The Great Union-Busting Thread

[CountDeMoney]

and their working conditions are generally considerably superior to the private sector.

Man, you just love to drink the tea.

[11B4V]

Federal employees don't have collective bargaining, right? I've seen that reported a few times, though I'm not sure. Maybe some do but most don't? In any event, they seem to do well without it, good wages and benefits without collective bargaining.

A good percentage do and some dont. Unions are a big part of the federal work force minus the actiove duty military of course.

[Strix]

The big problem with public sector unions is that, unlike private employers, the government officials the unions negotiate with often have very little incentive to negotiate the best deal possible, and in fact in many instances favor the positions of the union leadership, rather than those of the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).

What would the point be of bribing if this wasn't the case?

[Razgovory]

Government officials who negotiate deals with anyone rarely have the incentive to get the best deal possible.

[derspiess]

Government officials who negotiate deals with anyone rarely have the incentive to get the best deal possible.

They do now.

[Razgovory]

Government officials who negotiate deals with anyone rarely have the incentive to get the best deal possible.

They do now.

They do?

[derspiess]

They do?

With state & federal budgets the way they are, voters are starting to pay more attention to government expenditures.

[Barrister]

The big problem with public sector unions is that, unlike private employers, the government officials the unions negotiate with often have very little incentive to negotiate the best deal possible, and in fact in many instances favor the positions of the union leadership, rather than those of the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).

I meant to report to this at the time.

With respect, that is not the "big problem" with public sector unions.  Government has plenty of incentives to negotiate the best deal possible (they are, after all, accountable to voters).

The problem with the public sector is there is no exposure to market forces.  A private sector company has to maintain profits.  The union therefore can only demand up to what the company is able to pay in benefits.  There's plenty of room to quibble about what that precise level is, but that's the ultimate economic reality.

That's not the case in the public sector.  The government has, theoretically, an unlimited ability to pay (they can always just raise taxes).  It's completely removed from any market forces.

[Razgovory]

They do?

With state & federal budgets the way they are, voters are starting to pay more attention to government expenditures.

Well, they become interested in it.  I wouldn't say they are paying attention.  Most people don't understand it.

[Valmy]

Well, they become interested in it.  I wouldn't say they are paying attention.  Most people don't understand it.

Heck I don't.  Every number is cooked to some extent.  What is really true is a matter of conjecture.

[Berkut]

The big problem with public sector unions is that, unlike private employers, the government officials the unions negotiate with often have very little incentive to negotiate the best deal possible, and in fact in many instances favor the positions of the union leadership, rather than those of the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).

I meant to report to this at the time.

With respect, that is not the "big problem" with public sector unions.  Government has plenty of incentives to negotiate the best deal possible (they are, after all, accountable to voters).

In theory, this is true.

But there are two problems with this when it comes to public sector unions:

1. The unions themselves are full of voters. And they are voters that vote in blocks, and are perfectly willing to destroy any Democrat who has the nerve to challenge them. And there are a huge number of them, since they will also combine their votes to destroy politicians who do not give them what they want.

2. There is something politicians need to get votes. Money. And lots of it. Unions can provide that money. So there is a nice deal going. Unions give politicians lots of money and votes, politicians reward the unions with sweetheart deals so their members get more money, and then some percentage of that money gets to go right back to the politicians who got them the money to begin with - what a nice cycle.

Of course, the "other" party is going to try to break that cycle if they can - they certainly are not going to get any of that money or votes, and hence are not obligated to the unions. They have their own sets of obligations of course...

But the "system" by which states like New York end up with a public sector that is literally not sustainable, even for a ridiculously wealthy state like New York, is very, very broken. I can certainly understand the hesitancy of replacing Dems who are beholden to unions with Republicans that are beholden to business, but that doesn't mean that the system of public service unions is not grossly perversely incented (from a non-union taxpayers perspective).

[Barrister]

The big problem with public sector unions is that, unlike private employers, the government officials the unions negotiate with often have very little incentive to negotiate the best deal possible, and in fact in many instances favor the positions of the union leadership, rather than those of the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).

I meant to report to this at the time.

With respect, that is not the "big problem" with public sector unions.  Government has plenty of incentives to negotiate the best deal possible (they are, after all, accountable to voters).

In theory, this is true.

But there are two problems with this when it comes to public sector unions:

1. The unions themselves are full of voters. And they are voters that vote in blocks, and are perfectly willing to destroy any Democrat who has the nerve to challenge them. And there are a huge number of them, since they will also combine their votes to destroy politicians who do not give them what they want.

2. There is something politicians need to get votes. Money. And lots of it. Unions can provide that money. So there is a nice deal going. Unions give politicians lots of money and votes, politicians reward the unions with sweetheart deals so their members get more money, and then some percentage of that money gets to go right back to the politicians who got them the money to begin with - what a nice cycle.

Of course, the "other" party is going to try to break that cycle if they can - they certainly are not going to get any of that money or votes, and hence are not obligated to the unions. They have their own sets of obligations of course...

But the "system" by which states like New York end up with a public sector that is literally not sustainable, even for a ridiculously wealthy state like New York, is very, very broken. I can certainly understand the hesitancy of replacing Dems who are beholden to unions with Republicans that are beholden to business, but that doesn't mean that the system of public service unions is not grossly perversely incented (from a non-union taxpayers perspective).

#1 - unions are actually very bad at getting their members to vote en mass.  The Republicans get a substantial number of union voters (even if not a majority of them).

#2 - well that's a problem for any kind of interest group though.

I stand by what I said - the "problem" with public sector unions are there are no market forces at work to enforce any kind of discipline.

[Berkut]

#1 - unions are actually very bad at getting their members to vote en mass.  The Republicans get a substantial number of union voters (even if not a majority of them).

#2 - well that's a problem for any kind of interest group though.

I stand by what I said - the "problem" with public sector unions are there are no market forces at work to enforce any kind of discipline.

I wasn't really disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that the lack of market forces isn't real sufficient to explain things. The lack of market forces combined with the forces that replace them (political forces) is the problem.

[KRonn]

#1 - unions are actually very bad at getting their members to vote en mass.  The Republicans get a substantial number of union voters (even if not a majority of them).

#2 - well that's a problem for any kind of interest group though.

I stand by what I said - the "problem" with public sector unions are there are no market forces at work to enforce any kind of discipline.

I wasn't really disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that the lack of market forces isn't real sufficient to explain things. The lack of market forces combined with the forces that replace them (political forces) is the problem.

No problem. We just have to embrace the idea of becoming more like Greece, or France. Wait until all these folks go on strike!   

[Strix]

They do?

With state & federal budgets the way they are, voters are starting to pay more attention to government expenditures.

I'd say the voters anger is being misdirected. The various governments are running a great campaign of bait and switch. They have everyone starting to focus on public sector employees as the cause of all the woe and taxes when the reality is that public sector employees make up a small percentage of most budgets.

Education (not salaries) and Welfare are out of control. The government has done a masterful job of defocusing people from the real budget issue.