Should Public Workers Have The Right to Unionize?

[AGRP]

Im not quite sure.

They are our public servants and they have access to a virtually never ending revenue stream and the people are essentially held captive by their residency and job within that community.

With private sector unions, the consumer has a choice if they want to support that particular union by not.

Right?

[Meatwasp]

right!

[angelatc]

NO, they should not be able to unionize. In the private sector, the unions and the empoyers work together to get the best deal.

In the public sector, the unions are used as tools for vote-buying.

[AGRP]

NO, they should not be able to unionize. In the private sector, the unions and the empoyers work together to get the best deal.

In the public sector, the unions are used as tools for vote-buying.

From a liberty perspective shouldnt they be able to organize?

Where exactly is the unlawful/weak link that is allowing them to unjustly rob people through the democratic process? Could it be democracy itself?

[freshjiva]

Unionization is a fundamental right in a free society, whether you are a private or public employee.

The far more important focus is to shrink the size of government. If we didn't have a dozen federal departments and stayed within the limits of the Constitution, this debate would be nonexistent.

[Guitarzan]

Unionization is a fundamental right in a free society, whether you are a private or public employee.

The far more important focus is to shrink the size of government. If we didn't have a dozen federal departments and stayed within the limits of the Constitution, this debate would be nonexistent.


Yeah, but in a truly free society there would be no such thing as public employees.

[VBRonPaulFan]

should public workers be allowed to assemble and organize? absolutely. should they be able to form the sort of forced unionization that we see today - where the unions become all-powerful and require every worker joining an industry to join the union? no, absolutely not.

[Cutlerzzz]

They have the right to form a union. Just like an employer has the right to fire them for joining a union.

[Vessol]

Please don't use the terms that the State has crafted. "Public" workers are not public. Just call them what they really are, State Bureaucrats. Or to be more short, Parasites.

[Travlyr]

Yeah, but in a truly free society there would be no such thing as public employees.

This. They have a monopoly. Only competitive firms should be able to organize.

[freshjiva]

Please don't use the terms that the State has crafted. "Public" workers are not public. Just call them what they really are, State Bureaucrats. Or to be more short, Parasites.

Don't blame the workers. The politicians are the parasites. Attack the fundamental source of the problem, not the result.

[Travlyr]

NO, they should not be able to unionize. In the private sector, the unions and the empoyers work together to get the best deal.

In the public sector, the unions are used as tools for vote-buying.

Exactly!

[isrow]

Don't blame the workers. The politicians are the parasites. Attack the fundamental source of the problem, not the result.

They're both parasites; read Bureaucracy by Mises. http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

[Pericles]

Freedom of association - yes.

Collective bargaining - no.

Working conditions for government employees are a take it or leave it deal.

[thehungarian]

It's different for state workers and federal workers, imo. I think the states can decide for themselves if they want to be sucked dry via parasitic public unions, but within the federal gov it should be prohibited as they are the final stewards of taxpayer monies.

[madfoot]

Absolutely.

[Teaser Rate]

Absolutely.

Do you believe that public employees should have the right to opt-out of their unions?

[Humanae Libertas]

They're both parasites; read Bureaucracy by Mises. http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

So you're saying someone who works at the DMV is a "parasite"?

[madfoot]

Do you believe that public employees should have the right to opt-out of their unions?

Absolutely.

[Travlyr]

This is very easy. State/city/government workers are taking total advantage of their neighbors.

The State forces people to pay for their services through the force of laws. If you don't pay & obey, then you must pay with your freedom ... confiscation, tasers, or jail.

The free market entices people to pay through incentives. Rather than beating people with weapons, isn't it more attractive for a free society to provide more services for less cost using the markets?

People in the free market should be able to organize or not organize. People who work for the State should realize that they are simply servants of the people for the greater good of society. If they want to prosper, then they should compete in the free markets.

[ClayTrainor]

State jobs don't have a legitimate right to exist let alone be unionized. This is like asking if Mafia employees should have the right to unionize.

[Travlyr]

State jobs don't have a legitimate right to exist let alone be unionized. This is like asking if Mafia employees should have the right to unionize.

Well stated. Servants of the State should be just that ... servants. If they want to prosper, then they should compete.

[Ray]

In the private sector, unions must bargain with the employer, and the employer in the end must voluntarily agree to a deal. However in the public sector, the bargaining isn't between the employees and the employer (citizens, and their representatives), the bargaining is between the employees and other public employees. (School boards, etc)

[Verrater]

NO, they should not be able to unionize. In the private sector, the unions and the empoyers work together to get the best deal.

In the public sector, the unions are used as tools for vote-buying.

Exactly!

Yup

[headhawg7]

NO, they should not be able to unionize. In the private sector, the unions and the empoyers work together to get the best deal.

In the public sector, the unions are used as tools for vote-buying.

This is correct.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm a firefighter (non-unionized), working for a county government, and I would not support a union.

Firefighter unions are mostly the ones pushing for fully-manned trucks, top-of-the-line equipment, training requirements, pensions, bells, whistles. Not all of these things are bad in themselves, but unions force them on smaller, low-budget departments (volunteers, usually), either purposefully or inadvertently, by the force of laws passed by the union's friends in state legislatures/departments. The unions don't seem to care whether or not small departments can even afford the changes.

Though not a 'public' union, the I.A.F.F. (International Association of Fire-Fighters) DOES influence government actions, particularly since most paid-staff fire departments are publicly-managed.

If you've got time for a horror story, you might want to read this:

http://www.volunteerfd.org/recruitment/articles/245117

[madfoot]

This is very easy. State/city/government workers are taking total advantage of their neighbors.

The State forces people to pay for their services through the force of laws. If you don't pay & obey, then you must pay with your freedom ... confiscation, tasers, or jail.

The free market entices people to pay through incentives. Rather than beating people with weapons, isn't it more attractive for a free society to provide more services for less cost using the markets?

People in the free market should be able to organize or not organize. People who work for the State should realize that they are simply servants of the people for the greater good of society. If they want to prosper, then they should compete in the free markets.

Yep. Teachers and cops and stuff should just be slaves.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Since we're speaking of the devils... here yah go: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/u-s-airport-screeners-pick-union.html

PS: watch your airline ticket prices go up... need to boycott the industry
U.S. Airport Screeners Pick American Federation of Government Employees (http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=AFGEFacts) to Union

http://www.afge.org/images/new/catfeature149.png
TSA Unionizes


U.S. airport security workers picked the American Federation of Government Employees (http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=AFGEFacts) to be their bargaining unit, giving the labor group the biggest victory for a federal union in 25 years.
The group topped the National Treasury Employees Union (http://www.nteu.org/) by a vote of 8,903 to 8,447, it said in a statement (http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=PressReleases&PressReleaseID=1293) today. The unions were in a runoff to represent Transportation Security Administration workers after neither won a majority in a contest that ended in April which included a no-union option.
“The Transportation Security officers now will have the full union representation they rightly deserve,” John Gage, president of the winning group, said in the statement.
With 600,000 members, the union is the nation’s largest for federal employees. Gage said in March the 44,000 TSA screeners would be the biggest group brought into the union at one time.
The union organization, which Senate Republicans failed to stop in February, may raise TSA’s costs if workers push through changes such as increased staffing.
President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/), a Democrat who won the White House with labor support, allowed the vote after Republican President George W. Bush (http://topics.bloomberg.com/george-w.-bush/)’s administration blocked union organization in January 2003, more than a year after the agency was created.



http://www.afge.org/images/tsosforafge2.png

Disciplinary Penalties

John Pistole (http://topics.bloomberg.com/john-pistole/), the security agency’s chief, said in his Feb. 4 (http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/determination_tso_and_collective_bargaining.pdf) decision allowing the election that workers can’t bargain over security or disciplinary penalties, strike, or take job actions such as deliberate slowdowns.
They can bargain for a contract of at least three years on issues such as uniforms, parking subsidies, transfers, shift trades, and methods for seeking assignments and leaves, Pistole said in the decision.
Gage has said a priority would be to boost staffing at airports where screeners have been forced to work split shifts. Some work about three hours in the morning, take a mandatory break of about four hours, and finish three more hours later in the day, he said.
Almost 5,000 employees work split shifts at 342 airports, according to agency data.
Gage has also said he would aim to scrap a pay-for- performance system, which according to the agency gives financial incentives for superior performance.
To contact the reporter on this story: John Hughes (http://topics.bloomberg.com/john-hughes/) in Washington at jhughes5@bloomberg.net

[ClayTrainor]

Yep. Teachers and cops and stuff should just be slaves.

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/strawman.jpg

No one is arguing they should be slaves, this is a straw man fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). He is arguing that police and teachers shouldn't be able to extort their salaries under the threat of violence and force, and should have to earn their income by doing providing value to others contractually, like the rest of us.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Yep. Teachers and cops and stuff should just be slaves.

In a free market they'd be employed by private companies and would be able to negotiate for merit based compensation.

[madfoot]

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/strawman.jpg

No one is arguing they should be slaves, this is a straw man fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). He is arguing that police and teachers shouldn't be able to extort their salaries under the threat of violence and force, and should have to earn their income by doing providing value to others contractually, like the rest of us.

Getting together and threatening to resign unless they get a fair amount of pay and benefits isn't violent.

[Danke]

Getting together and threatening to resign unless they get a fair amount of pay and benefits isn't violent.

It is when it is a monopoly that uses violence to collect said pay.

[jmdrake]

Yep. Teachers and cops and stuff should just be slaves.

Fail. A slave is someone who get's paid nothing and can't quit.


Getting together and threatening to resign unless they get a fair amount of pay and benefits isn't violent.

Another fail. A lack of collective bargaining "rights" do not mean you can't all quit at once. Quite the contrary. Collective bargaining rights means the employer loses the right to fire you while you are engaged in collective bargaining.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collective+bargaining
The law of collective bargaining encompasses four basic points:

The employer may not refuse to bargain over certain subjects with the employees' representative, provided that the employees' representative has majority support in the bargaining unit.
Those certain subjects, called mandatory subjects of bargaining, include wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
The employer and the union are not required to reach agreement but must bargain in Good Faith over mandatory subjects of bargaining until they reach an impasse.
While a valid collective bargaining agreement is in effect, and while the parties are bargaining but have not yet reached an impasse, the employer may not unilaterally change a term of employment that is a mandatory subject of bargaining. But once the parties have reached an impasse, the employer may unilaterally implement its proposed changes, provided that it had previously offered the changes to the union for consideration.

[freshjiva]

Another fail. A lack of collective bargaining "rights" do not mean you can't all quit at once. Quite the contrary. Collective bargaining rights means the employer loses the right to fire you while you are engaged in collective bargaining.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collective+bargaining
The law of collective bargaining encompasses four basic points:

The employer may not refuse to bargain over certain subjects with the employees' representative, provided that the employees' representative has majority support in the bargaining unit.
Those certain subjects, called mandatory subjects of bargaining, include wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
The employer and the union are not required to reach agreement but must bargain in Good Faith over mandatory subjects of bargaining until they reach an impasse.
While a valid collective bargaining agreement is in effect, and while the parties are bargaining but have not yet reached an impasse, the employer may not unilaterally change a term of employment that is a mandatory subject of bargaining. But once the parties have reached an impasse, the employer may unilaterally implement its proposed changes, provided that it had previously offered the changes to the union for consideration.

Wow, I didn't know that. If that's the case, collective bargaining should be stripped of that clause wherein employers lose the right to fire employees engaged in collective bargaining.

I'm 100% in favor of public unions, but this particular detail I did not know of before you brought it up.

Just let workers and employers negotiate. This Public/Private employer classification, in my opinion, is irrelevant. The State exists, whether we all like it or not, because unlike most of you, Ron Paul does not want anarchy. The Constitution permits the existence of a central government with clear-cut responsibilities. The Constitution also guarantees the 1st Amendment right to organize. Those who make the argument "Public employees should be civil servants" are missing the point that it's still a fundamental right in this country to organize and collectively bargain. At the same time, its a fundamental right of employers to fire whomever they want.