Sheilbh's Scott Walker Lovefest and Union Bashing Megathread

[Admiral Yi]

Of course they do.  If the fund managers get to treat carried interest as capital gains and then get cuts in capital gain taxes, it is a transfer of wealth.  If the oil cos get depletion allowances it is a transfer of wealth.  If Defense Co A gets congress to override the Pentagon and fund their pet project it is a transfer of wealth.

Companies don't spend on lobbying and campaigns because it makes them feel good.  They are looking for old-fashioned ROI.

No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

[frunk]

No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

[Admiral Yi]

Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

Which another person would do anyway if they were given the money or never had it taken from them.

[Martinus]

No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

[DGuller]

However, the issue with public sector unions is not the same thing at all. They are a special case since there is such a obvious "quid pro quo" in that the very people responsible for negotiating the employment agreement with the public sector unions are in fact the exact same people who are getting elected (and largely beholden to these powerful public sector unions), so there is a problematic and significant conflict of interest. And the results pretty much speak for themselves. States with large and powerful public sector unions get into a position where it is nearly impossible to be elected without the support of those unions, and the price for that support is a abandonment of any actual attempt to rationally negotiate on behalf of the non-union citizens when it comes to labor agreements.

How is such a conflict of interest any different from, say, easing regulations affecting your corporate campaign donors?

I think conflating the two is frankly bullshit. Whether it is the same or different isn't relevant to the point that public sector unions are a perversion of market economies combined with democratic principles. If in fact there are other problems that need to be addressed, then fine, those other problems ought to be addressed as well. And like I've said (and you've studiously ignored) I am fully supportive of attempts to reduce the influence of money in politics. I am perfectly consistent on these issues.

Public sector unions have been terrible for states where they have become powerful, and are clearly distortions of the labor market.

Whether or not the entiore scope of the rest of politics works perfectly has no bearing on this issue.

I was just trying to see what exactly is so special about public employee unions that isn't so special about other forms of influence.  I don't know whether their sameness or lack of it is relevant or not, but I am trying to understand why you made such a distinction.

The problem here is that I've made no such distinction, and it is bizarre that you keep insisting that I have. Kind of suggests that perhaps your motives are not really about the distinction at all.

I've said it like five times now - I fully support efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics. In fact, overall, I think it is a much more dangerous (and topically relevant) issue than public sector unions.

You should really stop questioning my motivation.  You've been 0:100+ so far in our Languish history, and you're not getting any more insightful.

I even bolded the part of the quote I was referring to, so it really is bizarre for you to claim that you didn't make that distinction.  I'm not going to question your motivation for your bizarre behavior, though.

[Sheilbh]

A private union cannot promise someone a job if and only if they agree to a sweetheart deal that ignores the financial reality of the business when they get the job and are put in charge of negotiating with the union.

And that is what public sector unions are - in fact, that is largely the *only* reason they exist at all, since the idea that there is some innate power disparity absent their existence has never been shown to actually exist anyway. You do not need a union to make sure that public employees are not being unfairly exploited.

You cannot compare private and public unions, because private and public employment are radically different creatures.

But isn't the contrary true as well? Very few private sector employees face the risk of having their employment or the terms of it changed by legislation every 4 years or so.

I don't think the issue is public sector unions I think it's the structures and incentives of the public sector. I think it's more to do with producer capture than, say, corrupt deals and public sector union donations.

I've obviously no issues with public sector unions. But I don't believe in closed shops, they should be banned in general.

[Berkut]

The problem is that "legalized bribery" is a problem that fundamentally can never really be solved.

Of course it can be solved.  It almost was solved.  Then a few people appointed to judicial office un-solved it.

No, they just made it a hell of a lot worse - the problem has always been around, and existed before it was exacerbated immensely.

Like I said, if we want to talk about reversing the current problem of campaign finance, I suspect I am considerably more "radical" in my views on that issue than almost anyone on Languish. I consider it to be the #1 most critical problem facing America today. It is a bigger issue than terrorists, Russia, welfare, healthcare, public sector unions, everything.

[Berkut]

A private union cannot promise someone a job if and only if they agree to a sweetheart deal that ignores the financial reality of the business when they get the job and are put in charge of negotiating with the union.

And that is what public sector unions are - in fact, that is largely the *only* reason they exist at all, since the idea that there is some innate power disparity absent their existence has never been shown to actually exist anyway. You do not need a union to make sure that public employees are not being unfairly exploited.

You cannot compare private and public unions, because private and public employment are radically different creatures.

But isn't the contrary true as well? Very few private sector employees face the risk of having their employment or the terms of it changed by legislation every 4 years or so.

Are you kidding me? I face the risk of my employment terms being changed a hell of lot more often than every four years. And again, results speak for themselves - public sector jobs are considered to be in almost all cases the safest, lowest risk, lowest demand jobs to be had...if you can get one.

[Admiral Yi]

Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

If you had been paying attention you might have noticed I specified existing teacher.

[Berkut]

No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

Which is why teacher pay should be tightly tied to teacher performance.

Oh wait, we can't do that - the public sector unions won't allow it.

Never mind!

[Martinus]

Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

[Martinus]

Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

If you had been paying attention you might have noticed I specified existing teacher.

Uhm what I said holds true for someone staying in a job as well.

[MadImmortalMan]

Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

Please not with standardized tests. 

[CountDeMoney]

Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

"My snot-nosed, precious little angel--who can do no wrong--that won't do any homework or study on his own, because we let him stay plugged into his XBox all night and smoke weed all weekend long, needs to pass this test or you're fired."

[Martinus]

Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

Please not with standardized tests. 

Exactly. The mantra of "teacher performance" has led to the plague of teachers teaching "test solving" instead of the subject, and shun weaker students. I do hope Berkut has a better idea than that.