxpayers are footing the bill.

It is legal for the government to make "yellow dog" contracts with their unionized workers. That is a contract where the union agrees not to strike but to submit wage disputes to arbitration. Remember PATCO back in the days of RWR. When the air controllers went on strike RWR said get back to work in 48 hours or you are fired. They stayed out and most of the air controllers were fired.

A private employer is forbidden by federal law to have contracts like that.

ruveyn

Taxpayers are not footing the bill. Public servants are.

When my paycheque hits my bank account, it is my money that is paid in taxes, pension contributions, employment insurance premiums, charitible donations and union dues. That money stops being taxpayers' money the moment that it becomes the "Gross earnings" on my paycheque.

But all of that is irrelevant to the fact that you seek to deprive one group of workers from having the same political rights as every other worker. If a private sector union is free to lobby a legislator, it is a violation of fundamental democratic rights to deny that same freedom to public sector workers. I may check my personal views at the door when I come to work, but that does not mean that I cease to have legal and political rights as a citizen.

Not really the point I think Inuyasha was making.

The problem with public sector unions is that the people negotiating on one side of the table have the means to influence the people on the other side of the table via campaign contributions. Hence, it can lead to conflicts of interest. Even if you appoint negotiators who in no way are running for office or get elected, the people making those appointments will be politically pressured.

So, either deny public sector unions collective bargaining rights or deny them the ability to contribute any money to political campaigns either directly or via a proxy. The second option would be problematic because you know someone will look for a legalistic way to circumvent the regulation prohibiting it.

A strict libertarian should oppose all of the above. Someone who is simply pro-business / anti-labor is not "libertarian".

You can't do this unless you also curtail corporate political contributions which also leads to conflicts of interests. The idea that being pro-business / anti-labor makes one more inclined to personal liberty is the biggest lie ever sold. Right-wing "libertarianism" is a joke.

I was not aware that I was advocating for letting corporations make political contributions.

Corporations are legal fictions. They were never intended to have the rights of a real person...only what was needed to function as a legal entity for business. I wholly disagree with recent Supreme Court rulings to the contrary.

You do realize that this statement doesn't follow from the previous statements, don't you?

Right-wing libertarianism is, like many other liberal political ideologies, a flawed attempt at making governments neutral to human actions as much as possible. What is meant by "neutral" is simply that the government is supposed to reduce the incidence of coercion, and avoid rules that are unjustifiable by broader positions. Libertarians simply regard the economic sphere as another protected sphere, rather than just the social sphere having that protection.

I mean, could right-wing libertarianism be false? Sure. Is it a joke though? I would tend to disagree, as I tend to believe myself to be intelligent, but I consider right-wing libertarianism, or some broadly similar ideology, to be a viable option in the scheme of political ideologies. Note: This isn't to say that I think the libertarian ideas commonly espoused are something to take seriously, it's just that some position with similarities in the policy outcomes is reasonable.

You make two broad errors.

First, you still have not demonstrated a reason for running roughshod over the rights of public sector workers. By all means ban political contributions from unions altogether--that's how we do things here. But depriving public sector workers of a right enjoyed by private sector workers is a violation of equality guarantees under the Charter (or in your case equal protection under the 14th Amendment).

Secondly, you assume the potential for political interference in the negotiation process. Generally speaking public sector collective bargaining is undertaken on the employers' behalf by senior managers whose negotiation activities are incidental to their general responsibility for management of public service activities. Cabinet will establish a mandate--but it will not be Cabinet that negotiates the deal.

Legislators already have all the tools in their hands. They can legislate away workers right to strike. They can legislate striking workers back to work. They can even impose a contract through legislation. Given all the tools that government has at its disposal, how can you credibly argue that the table is tilted in the public sector unions' favour?

You make two broad errors.

First, you still have not demonstrated a reason for running roughshod over the rights of public sector workers. By all means ban political contributions from unions altogether--that's how we do things here. But depriving public sector workers of a right enjoyed by private sector workers is a violation of equality guarantees under the Charter (or in your case equal protection under the 14th Amendment).[/quote]

You obviously don't follow the abuses of public sector unions here in the US compared to private sector.

Private sector unions are supposed to improve bargaining position between labor and management as there is a natural disparity in bargaining power on an individual level. This was never so in the public sector. In a government job, ultimately, a political appointee/office is accountable...not an owner.

Private sector jobs have a history of labor/management abuses that needed to be addressed. This was never so in the public sector. In fact, while government jobs were not always the highest paying, they were secure and paid well with decent benefits. Generally, the public sector did more to give "due process" in disciplineary and termination matters than the private sector ever did.

The only reason for allowing public sector labor unions was to cater to the labor union voting block that wanted the monthly dues and political clout that would come from unionizing public sector jobs. Overall, the vast majority of public sector workers had no need for a labor union.

I did propose banning all political contributions. Where I think that is flawed is that history shows that crooks just find ways to get around the law. As the Supreme Court has upheld the right of corporations to make political contributions (something I disagree with), I doubt such a move would be upheld. That leaves the alternative, allow collective bargaining to bring issues to the table for discussion, but no "contract" making as you can't ensure ill practices won't be used to distort the negotiation process.

In America, the 14th Amendment only requires that the protections of federal law extends to the states as well. This means that no state can prohibit the right of PRIVATE SECTOR workers to organize. Public sector workers ARE NOT in the same situation as private sector workers. Even then, nobody is saying they can't organize. The proposal is to deny collective bargaining in the terms of forced contract or strike. You work for the government. The taxpayer (ultimately) is your boss, but the taxpayer IS NOT allowed any representation in negotiation. If you are a school teacher and want more money and better benefits, see about getting a better provider. Ask for it, but it's up to the legislature what benefits and pay your job will get. Don't like it? Quit. That's what everyone else has as an option. It's not up to a few politicians to decide if you get what you ask for...it's the taxpayers.

Incidentally, after Wisconsin abolished collective bargaining for teachers, the teachers are doing better. Now they can fire the useless ones rather than the newest ones. Most counties are getting better and cheaper health insurance plans because the UNION mandated BY CONTRACT that everyone had to buy their insurance through an insurance company created by the UNION that charged much, much more than competitors would have charged.



That is not how it works in the USA. Labor has it's own negotiators. They are not members of management. In a public sector union, this remains true. In a private sector union, management represents itself or hires a representative. The public sector management is going to consist of politicians (or other ELECTED official), an appointee appointed by an elected official, or a hired negotiator who was selected by someone elected or appointed by an elected official. All of these allow the union to ply the other side of the table by offering generous campaign contributions or threatening to withdraw campaign contributions (or support an opponent) for not catering to their demands.



I've stated so above.

Of course.

ruveyn

I am a bit divided about that issue, but I would side more with the people who would prevent it. I think working for the government should be a civic duty, I think it's ok for people to sacrifice some of their rights when they work for the government, for instance forgoeing their right to vote. Because of the conflict of interest.

A disparity of treatment between public sector and private sector workers over political rights creates, I suggest, a failure of equal protection. It would remain to be seen, of course, whether public sector workers are a class that warrants 14th amendment protection, but if government seeks to legislate against public sector workers rights to freedom of association, or to limit their political right to lobby, we start to move into fundamental rights that could provoke strict scrutiny.



I'm not speaking of the neogitators on behalf of the union, I'm speaking of management's negotiators.

I doubt that there is any collective agreement at any level of government negotiated directly by elected officials (with the possible exception of small municipalities). I think you have a gross misunderstanding of how collective bargaining actually takes place in the public sector.



But you haven't done so credibly. Where the state can legislate in the areas that I have enumerate, what need does the state have to deprive its workers of their right to bargain collectively?

Reading through this thread, I've come to realize why I no longer enjoy debating economics. Arguments like "monopolies form without regulation" and "businesses will produce poor-quality goods without regulation" become so ridiculously old after you hear them for the first thousand times that any mention of economics makes you nauseous.