The Great Union-Busting Thread

[DGuller]

They function like Unions do.  In many states belonging to the Bar is not voluntary.

They're guilds, not unions.  There is a big difference between the two.  Guilds are actually much more effective at inflating the salaries of their members in a socially destructive way.

[KRonn]

Unions need legislative protection to exist.  But necessarily the kind DGuller is referring to.  The most significant legislative requirement is that an employer is obligated to deal only with the union (and not individual bargaining unit members) when discussing terms of employment.  Without that legislative requirement Unions would have signficantly less power even if they did manage to organize and certify a particular bargaining unit.

Welcome to New York State. There is nothing quite like working in a closed shop Union state.

I think all Provinces in Canada are closed shop.  It is really the sine qua non of unions.  If it is not a closed shop a union is nothing more than just another potential stake holder.

I know. I just find it funny that some people (not you) put the cart before the horse when it comes to Union work. They seem to feel that people join a Union to get a job when the reality is that most public jobs are Union Shops where you get the job than have to support the Union financially regardless if you join or not.

(and yes, I meant Union Shop and not Closed Shop as I am sure several replies will bring up the Taft-Hartley Act)

I didn't realize until this whole Union debate in WI that there were so many right to work or non-union states. A few other states have recently passed, or are considering, right to work legislation. Means a person can choose not  to join a Union and can opt out of union dues if he/she chooses, rather than having to join just because it's part of his workplace. I knew many Southern states are non-union, hence partly why many corps/jobs re-locate there.

[derspiess]

I am not sure how one comes to such a conclusion.  Overpaid or underpaid relative to what?  Most teachers' salaries are dictated by the financial constraints of the Government

Yeah, hopefully soon that'll be the case.

who pays them rather than the actual value they represent.  Typically private school teachers are paid more but the lower salaries of their publicly paid counterparts creates a downdrag on those wages since there is a large pool of able teachers for whom a slighly larger pay increase would be attractive.

Its always hard to assign a particular value to a job that has little immediate economic impact and the situation is more complicated for teachers since the job they do arguably has very significant long term economic impact. 

Average teacher salary ideally should be competitive with private sector jobs with similar educational requirements.  But obviously you should also factor in state budget constraints.

Imo we should be paying as much as needed to attract the best and brightest to the profession of teaching.  If in your observation we are not doing so then that is good evidence that teachers are underpaid.

I don't fully agree with your premise, but it's irrelevant to my earlier comment anyway.  My point was that when teacher unions and collective bargaining are in play, teachers are essentially paid the same regardless of performance.  Thus, there is no financial incentive for better individual performance.  I think this needs to change.

[Barrister]

They function like Unions do.  In many states belonging to the Bar is not voluntary.

Except they really don't function like unions do at all.  They don't negotiate anyone's salary or benefits.

[DGuller]

They function like Unions do.  In many states belonging to the Bar is not voluntary.

Except they really don't function like unions do at all.  They don't negotiate anyone's salary or benefits.

The guilds do, however, ensure that by law, only the guild members can provide certain services, increasing the demand for the services of their members.  By restricting entry into the guild, under the guise of ensuring quality of service, they can also limit supply of the services of their members.  The free market does the rest, after both demand and supply have been tampered with.

[grumbler]

I meant more than an acceptable number of under-performing teachers.

This is meaningless noise.  "Acceptable" is so subjective as to be useless.

The two significant statewide unions supported his opponent.  Looks like he did have the support of a couple city unions and the state troopers association. 

Seems the firefighters as a union supported no one.  The state police association supported Walker.

In your mind.  But not everyone is grumbler.  The anti-Walker mantra would go from "Walker hates teachers" to "Walker hates teachers, policemen & firefighters!"  And when pro-union protesters are ransacking the state capitol, it's probably not the best thing to piss off public safety personnel. 

Walker would have saved himself the embarrassment of claiming that (1) Wisconsin cannot afford to have public-sector unions bargaining for total compensations and at the same time arguing (2) that Wisconsin must have police and firefighter unions that bargain over total compensation.  Even non-grumblers can understand that.  even you can, if you try hard enough.

Different time, different state, different political climate.

That's my point.  Daniels didn't go the demagogue  route, and had an entirely different climate.

I'd say the Democrat lawmakers who fled the state, teachers who called in sick & got fake doctor notes (great example for our kids there btw), and the nutjob pro-union protesters are making the battle so bitter & partisan.  Odd that you're not making any mention of those folks.

The lawmakers, teachers, and union members are not significantly different in Wisconsin and Indiana, but the tacks taken by the governors were entirely different and the results were completely different.  Why mention to common elements when trying to explain differences (unless due to ideological blinders)?  Note that I actually agree with the position that public employee unions are a bad idea.  I just don't think that getting rid of them in a stupidly confrontational fashion is the smart way to go about it.  You mileage may differ.

[garbon]

Of course, we have to reassess if we want people to be teachers. Long vacations are great, but if you are shelling out lots of money for an advanced degree and then likely end up with no job, not really sure the allure of long vacations will draw anyone sensible.

Actually, the whole "long vacations" thing is a bit over-done.  The teachers at the public schools here have a total of ten weeks off due to Christmas, Spring Break, and summer.  I had six weeks off in the military, with much better pay.  In my beltway bandit job I had five weeks off and much, much better pay than a teacher gets.

I know I shouldn't...but I'm not really sure how your two examples show that teachers don't have long vacation times.  10 weeks is certainly much longer than 5 and 6.

If anything I think you are supporting what I've been saying: crap pay, long vacations aren't super appealing, if you've got to shell out a decent amount of cash for your degree and then only get a year of working in the field you are passionate about before getting pink slipped.*

*I've no idea if my opinion is widespread, of course.

[derspiess]

Seems the firefighters as a union supported no one.  The state police association supported Walker.

Okay, Ms. Brazile-- take a look at this: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/21/donna-brazile/donna-brazile-says-unions-supported-scott-walker-a/

That's my point.  Daniels didn't go the demagogue  route, and had an entirely different climate.

What you're missing is that in 2005 states did not have nearly the budget issues they are having today, not to mention the looming federal budget showdown.  The reason unions and other left-leaning organizations rushed to Wisconsin is that they see it as the first skirmish in a larger battle that is encompassing other states and the federal budget. That was simply not the atmosphere in 2005. 

Daniels had the foresight to take action in 2005, and good on him for it.  Unfortunately, Walker wasn't governor of Wisconsin in 2005 and doesn't have a time machine

Note that I actually agree with the position that public employee unions are a bad idea.  I just don't think that getting rid of them in a stupidly confrontational fashion is the smart way to go about it.  You mileage may differ.

So Walker should back down whenever a certain group opposed to his policy throws a huge shitfit?  And which side would you say has been more confrontational?  Walker or the protesters?

Anyway, I'm still trying to see how things would be better for Walker if he had added police & firefighters to the equation.  But I can't follow your logic on that.

[Admiral Yi]

It would have been better if Walker had included cops and firefighters because he would have ameliorated the accusation that politics trumps the budget.

[KRonn]

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.

[Jacob]

While I acknowledge there are some problems with unions (as there is with pretty much everything), I'm generally pro-union and definitely believe that they're an important mechanism for protecting workers and improving conditions for the working population.

[Berkut]

While I acknowledge there are some problems with unions (as there is with pretty much everything), I'm generally pro-union and definitely believe that they're an important mechanism for protecting workers and improving conditions for the working population.

I don't actually have a problem with the concept of unions in general.

I have a serious problem with the concept of public employees unions. There is zero evidence that they need protecting, and their working conditions are generally considerably superior to the private sector.

They have none of the problems that unions are ostensibly supposed to solve, and they magnify most of the problems that unions are associated with, and create some rather alarming news ones.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't have any philosophical or ideological objections to private sector unions either.  My principal criticism is their gross stupidity in assuming that the lush conditions of the post war labor boom were a birthright.

[Razgovory]

While I acknowledge there are some problems with unions (as there is with pretty much everything), I'm generally pro-union and definitely believe that they're an important mechanism for protecting workers and improving conditions for the working population.

I don't actually have a problem with the concept of unions in general.

I have a serious problem with the concept of public employees unions. There is zero evidence that they need protecting, and their working conditions are generally considerably superior to the private sector.

They have none of the problems that unions are ostensibly supposed to solve, and they magnify most of the problems that unions are associated with, and create some rather alarming news ones.

What problems do they not have that unions are suppose to solve?

[dps]

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).