I can't change the price we pay the workers, or the arcane work rules, because of the union.
And this differs from government contracting of a non-union shop, how? Also, you state apparently as a matter of fact that unions work more slowly and for more money than non-union construction companies, but you haven't actually proved that, nor shown that the work they do isn't superior.
The difference is per job contracts or contracts negotiated at the time someone is hired allow for much more voter responsiveness than a CBA which is only negotiated every few years, and which can be very difficult to change in any meaningful manner.
I don't have any non-anecdotal evidence on union vs non union labor, but I don't think that is really relevant to the discussion. Even if they were better, faster and cheaper than nonunion labor, it would not change the fact that the existence of the CBA imposes restrictions on government action in a way that ordinary contracts may not.
I can't change the price we pay the workers, or the arcane work rules, because of the union.
And this differs from government contracting of a non-union shop, how? Also, you state apparently as a matter of fact that unions work more slowly and for more money than non-union construction companies, but you haven't actually proved that, nor shown that the work they do isn't superior.
The difference is per job contracts or contracts negotiated at the time someone is hired allow for much more voter responsiveness than a CBA which is only negotiated every few years, and which can be very difficult to change in any meaningful manner.
How? Either way, you don't get a say except at elections.
I don't have any non-anecdotal evidence on union vs non union labor, but I don't think that is really relevant to the discussion. Even if they were better, faster and cheaper than nonunion labor, it would not change the fact that the existence of the CBA imposes restrictions on government action in a way that ordinary contracts may not.
Except that this argument began partially as a claim that unions are worse because they take longer and charge more. Defend your point or concede it, but don't run away.
I can decide whether or not to purchase equity in or do business with a company.
And you can decide who to vote for as well.
But in the end, public or private, it's management that negotiates with the union. Not shareholders, not voters, but management. The people who directly employ the workers under the unions purview.
In the private sector, I have two decisions as an equity owner: (1) how to vote and (2) at what point I want to sell, because I am not happy with the direction the company is going in, and I do not believe that that direction can or will change. In the public sector, I only have the first choice. It doesn't matter who handles the actual negotiation. As my example about the road work was supposed to demonstrate, even if I could somehow cause 100% turn over of the government and fill it with nothing but road construction reformers, they are constrained in what they can do because of the union contract. To me, this seems like we are compromising the democratic process in favor of the interests of the public employees (or at least the interest of the union, which may actually diverge from the employees. I know lots of teachers who don't agree with the teacher's union on things like seniority. . .).
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I can't change the price we pay the workers, or the arcane work rules, because of the union.
And this differs from government contracting of a non-union shop, how? Also, you state apparently as a matter of fact that unions work more slowly and for more money than non-union construction companies, but you haven't actually proved that, nor shown that the work they do isn't superior.
The difference is per job contracts or contracts negotiated at the time someone is hired allow for much more voter responsiveness than a CBA which is only negotiated every few years, and which can be very difficult to change in any meaningful manner.
How? Either way, you don't get a say except at elections.
You don't have a formal say other than at elections, but you do have a voice in between. Communicating with your representatives and their offices is a very important part of the democratic process. Also, CBAs can have longer terms than members of the government, so there can be an entire election where you cannot really vote in reaction to negotiating stances, since no negotation has even occured.
I don't have any non-anecdotal evidence on union vs non union labor, but I don't think that is really relevant to the discussion. Even if they were better, faster and cheaper than nonunion labor, it would not change the fact that the existence of the CBA imposes restrictions on government action in a way that ordinary contracts may not.
Except that this argument began partially as a claim that unions are worse because they take longer and charge more. Defend your point or concede it, but don't run away.
[/quote]
I will concede that we do not have enough information to know what the net effect of unions is, but I think that the harm to the democratic process argument which I have articulated does not depend on what the actual effect of unions is.
In the private sector, I have two decisions as an equity owner: (1) how to vote and (2) at what point I want to sell, because I am not happy with the direction the company is going in, and I do not believe that that direction can or will change. In the public sector, I only have the first choice.
You can most certainly move to another city or state if you disagree that vehemently with how the local government is run.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Do unions actually have longer contracts than other companies paid for their services? If not, you have absolutely no argument.
A few point here:
1. In my experience (which is admittedly all private sector) union contracts are among the longest contracts I deal with, and they are absolutely the longest contracts with broad groups of service providers.
2. Even if the term of a collective bargaining agreement was the same as an agreement with an individual or a company providing services, the collective bargaining agreement will normally be binding on both parties for the entire term, while other contracts with service providers are normally terminable at any time or with some notice period from either party. If there is a road crew working on a project and it is taking forever, public outcry could get them fired and replaced, if they are not unionized.
3. The scale of collective bargaining agreements is much broader than the typical contract for services. Taking NYC teachers as an example, if there was no union, each teacher would have their own contract with the school or board of education. It may well be the case that the contracts would follow basically the same terms, but the form contract could be changed over time. Instead, we have a single contract which every teacher in the NYC schools is bound by. So you don't even need to discuss the length of them to identify a constraint on the democratic process.
Do unions actually have longer contracts than other companies paid for their services? If not, you have absolutely no argument.
A few point here:
1. In my experience (which is admittedly all private sector) union contracts are among the longest contracts I deal with, and they are absolutely the longest contracts with broad groups of service providers.
2. Even if the term of a collective bargaining agreement was the same as an agreement with an individual or a company providing services, the collective bargaining agreement will normally be binding on both parties for the entire term, while other contracts with service providers are normally terminable at any time or with some notice period from either party. If there is a road crew working on a project and it is taking forever, public outcry could get them fired and replaced, if they are not unionized.
3. The scale of collective bargaining agreements is much broader than the typical contract for services. Taking NYC teachers as an example, if there was no union, each teacher would have their own contract with the school or board of education. It may well be the case that the contracts would follow basically the same terms, but the form contract could be changed over time. Instead, we have a single contract which every teacher in the NYC schools is bound by. So you don't even need to discuss the length of them to identify a constraint on the democratic process.
What does negotiating of employee salaries have to do with the democratic process?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Of course, constraints on the democratic process are not necessarily bad. There's a reason we have Congress instead of voting for everything directly.
That is true, but most constraints I am aware of do not involve binding restrictions on a certain form of action for a set period. Even the constitution can be amended through the democratic process, but a collective bargaining agreement cannot be amended or terminated during its term without the consent of the union.
Of course, constraints on the democratic process are not necessarily bad. There's a reason we have Congress instead of voting for everything directly.
And the court system. There is no bigger restraint on democracy than a functioning court system.
The law can always be changed to overturn a court decision though, even if it requires a constitutional amendment, which is difficult, but which is achieved through the democratic process.
Of course, constraints on the democratic process are not necessarily bad. There's a reason we have Congress instead of voting for everything directly.
That is true, but most constraints I am aware of do not involve binding restrictions on a certain form of action for a set period. Even the constitution can be amended through the democratic process, but a collective bargaining agreement cannot be amended or terminated during its term without the consent of the union.
Ordinary contracts can't be changed unilaterally either.
That is true, but most constraints I am aware of do not involve binding restrictions on a certain form of action for a set period. Even the constitution can be amended through the democratic process, but a collective bargaining agreement cannot be amended or terminated during its term without the consent of the union.
can you cite a source for that? I don't remember anything in the US Constitution giving Collective Bargaining agreements this power...
and I am not aware of this statue in the FLSA and I'm pretty sure there is a statue in the US Constitution that allows the congress to regulate commerce; It's sometimes referred to as the "Commerce Clause." In the United States there's a whole branch of law dealing with how to get into and out of contracts. It's sometimes called "Contract Law" or "Civil Law."
2. Even if the term of a collective bargaining agreement was the same as an agreement with an individual or a company providing services, the collective bargaining agreement will normally be binding on both parties for the entire term, while other contracts with service providers are normally terminable at any time or with some notice period from either party. If there is a road crew working on a project and it is taking forever, public outcry could get them fired and replaced, if they are not unionized.
There are all kinds of ways to fire public employees.
The ways and means of firing public employees does not include, having the desire that they be fired, or having feelings that they be fired.
I don't believe that works in the private sector either.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Average Annual Wage
Federal Govt. Workers $67,756
State Police $61,000
Local Firefighters $60,572
State Govt. Workers $48,742
State Legislative Workers $48,129
Government (all types) $47,552
Private (total sector) $45,155
Local Govt. Workers $43,140
Local Schools $41,113
However those can be skewed as the private number includes everything from high paying CEOs to minimum wage register workers, so lets compare something directly
Average Annual Wage
Private Sector CPA $71,216
Federal Govt. CPA $67,531
Local Govt. CPA $64,050
So someone with similar education, and similar experience is expected to make at least $4,000 less in the public sector as compared to the private sector.
The biggest thing I hear is that public employees still get classic pensions and pretty decent health coverage, and that since the private sector doesn't work that way anymore the public sector shouldn't either. How about instead of tearing down the public sector like a bucket of crabs, you fight for better benefits in the private sector?
Veevee on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In the private sector, I have two decisions as an equity owner: (1) how to vote and (2) at what point I want to sell, because I am not happy with the direction the company is going in, and I do not believe that that direction can or will change. In the public sector, I only have the first choice.
You can most certainly move to another city or state if you disagree that vehemently with how the local government is run.
You can, but doesn't it seem extreme to say "if you aren't happy with the limits which have been imposed on the democratic process and which cannot be changed through the democratic process, you can pick up your entire life and move" when the alternative is "we will not place restrictions on the democratic process which are not susceptible to change through said process?"
In the private sector, I have two decisions as an equity owner: (1) how to vote and (2) at what point I want to sell, because I am not happy with the direction the company is going in, and I do not believe that that direction can or will change. In the public sector, I only have the first choice.
You can most certainly move to another city or state if you disagree that vehemently with how the local government is run.
You can, but doesn't it seem extreme to say "if you aren't happy with the limits which have been imposed on the democratic process and which cannot be changed through the democratic process, you can pick up your entire life and move" when the alternative is "we will not place restrictions on the democratic process which are not susceptible to change through said process?"
If you don't want your local government employing unions, vote for people who will change that or run for office on that platform. It's not an unchangeable practice.
In the private sector, I have two decisions as an equity owner: (1) how to vote and (2) at what point I want to sell, because I am not happy with the direction the company is going in, and I do not believe that that direction can or will change. In the public sector, I only have the first choice.
You can most certainly move to another city or state if you disagree that vehemently with how the local government is run.
You can, but doesn't it seem extreme to say "if you aren't happy with the limits which have been imposed on the democratic process and which cannot be changed through the democratic process, you can pick up your entire life and move" when the alternative is "we will not place restrictions on the democratic process which are not susceptible to change through said process?"
If you don't want your local government employing unions, vote for people who will change that or run for office on that platform. It's not an unchangeable practice.
No, please don't.
Just stop being wrong.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
In the private sector, I have two decisions as an equity owner: (1) how to vote and (2) at what point I want to sell, because I am not happy with the direction the company is going in, and I do not believe that that direction can or will change. In the public sector, I only have the first choice.
You can most certainly move to another city or state if you disagree that vehemently with how the local government is run.
You can, but doesn't it seem extreme to say "if you aren't happy with the limits which have been imposed on the democratic process and which cannot be changed through the democratic process, you can pick up your entire life and move" when the alternative is "we will not place restrictions on the democratic process which are not susceptible to change through said process?"
If you don't want your local government employing unions, vote for people who will change that or run for office on that platform. It's not an unchangeable practice.
No, please don't.
Just stop being wrong.
The above whole line of argument is wrong.
1. Public sector Unions do not have extra Judicial, Magical, Fairyland unshakable power.
2. Public sector Unions do not have special powers. And they Cannot fly, or in many cases, wear capes.
3. Public sector Unions are accountable to those they contract with, in exactly the same manner as is anyone who contracts with anyone else.
4. Public sector Unions do not, as a group, have a remarkably better deal than comparable organizations.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Of course, constraints on the democratic process are not necessarily bad. There's a reason we have Congress instead of voting for everything directly.
That is true, but most constraints I am aware of do not involve binding restrictions on a certain form of action for a set period. Even the constitution can be amended through the democratic process, but a collective bargaining agreement cannot be amended or terminated during its term without the consent of the union.
Ordinary contracts can't be changed unilaterally either.
That is true, but most constraints I am aware of do not involve binding restrictions on a certain form of action for a set period. Even the constitution can be amended through the democratic process, but a collective bargaining agreement cannot be amended or terminated during its term without the consent of the union.
can you cite a source for that? I don't remember anything in the US Constitution giving Collective Bargaining agreements this power...
and I am not aware of this statue in the FLSA and I'm pretty sure there is a statue in the US Constitution that allows the congress to regulate commerce; It's sometimes referred to as the "Commerce Clause." In the United States there's a whole branch of law dealing with how to get into and out of contracts. It's sometimes called "Contract Law" or "Civil Law."
2. Even if the term of a collective bargaining agreement was the same as an agreement with an individual or a company providing services, the collective bargaining agreement will normally be binding on both parties for the entire term, while other contracts with service providers are normally terminable at any time or with some notice period from either party. If there is a road crew working on a project and it is taking forever, public outcry could get them fired and replaced, if they are not unionized.
There are all kinds of ways to fire public employees.
The ways and means of firing public employees does not include, having the desire that they be fired, or having feelings that they be fired.
I don't believe that works in the private sector either.
1. Every single collective bargaining agreement that I have ever read is not subject to termination or amendment without the consent of both parties. This differs from most contracts for services, which are normally terminable by either party. The question of what terms of employment are deemed "bargained for" is a matter of law, and bargained for benefits normally cannot be changed without the consent of the union, per the terms of the CBA.
2. Actually, you normally can fire someone in the private sector for any nondiscriminatory reason or no reason at all. But there is a huge difference between being able to fire someone and being able to terminate a union contract. Even if you were able to fire nearly all of the employees in the bargaining unit, the CBA would still bind you with respect to new employees that you hired to replace them.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In the private sector, I have two decisions as an equity owner: (1) how to vote and (2) at what point I want to sell, because I am not happy with the direction the company is going in, and I do not believe that that direction can or will change. In the public sector, I only have the first choice.
You can most certainly move to another city or state if you disagree that vehemently with how the local government is run.
You can, but doesn't it seem extreme to say "if you aren't happy with the limits which have been imposed on the democratic process and which cannot be changed through the democratic process, you can pick up your entire life and move" when the alternative is "we will not place restrictions on the democratic process which are not susceptible to change through said process?"
If you don't want your local government employing unions, vote for people who will change that or run for office on that platform. It's not an unchangeable practice.
Yes, that is true, but that isn't really the issue. The issue is once there is a CBA in place, I cannot, through the democratic process, take action to get rid of the CBA in most cases.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Of course, constraints on the democratic process are not necessarily bad. There's a reason we have Congress instead of voting for everything directly.
That is true, but most constraints I am aware of do not involve binding restrictions on a certain form of action for a set period. Even the constitution can be amended through the democratic process, but a collective bargaining agreement cannot be amended or terminated during its term without the consent of the union.
Ordinary contracts can't be changed unilaterally either.
That is true, but most constraints I am aware of do not involve binding restrictions on a certain form of action for a set period. Even the constitution can be amended through the democratic process, but a collective bargaining agreement cannot be amended or terminated during its term without the consent of the union.
can you cite a source for that? I don't remember anything in the US Constitution giving Collective Bargaining agreements this power...
and I am not aware of this statue in the FLSA and I'm pretty sure there is a statue in the US Constitution that allows the congress to regulate commerce; It's sometimes referred to as the "Commerce Clause." In the United States there's a whole branch of law dealing with how to get into and out of contracts. It's sometimes called "Contract Law" or "Civil Law."
2. Even if the term of a collective bargaining agreement was the same as an agreement with an individual or a company providing services, the collective bargaining agreement will normally be binding on both parties for the entire term, while other contracts with service providers are normally terminable at any time or with some notice period from either party. If there is a road crew working on a project and it is taking forever, public outcry could get them fired and replaced, if they are not unionized.
There are all kinds of ways to fire public employees.
The ways and means of firing public employees does not include, having the desire that they be fired, or having feelings that they be fired.
I don't believe that works in the private sector either.
1. Every single collective bargaining agreement that I have ever read is not subject to termination or amendment without the consent of both parties. This differs from most contracts for services, which are normally terminable by either party. The question of what terms of employment are deemed "bargained for" is a matter of law, and bargained for benefits normally cannot be changed without the consent of the union, per the terms of the CBA.
2. Actually, you normally can fire someone in the private sector for any nondiscriminatory reason or no reason at all. But there is a huge difference between being able to fire someone and being able to terminate a union contract. Even if you were able to fire nearly all of the employees in the bargaining unit, the CBA would still bind you with respect to new employees that you hired to replace them.
1. All Agreements are subject to termination. Perhaps you would like to source your statement that they are not?
2. I have no idea where you have worked and I cannot comment on your own personal experience. I can comment on my experience and the experience of my peers. Large companies, like xerox, shell, ups, ibm -- to name only a few -- often have far stronger worker protections than you might imagine. I know of employees working for these companies who were not fired for documented long term absenteeism, for gross dereliction of duty, for insubordination, for unsafe practices to name only a few situations because of contractual agreements.
Agreements are agreements. You can make them. They can be hard to break, and if you break them you are "liable for damages related to breaking your agreement." That is not a special power held only by Public Sector Unions.
It's true workers without agreements with their employers are easier to fire than workers with agreements, but after many years in both the public sector and the private sector: at every level of government except city government, let me tell you anyone can be fired. Any group of people can be fired. The whole Union can be fired. For instance in 1981 Ronald Regan fired the air traffic controllers union.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. All Agreements are subject to termination. Perhaps you would like to source your statement that they are not?
2. I have no idea where you have worked and I cannot comment on your own personal experience. I can comment on my experience and the experience of my peers. Large companies, like xerox, shell, ups, ibm -- to name only a few -- often have far stronger worker protections than you might imagine. I know of employees working for these companies who were not fired for documented long term absenteeism, for gross dereliction of duty, for insubordination, for unsafe practices to name only a few situations because of contractual agreements.
Agreements are agreements. You can make them. They can be hard to break, and if you break them you are "liable for damages related to breaking your agreement." That is not a special power held only by Public Sector Unions.
It's true workers without agreements with their employees are easier to fire than workers with agreements, but after many years in both the public sector, the private sector in every level of government except city government, let me tell you anyone can be fired. Any group of people can be fired. The whole Union can be fired. For instance in 1981 Ronald Regan fired air traffic controllers, as in all of them.
1. I did not say they are not subject to termination, I said they are not subject to unilateral termination.
2. I only get involved when the employee is higher up in the chain than someone HR would deal with (usually officers), but my understanding from my labor colleagues is that the fear of litigation is a strong driver for adherance to rigid procedures for termination, even if you are not contractually obligated to have a "reason" for termination.
It isn't really anything special about public union contracts. Collective bargaining agreements (whether public or private) are just really really difficult to terminate. It is easier to discharge your pension obligations in bancruptcy than it is to get a collective bargaining agreement declared void, and discharging pensions literally costs the government money. I have seen deals which would have saved companies on the brink of insolvency wind up getting killed by uncooperative unions, and despite the fact that we can structure around almost any contract or requirement of law to find a way to make a deal work, there is almost nothing we can do about a union that refuses to negotiate. Sometimes, the CBA is even so broad that a union can unwind a corporate acquisition or merger if the Union did not receive sufficient notice.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
1. All Agreements are subject to termination. Perhaps you would like to source your statement that they are not?
2. I have no idea where you have worked and I cannot comment on your own personal experience. I can comment on my experience and the experience of my peers. Large companies, like xerox, shell, ups, ibm -- to name only a few -- often have far stronger worker protections than you might imagine. I know of employees working for these companies who were not fired for documented long term absenteeism, for gross dereliction of duty, for insubordination, for unsafe practices to name only a few situations because of contractual agreements.
Agreements are agreements. You can make them. They can be hard to break, and if you break them you are "liable for damages related to breaking your agreement." That is not a special power held only by Public Sector Unions.
It's true workers without agreements with their employees are easier to fire than workers with agreements, but after many years in both the public sector, the private sector in every level of government except city government, let me tell you anyone can be fired. Any group of people can be fired. The whole Union can be fired. For instance in 1981 Ronald Regan fired air traffic controllers, as in all of them.
1. I did not say they are not subject to termination, I said they are not subject to unilateral termination.
2. I only get involved when the employee is higher up in the chain than someone HR would deal with (usually officers), but my understanding from my labor colleagues is that the fear of litigation is a strong driver for adherance to rigid procedures for termination, even if you are not contractually obligated to have a "reason" for termination.
It isn't really anything special about public union contracts. Collective bargaining agreements (whether public or private) are just really really difficult to terminate. It is easier to discharge your pension obligations in bancruptcy than it is to get a collective bargaining agreement declared void, and discharging pensions literally costs the government money. I have seen deals which would have saved companies on the brink of insolvency wind up getting killed by uncooperative unions, and despite the fact that we can structure around almost any contract or requirement of law to find a way to make a deal work, there is almost nothing we can do about a union that refuses to negotiate. Sometimes, the CBA is even so broad that a union can unwind a corporate acquisition or merger if the Union did not receive sufficient notice.
1. SOURCE Please. Because I am aware of none. I believe you are factually mistaken, I am willing to admit I may be. I am aware of many instances, including the famous firing of the Air Traffic Controllers Union in 1981. Almost any agreement can be unilaterally broken, with civil penalties. The only agreements I am unaware of that cannot relate to CRIMINAL law. Being able to unilaterally break an agreement is not the same as being able to unilaterally break an agreement without penalty. There is a enormous raft of contractual law that relates to being able to break an agreement with penalty. Nearly all contracts are written that way and those that aren't are either informal agreements or non-binding.
2. You seem to be indicating that buisness might not want to be held accountable for breaking their agreements unilaterally, or where it might be perceived that they are doing so. Which is fair and good and right.
You made the claim that Public Sector Unions has special legal power not granted to other entities, based on "what you have read," what did you read? That claim is far different than the above claim. It's true you can agree to give someone a financial hammer to hit you with if you break off your agreement. That is right and proper and happens every where. That is a far different claim than public sector unions have special powers which prevent their agreements from being terminated. State's just like people have the freedom to enter into contracts, except in those states where there rights have been curtailed, like Wisconsin and soon Arizona.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Average Annual Wage
Federal Govt. Workers $67,756
State Police $61,000
Local Firefighters $60,572
State Govt. Workers $48,742
State Legislative Workers $48,129
Government (all types) $47,552
Private (total sector) $45,155
Local Govt. Workers $43,140
Local Schools $41,113
However those can be skewed as the private number includes everything from high paying CEOs to minimum wage register workers, so lets compare something directly
Average Annual Wage
Private Sector CPA $71,216
Federal Govt. CPA $67,531
Local Govt. CPA $64,050
So someone with similar education, and similar experience is expected to make at least $4,000 less in the public sector as compared to the private sector.
The biggest thing I hear is that public employees still get classic pensions and pretty decent health coverage, and that since the private sector doesn't work that way anymore the public sector shouldn't either. How about instead of tearing down the public sector like a bucket of crabs, you fight for better benefits in the private sector?
The problem with these numbers is they are straight public vs private sector numbers, not union vs nonunion. Also, the CPA comparison isn't that useful, since we would expect a professional to (1) not be in a union and (2) to be paid pretty well because he or she has a desirable skill set. Looking at public union road construction workers vs private non union road construction workers and public non union construction workers would be more useful.
Pensions are not coming back. I should know, because I am the guy that helps companies operate their existing pensions, and replace them with 401(k) plans when they are able to. The laws are too complex and burdensome (and are actually in the process of getting harder to deal with) the cost of operating and funding them is too high, and the risk when the market hits a down turn is too great for companies to ever return to Defined Benefit Plans (these risks are greatly magnified when dealing with union multiemployer plans, which are an absolute nightmare). It is a shame, because they are much better than 401(k) plans for planning your retirement, but that ship has sailed.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
The vast majority of construction workers are unionized in my state, but in Iowa, for example, the majority of construction work is non-union with the exception of Scott County (which has an agreement with Rock Island County in IL across the river). Until very recently, the state of Iowa adjusted all cost estimates for work in Scott County up by 15% to account for the much higher labor rates.
Some other data points:
Typical steel highway bridge in WI costs $100-$125 per square foot
The same bridge in IL costs $150-$175 per square foot
The same bridge in NY/NJ/RI costs $400-$500 per square foot
The only real difference I see between public and private sector unions is, thanks to Citizens United, public sector unions can bring a large amount of money to bear in the election process, giving them additional bargaining power when negotiating with management.
EDIT: Deleted some stuff because I'm not 100% sure it's correct.
Sir Landshark on
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
I can't change the price we pay the workers, or the arcane work rules, because of the union.
And this differs from government contracting of a non-union shop, how? Also, you state apparently as a matter of fact that unions work more slowly and for more money than non-union construction companies, but you haven't actually proved that, nor shown that the work they do isn't superior.
From what I've seen from the Big Dig, it's probably the other way around.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
roadworks are perpetual in the states, because well, there are a lot of roads.
and even when the roadworks are done, they're still in a shit state of being because there's not enough money given to those projects. I'm sure the roadworks would be completed faster, and probably to better standards, if people were more willing to pay for them overall, union labor or not.
The only real difference I see between public and private sector unions is, thanks to Citizens United, public sector unions can bring a large amount of money to bear in the election process, giving them additional bargaining power when negotiating with management.
Are you really contending that the differences in the numbers you quoted all came about in the last 24 months as a result of Citizens United?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. All Agreements are subject to termination. Perhaps you would like to source your statement that they are not?
2. I have no idea where you have worked and I cannot comment on your own personal experience. I can comment on my experience and the experience of my peers. Large companies, like xerox, shell, ups, ibm -- to name only a few -- often have far stronger worker protections than you might imagine. I know of employees working for these companies who were not fired for documented long term absenteeism, for gross dereliction of duty, for insubordination, for unsafe practices to name only a few situations because of contractual agreements.
Agreements are agreements. You can make them. They can be hard to break, and if you break them you are "liable for damages related to breaking your agreement." That is not a special power held only by Public Sector Unions.
It's true workers without agreements with their employees are easier to fire than workers with agreements, but after many years in both the public sector, the private sector in every level of government except city government, let me tell you anyone can be fired. Any group of people can be fired. The whole Union can be fired. For instance in 1981 Ronald Regan fired air traffic controllers, as in all of them.
1. I did not say they are not subject to termination, I said they are not subject to unilateral termination.
2. I only get involved when the employee is higher up in the chain than someone HR would deal with (usually officers), but my understanding from my labor colleagues is that the fear of litigation is a strong driver for adherance to rigid procedures for termination, even if you are not contractually obligated to have a "reason" for termination.
It isn't really anything special about public union contracts. Collective bargaining agreements (whether public or private) are just really really difficult to terminate. It is easier to discharge your pension obligations in bancruptcy than it is to get a collective bargaining agreement declared void, and discharging pensions literally costs the government money. I have seen deals which would have saved companies on the brink of insolvency wind up getting killed by uncooperative unions, and despite the fact that we can structure around almost any contract or requirement of law to find a way to make a deal work, there is almost nothing we can do about a union that refuses to negotiate. Sometimes, the CBA is even so broad that a union can unwind a corporate acquisition or merger if the Union did not receive sufficient notice.
1. SOURCE Please. Because I am aware of none. I believe you are factually mistaken, I am willing to admit I may be. I am aware of many instances, including the famous firing of the Air Traffic Controllers Union in 1981. Almost any agreement can be unilaterally broken, with civil penalties. The only agreements I am unaware of that cannot relate to CRIMINAL law. Being able to unilaterally break an agreement is not the same as being able to unilaterally break an agreement without penalty. There is a enormous raft of contractual law that relates to being able to break an agreement with penalty. Nearly all contracts are written that way and those that aren't are either informal agreements or non-binding.
2. You seem to be indicating that buisness might not want to be held accountable for breaking their agreements unilaterally, or where it might be perceived that they are doing so. Which is fair and good and right.
You made the claim that Public Sector Unions has special legal power not granted to other entities, based on "what you have read," what did you read? That claim is far different than the above claim. It's true you can agree to give someone a financial hammer to hit you with if you break off your agreement. That is right and proper and happens every where. That is a far different claim than public sector unions have special powers which prevent their agreements from being terminated. State's just like people have the freedom to enter into contracts, except in those states where there rights have been curtailed, like Wisconsin and soon Arizona.
1. Please see 29 U.S.C. § 158(d)
Obligation to bargain collectively
For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract covering employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification—
(1) serves a written notice upon the other party to the contract of the proposed termination or modification sixty days prior to the expiration date thereof, or in the event such contract contains no expiration date, sixty days prior to the time it is proposed to make such termination or modification;
(2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed modifications;
(3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a dispute, and simultaneously therewith notifies any State or Territorial agency established to mediate and conciliate disputes within the State or Territory where the dispute occurred, provided no agreement has been reached by that time; and
(4) continues in full force and effect, without resorting to strike or lock-out, all the terms and conditions of the existing contract for a period of sixty days after such notice is given or until the expiration date of such contract, whichever occurs later:
I know this may be a little confusing, but the effective requirement here is notice 60 days prior to the desire to make a change or terminate, but termination is only allowed on the expiration date of the contract. The result is an unfair labor practice, which can result in injunctive relief, or cease and desist orders. In effect, you can be forced to abide by the contract. I don't know that much about the process or likely penalties (like I said, this is not my area) but in practice, almost no company is willing to take an action which will put them in this position.
2. Actually, the fear of litigation I was referring to is more based in the fear of groundsless claims which will still take up employee and management time, generate legal bills, and potentially look bad for the company. Almost all employment in the US is at will, so people can legally be terminated at any time.
If it appeared that I was making any claims that public unions have magical special powers, then I apologize, as that was not my intent. I was just referring to the general difficulty in terminating collective bargaining agreements, and why I think that may be problematic from a democratic process standpoint. I'm sorry, but I am not permitted to disclose the collective bargaining agreements I have read due to the attorney-client privilege.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
roadworks are perpetual in the states, because well, there are a lot of roads.
and even when the roadworks are done, they're still in a shit state of being because there's not enough money given to those projects. I'm sure the roadworks would be completed faster, and probably to better standards, if people were more willing to pay for them overall, union labor or not.
The problem I tend to experience is politicians really don't care what happens beyond their current term. It varies state by state, but the general trend is to design for the lowest cost, not the highest value. I could increase the cost of a bridge by 3% and increase the design life by 50% but all the politicians (and those running against them) are going to care about is that the cost of the bridge went up 3%.
That being said, throwing more money at a project doesn't mean it's completed any faster unless you start paying high labor premiums for overtime and weekend work.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
The only real difference I see between public and private sector unions is, thanks to Citizens United, public sector unions can bring a large amount of money to bear in the election process, giving them additional bargaining power when negotiating with management.
Are you really contending that the differences in the numbers you quoted all came about in the last 24 months as a result of Citizens United?
I'm not contending anything of the sort.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
roadworks are perpetual in the states, because well, there are a lot of roads.
and even when the roadworks are done, they're still in a shit state of being because there's not enough money given to those projects. I'm sure the roadworks would be completed faster, and probably to better standards, if people were more willing to pay for them overall, union labor or not.
The problem I tend to experience is politicians really don't care what happens beyond their current term. It varies state by state, but the general trend is to design for the lowest cost, not the highest value. I could increase the cost of a bridge by 3% and increase the design life by 50% but all the politicians (and those running against them) are going to care about is that the cost of the bridge went up 3%.
That being said, throwing more money at a project doesn't mean it's completed any faster unless you start paying high labor premiums for overtime and weekend work.
or bigger crews and more equipment so that you can work on say 2 patches of the road instead of just one.
roadworks are perpetual in the states, because well, there are a lot of roads.
and even when the roadworks are done, they're still in a shit state of being because there's not enough money given to those projects. I'm sure the roadworks would be completed faster, and probably to better standards, if people were more willing to pay for them overall, union labor or not.
The problem I tend to experience is politicians really don't care what happens beyond their current term. It varies state by state, but the general trend is to design for the lowest cost, not the highest value. I could increase the cost of a bridge by 3% and increase the design life by 50% but all the politicians (and those running against them) are going to care about is that the cost of the bridge went up 3%.
That being said, throwing more money at a project doesn't mean it's completed any faster unless you start paying high labor premiums for overtime and weekend work.
I went to law school with someone who worked a union job doing road work in NJ. He told me that when he picked up his shovel to return to work following the first break of the day (which was 1 or 2 hours in) someone came to him and said "what are you doing, we're done for the day." They spent the rest of the day sitting around drinking beer while one or two members of the crew would walk around to make it look like something was happening. This repeated every day.
I have another friend who was working as a contractor in a former estate home owned by the state. Before they could start their work, the furniture and other posessions needed to be cleared out. So guys from the woodworkers union came and removed everything in the room my friend was hired to work in, except for a metal desk. My friend asked them why they didn't take the desk out, and they said that the metal workers union had to handle it, and they could not touch it. My friend and the rest of his team sat there for 8 hours before someone from the metal workers union showed up to take the desk. They were paid for every minute of the wait.
I don't know if these are representative of how unions normally operate, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of either story.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
the woodworkers/metalworkers union thing sounds close to some of the stories that we were told about the theatrical unions in NY.
but don't get me started on bitching about Equity. stupid actors equity union. in order to possibly get work on bigger shows, you had to have your equity card. but you couldn't get your card until you had worked on some equity shows.
roadworks are perpetual in the states, because well, there are a lot of roads.
and even when the roadworks are done, they're still in a shit state of being because there's not enough money given to those projects. I'm sure the roadworks would be completed faster, and probably to better standards, if people were more willing to pay for them overall, union labor or not.
The problem I tend to experience is politicians really don't care what happens beyond their current term. It varies state by state, but the general trend is to design for the lowest cost, not the highest value. I could increase the cost of a bridge by 3% and increase the design life by 50% but all the politicians (and those running against them) are going to care about is that the cost of the bridge went up 3%.
That being said, throwing more money at a project doesn't mean it's completed any faster unless you start paying high labor premiums for overtime and weekend work.
I went to law school with someone who worked a union job doing road work in NJ. He told me that when he picked up his shovel to return to work following the first break of the day (which was 1 or 2 hours in) someone came to him and said "what are you doing, we're done for the day." They spent the rest of the day sitting around drinking beer while one or two members of the crew would walk around to make it look like something was happening. This repeated every day.
I have another friend who was working as a contractor in a former estate home owned by the state. Before they could start their work, the furniture and other posessions needed to be cleared out. So guys from the woodworkers union came and removed everything in the room my friend was hired to work in, except for a metal desk. My friend asked them why they didn't take the desk out, and they said that the metal workers union had to handle it, and they could not touch it. My friend and the rest of his team sat there for 8 hours before someone from the metal workers union showed up to take the desk. They were paid for every minute of the wait.
I don't know if these are representative of how unions normally operate, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of either story.
The independent contractors on the Big Dig used substandard concrete and pocketed the difference and allowed the ceiling of the main tunnel to fall on people, killing them.
I have another friend who was working as a contractor in a former estate home owned by the state. Before they could start their work, the furniture and other posessions needed to be cleared out. So guys from the woodworkers union came and removed everything in the room my friend was hired to work in, except for a metal desk. My friend asked them why they didn't take the desk out, and they said that the metal workers union had to handle it, and they could not touch it. My friend and the rest of his team sat there for 8 hours before someone from the metal workers union showed up to take the desk. They were paid for every minute of the wait.
I don't know if these are representative of how unions normally operate, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of either story.
This sort of thing does happen at many construction sites where union work is involved and obviously is something that needs to be worked on. Again I'm a person who believes that abuses need to be excised with a scalpel, not a union busting meat cleaver.
Two things:
1.) Trade unions and public sector unions are two different things. Fire, Police, Teachers, public sector. Carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc are not state employees in most cases, they just have dealings with the state.
2.) If anyone is wondering why his friend and crew wouldn't just move the metal desk into the other room and start working its probably because they didn't like the idea of having a union reps foot buried in their asshole for taking their work.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The independent contractors on the Big Dig used substandard concrete and pocketed the difference and allowed the ceiling of the main tunnel to fall on people, killing them.
If given the choice of choosing one company that was going to use excess labor costs in pursuit of its profit motive or cheaper workmanship and materials in pursuit of boosting another companies bottom line when building your house, which one would most people go for?
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
1. All Agreements are subject to termination. Perhaps you would like to source your statement that they are not?
2. I have no idea where you have worked and I cannot comment on your own personal experience. I can comment on my experience and the experience of my peers. Large companies, like xerox, shell, ups, ibm -- to name only a few -- often have far stronger worker protections than you might imagine. I know of employees working for these companies who were not fired for documented long term absenteeism, for gross dereliction of duty, for insubordination, for unsafe practices to name only a few situations because of contractual agreements.
Agreements are agreements. You can make them. They can be hard to break, and if you break them you are "liable for damages related to breaking your agreement." That is not a special power held only by Public Sector Unions.
It's true workers without agreements with their employees are easier to fire than workers with agreements, but after many years in both the public sector, the private sector in every level of government except city government, let me tell you anyone can be fired. Any group of people can be fired. The whole Union can be fired. For instance in 1981 Ronald Regan fired air traffic controllers, as in all of them.
1. I did not say they are not subject to termination, I said they are not subject to unilateral termination.
2. I only get involved when the employee is higher up in the chain than someone HR would deal with (usually officers), but my understanding from my labor colleagues is that the fear of litigation is a strong driver for adherance to rigid procedures for termination, even if you are not contractually obligated to have a "reason" for termination.
It isn't really anything special about public union contracts. Collective bargaining agreements (whether public or private) are just really really difficult to terminate. It is easier to discharge your pension obligations in bancruptcy than it is to get a collective bargaining agreement declared void, and discharging pensions literally costs the government money. I have seen deals which would have saved companies on the brink of insolvency wind up getting killed by uncooperative unions, and despite the fact that we can structure around almost any contract or requirement of law to find a way to make a deal work, there is almost nothing we can do about a union that refuses to negotiate. Sometimes, the CBA is even so broad that a union can unwind a corporate acquisition or merger if the Union did not receive sufficient notice.
1. SOURCE Please. Because I am aware of none. I believe you are factually mistaken, I am willing to admit I may be. I am aware of many instances, including the famous firing of the Air Traffic Controllers Union in 1981. Almost any agreement can be unilaterally broken, with civil penalties. The only agreements I am unaware of that cannot relate to CRIMINAL law. Being able to unilaterally break an agreement is not the same as being able to unilaterally break an agreement without penalty. There is a enormous raft of contractual law that relates to being able to break an agreement with penalty. Nearly all contracts are written that way and those that aren't are either informal agreements or non-binding.
2. You seem to be indicating that buisness might not want to be held accountable for breaking their agreements unilaterally, or where it might be perceived that they are doing so. Which is fair and good and right.
You made the claim that Public Sector Unions has special legal power not granted to other entities, based on "what you have read," what did you read? That claim is far different than the above claim. It's true you can agree to give someone a financial hammer to hit you with if you break off your agreement. That is right and proper and happens every where. That is a far different claim than public sector unions have special powers which prevent their agreements from being terminated. State's just like people have the freedom to enter into contracts, except in those states where there rights have been curtailed, like Wisconsin and soon Arizona.
1. Please see 29 U.S.C. § 158(d)
Obligation to bargain collectively
For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract covering employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification—
(1) serves a written notice upon the other party to the contract of the proposed termination or modification sixty days prior to the expiration date thereof, or in the event such contract contains no expiration date, sixty days prior to the time it is proposed to make such termination or modification;
(2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed modifications;
(3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a dispute, and simultaneously therewith notifies any State or Territorial agency established to mediate and conciliate disputes within the State or Territory where the dispute occurred, provided no agreement has been reached by that time; and
(4) continues in full force and effect, without resorting to strike or lock-out, all the terms and conditions of the existing contract for a period of sixty days after such notice is given or until the expiration date of such contract, whichever occurs later:
I know this may be a little confusing, but the effective requirement here is notice 60 days prior to the desire to make a change or terminate, but termination is only allowed on the expiration date of the contract. The result is an unfair labor practice, which can result in injunctive relief, or cease and desist orders. In effect, you can be forced to abide by the contract. I don't know that much about the process or likely penalties (like I said, this is not my area) but in practice, almost no company is willing to take an action which will put them in this position.
2. Actually, the fear of litigation I was referring to is more based in the fear of groundsless claims which will still take up employee and management time, generate legal bills, and potentially look bad for the company. Almost all employment in the US is at will, so people can legally be terminated at any time.
If it appeared that I was making any claims that public unions have magical special powers, then I apologize, as that was not my intent. I was just referring to the general difficulty in terminating collective bargaining agreements, and why I think that may be problematic from a democratic process standpoint. I'm sorry, but I am not permitted to disclose the collective bargaining agreements I have read due to the attorney-client privilege.
1. 29 USC is the FLSA, or the Fair Labor Standards Act and Applies Equally to Union, Non-Union, Public and Private Employees. That's not some special deal that Public Sector Unions get that's what every US Citizen gets when they bargain collectively with any employer. You get that when you and your buddy bargain collectively and get an agreement. You can collectively bargain yourself out of them, but those laws apply to you and everyone you work with by default.
2. That fear of litigation is also non-public sector union related.
Your argument appears to have morphed from "public sector union employees enjoy special protections which makes them onerous" into "contractual agreements are unduly taxing for employers."
Labor agreements are not made for workers to do the work and then for management to pay them for it unless they don't feel like it. If you're feeling is that is anti-democratic IDK, would you suggest workers do the work and then employers vote on what they pay them? Democratic freedom is the freedom to make agreements, not the freedom to decided you do not want to follow through with your commitments without penalty.
Please keep your person information personal.
Is it really so bad that if I sign a two year contract with my employer that they have to employee me for two years, or that if they agree to employee me forever that they have to give me 60 days notice before firing me?
edit:Is it really so bad that if, hand in arms with my fellow widget twiddlers, I sign a two year contract with my employer that they then have to employee me, hand in arms with my fellow widget twiddlers, for two years, or that if they agree to employee me forever that they have to give me, hand in arms with my fellow widget twiddlers, 60 days notice before firing us all?
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Posts
The difference is per job contracts or contracts negotiated at the time someone is hired allow for much more voter responsiveness than a CBA which is only negotiated every few years, and which can be very difficult to change in any meaningful manner.
I don't have any non-anecdotal evidence on union vs non union labor, but I don't think that is really relevant to the discussion. Even if they were better, faster and cheaper than nonunion labor, it would not change the fact that the existence of the CBA imposes restrictions on government action in a way that ordinary contracts may not.
Except that this argument began partially as a claim that unions are worse because they take longer and charge more. Defend your point or concede it, but don't run away.
In the private sector, I have two decisions as an equity owner: (1) how to vote and (2) at what point I want to sell, because I am not happy with the direction the company is going in, and I do not believe that that direction can or will change. In the public sector, I only have the first choice. It doesn't matter who handles the actual negotiation. As my example about the road work was supposed to demonstrate, even if I could somehow cause 100% turn over of the government and fill it with nothing but road construction reformers, they are constrained in what they can do because of the union contract. To me, this seems like we are compromising the democratic process in favor of the interests of the public employees (or at least the interest of the union, which may actually diverge from the employees. I know lots of teachers who don't agree with the teacher's union on things like seniority. . .).
You don't have a formal say other than at elections, but you do have a voice in between. Communicating with your representatives and their offices is a very important part of the democratic process. Also, CBAs can have longer terms than members of the government, so there can be an entire election where you cannot really vote in reaction to negotiating stances, since no negotation has even occured.
Except that this argument began partially as a claim that unions are worse because they take longer and charge more. Defend your point or concede it, but don't run away.
[/quote]
I will concede that we do not have enough information to know what the net effect of unions is, but I think that the harm to the democratic process argument which I have articulated does not depend on what the actual effect of unions is.
You can most certainly move to another city or state if you disagree that vehemently with how the local government is run.
A few point here:
1. In my experience (which is admittedly all private sector) union contracts are among the longest contracts I deal with, and they are absolutely the longest contracts with broad groups of service providers.
2. Even if the term of a collective bargaining agreement was the same as an agreement with an individual or a company providing services, the collective bargaining agreement will normally be binding on both parties for the entire term, while other contracts with service providers are normally terminable at any time or with some notice period from either party. If there is a road crew working on a project and it is taking forever, public outcry could get them fired and replaced, if they are not unionized.
3. The scale of collective bargaining agreements is much broader than the typical contract for services. Taking NYC teachers as an example, if there was no union, each teacher would have their own contract with the school or board of education. It may well be the case that the contracts would follow basically the same terms, but the form contract could be changed over time. Instead, we have a single contract which every teacher in the NYC schools is bound by. So you don't even need to discuss the length of them to identify a constraint on the democratic process.
What does negotiating of employee salaries have to do with the democratic process?
That is true, but most constraints I am aware of do not involve binding restrictions on a certain form of action for a set period. Even the constitution can be amended through the democratic process, but a collective bargaining agreement cannot be amended or terminated during its term without the consent of the union.
And the court system. There is no bigger restraint on democracy than a functioning court system.
The law can always be changed to overturn a court decision though, even if it requires a constitutional amendment, which is difficult, but which is achieved through the democratic process.
can you cite a source for that? I don't remember anything in the US Constitution giving Collective Bargaining agreements this power...
and I am not aware of this statue in the FLSA and I'm pretty sure there is a statue in the US Constitution that allows the congress to regulate commerce; It's sometimes referred to as the "Commerce Clause." In the United States there's a whole branch of law dealing with how to get into and out of contracts. It's sometimes called "Contract Law" or "Civil Law."
There are all kinds of ways to fire public employees.
The ways and means of firing public employees does not include, having the desire that they be fired, or having feelings that they be fired.
I don't believe that works in the private sector either.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
However those can be skewed as the private number includes everything from high paying CEOs to minimum wage register workers, so lets compare something directly
So someone with similar education, and similar experience is expected to make at least $4,000 less in the public sector as compared to the private sector.
The biggest thing I hear is that public employees still get classic pensions and pretty decent health coverage, and that since the private sector doesn't work that way anymore the public sector shouldn't either. How about instead of tearing down the public sector like a bucket of crabs, you fight for better benefits in the private sector?
You can, but doesn't it seem extreme to say "if you aren't happy with the limits which have been imposed on the democratic process and which cannot be changed through the democratic process, you can pick up your entire life and move" when the alternative is "we will not place restrictions on the democratic process which are not susceptible to change through said process?"
Just stop being wrong.
The above whole line of argument is wrong.
1. Public sector Unions do not have extra Judicial, Magical, Fairyland unshakable power.
2. Public sector Unions do not have special powers. And they Cannot fly, or in many cases, wear capes.
3. Public sector Unions are accountable to those they contract with, in exactly the same manner as is anyone who contracts with anyone else.
4. Public sector Unions do not, as a group, have a remarkably better deal than comparable organizations.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Changed, no. Terminated, yes.
1. Every single collective bargaining agreement that I have ever read is not subject to termination or amendment without the consent of both parties. This differs from most contracts for services, which are normally terminable by either party. The question of what terms of employment are deemed "bargained for" is a matter of law, and bargained for benefits normally cannot be changed without the consent of the union, per the terms of the CBA.
2. Actually, you normally can fire someone in the private sector for any nondiscriminatory reason or no reason at all. But there is a huge difference between being able to fire someone and being able to terminate a union contract. Even if you were able to fire nearly all of the employees in the bargaining unit, the CBA would still bind you with respect to new employees that you hired to replace them.
Yes, that is true, but that isn't really the issue. The issue is once there is a CBA in place, I cannot, through the democratic process, take action to get rid of the CBA in most cases.
1. All Agreements are subject to termination. Perhaps you would like to source your statement that they are not?
2. I have no idea where you have worked and I cannot comment on your own personal experience. I can comment on my experience and the experience of my peers. Large companies, like xerox, shell, ups, ibm -- to name only a few -- often have far stronger worker protections than you might imagine. I know of employees working for these companies who were not fired for documented long term absenteeism, for gross dereliction of duty, for insubordination, for unsafe practices to name only a few situations because of contractual agreements.
Agreements are agreements. You can make them. They can be hard to break, and if you break them you are "liable for damages related to breaking your agreement." That is not a special power held only by Public Sector Unions.
It's true workers without agreements with their employers are easier to fire than workers with agreements, but after many years in both the public sector and the private sector: at every level of government except city government, let me tell you anyone can be fired. Any group of people can be fired. The whole Union can be fired. For instance in 1981 Ronald Regan fired the air traffic controllers union.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
1. I did not say they are not subject to termination, I said they are not subject to unilateral termination.
2. I only get involved when the employee is higher up in the chain than someone HR would deal with (usually officers), but my understanding from my labor colleagues is that the fear of litigation is a strong driver for adherance to rigid procedures for termination, even if you are not contractually obligated to have a "reason" for termination.
It isn't really anything special about public union contracts. Collective bargaining agreements (whether public or private) are just really really difficult to terminate. It is easier to discharge your pension obligations in bancruptcy than it is to get a collective bargaining agreement declared void, and discharging pensions literally costs the government money. I have seen deals which would have saved companies on the brink of insolvency wind up getting killed by uncooperative unions, and despite the fact that we can structure around almost any contract or requirement of law to find a way to make a deal work, there is almost nothing we can do about a union that refuses to negotiate. Sometimes, the CBA is even so broad that a union can unwind a corporate acquisition or merger if the Union did not receive sufficient notice.
1. SOURCE Please. Because I am aware of none. I believe you are factually mistaken, I am willing to admit I may be. I am aware of many instances, including the famous firing of the Air Traffic Controllers Union in 1981. Almost any agreement can be unilaterally broken, with civil penalties. The only agreements I am unaware of that cannot relate to CRIMINAL law. Being able to unilaterally break an agreement is not the same as being able to unilaterally break an agreement without penalty. There is a enormous raft of contractual law that relates to being able to break an agreement with penalty. Nearly all contracts are written that way and those that aren't are either informal agreements or non-binding.
2. You seem to be indicating that buisness might not want to be held accountable for breaking their agreements unilaterally, or where it might be perceived that they are doing so. Which is fair and good and right.
You made the claim that Public Sector Unions has special legal power not granted to other entities, based on "what you have read," what did you read? That claim is far different than the above claim. It's true you can agree to give someone a financial hammer to hit you with if you break off your agreement. That is right and proper and happens every where. That is a far different claim than public sector unions have special powers which prevent their agreements from being terminated. State's just like people have the freedom to enter into contracts, except in those states where there rights have been curtailed, like Wisconsin and soon Arizona.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The problem with these numbers is they are straight public vs private sector numbers, not union vs nonunion. Also, the CPA comparison isn't that useful, since we would expect a professional to (1) not be in a union and (2) to be paid pretty well because he or she has a desirable skill set. Looking at public union road construction workers vs private non union road construction workers and public non union construction workers would be more useful.
Pensions are not coming back. I should know, because I am the guy that helps companies operate their existing pensions, and replace them with 401(k) plans when they are able to. The laws are too complex and burdensome (and are actually in the process of getting harder to deal with) the cost of operating and funding them is too high, and the risk when the market hits a down turn is too great for companies to ever return to Defined Benefit Plans (these risks are greatly magnified when dealing with union multiemployer plans, which are an absolute nightmare). It is a shame, because they are much better than 401(k) plans for planning your retirement, but that ship has sailed.
Some other data points:
Typical steel highway bridge in WI costs $100-$125 per square foot
The same bridge in IL costs $150-$175 per square foot
The same bridge in NY/NJ/RI costs $400-$500 per square foot
The only real difference I see between public and private sector unions is, thanks to Citizens United, public sector unions can bring a large amount of money to bear in the election process, giving them additional bargaining power when negotiating with management.
EDIT: Deleted some stuff because I'm not 100% sure it's correct.
From what I've seen from the Big Dig, it's probably the other way around.
and even when the roadworks are done, they're still in a shit state of being because there's not enough money given to those projects. I'm sure the roadworks would be completed faster, and probably to better standards, if people were more willing to pay for them overall, union labor or not.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Are you really contending that the differences in the numbers you quoted all came about in the last 24 months as a result of Citizens United?
1. Please see 29 U.S.C. § 158(d)
I know this may be a little confusing, but the effective requirement here is notice 60 days prior to the desire to make a change or terminate, but termination is only allowed on the expiration date of the contract. The result is an unfair labor practice, which can result in injunctive relief, or cease and desist orders. In effect, you can be forced to abide by the contract. I don't know that much about the process or likely penalties (like I said, this is not my area) but in practice, almost no company is willing to take an action which will put them in this position.
2. Actually, the fear of litigation I was referring to is more based in the fear of groundsless claims which will still take up employee and management time, generate legal bills, and potentially look bad for the company. Almost all employment in the US is at will, so people can legally be terminated at any time.
If it appeared that I was making any claims that public unions have magical special powers, then I apologize, as that was not my intent. I was just referring to the general difficulty in terminating collective bargaining agreements, and why I think that may be problematic from a democratic process standpoint. I'm sorry, but I am not permitted to disclose the collective bargaining agreements I have read due to the attorney-client privilege.
The problem I tend to experience is politicians really don't care what happens beyond their current term. It varies state by state, but the general trend is to design for the lowest cost, not the highest value. I could increase the cost of a bridge by 3% and increase the design life by 50% but all the politicians (and those running against them) are going to care about is that the cost of the bridge went up 3%.
That being said, throwing more money at a project doesn't mean it's completed any faster unless you start paying high labor premiums for overtime and weekend work.
I'm not contending anything of the sort.
or bigger crews and more equipment so that you can work on say 2 patches of the road instead of just one.
you know, provide jobs....
yes i'm being idealistic.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I went to law school with someone who worked a union job doing road work in NJ. He told me that when he picked up his shovel to return to work following the first break of the day (which was 1 or 2 hours in) someone came to him and said "what are you doing, we're done for the day." They spent the rest of the day sitting around drinking beer while one or two members of the crew would walk around to make it look like something was happening. This repeated every day.
I have another friend who was working as a contractor in a former estate home owned by the state. Before they could start their work, the furniture and other posessions needed to be cleared out. So guys from the woodworkers union came and removed everything in the room my friend was hired to work in, except for a metal desk. My friend asked them why they didn't take the desk out, and they said that the metal workers union had to handle it, and they could not touch it. My friend and the rest of his team sat there for 8 hours before someone from the metal workers union showed up to take the desk. They were paid for every minute of the wait.
I don't know if these are representative of how unions normally operate, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of either story.
but don't get me started on bitching about Equity. stupid actors equity union. in order to possibly get work on bigger shows, you had to have your equity card. but you couldn't get your card until you had worked on some equity shows.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The independent contractors on the Big Dig used substandard concrete and pocketed the difference and allowed the ceiling of the main tunnel to fall on people, killing them.
This sort of thing does happen at many construction sites where union work is involved and obviously is something that needs to be worked on. Again I'm a person who believes that abuses need to be excised with a scalpel, not a union busting meat cleaver.
Two things:
1.) Trade unions and public sector unions are two different things. Fire, Police, Teachers, public sector. Carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc are not state employees in most cases, they just have dealings with the state.
2.) If anyone is wondering why his friend and crew wouldn't just move the metal desk into the other room and start working its probably because they didn't like the idea of having a union reps foot buried in their asshole for taking their work.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
If given the choice of choosing one company that was going to use excess labor costs in pursuit of its profit motive or cheaper workmanship and materials in pursuit of boosting another companies bottom line when building your house, which one would most people go for?
Come Overwatch with meeeee
1. 29 USC is the FLSA, or the Fair Labor Standards Act and Applies Equally to Union, Non-Union, Public and Private Employees. That's not some special deal that Public Sector Unions get that's what every US Citizen gets when they bargain collectively with any employer. You get that when you and your buddy bargain collectively and get an agreement. You can collectively bargain yourself out of them, but those laws apply to you and everyone you work with by default.
2. That fear of litigation is also non-public sector union related.
Your argument appears to have morphed from "public sector union employees enjoy special protections which makes them onerous" into "contractual agreements are unduly taxing for employers."
Labor agreements are not made for workers to do the work and then for management to pay them for it unless they don't feel like it. If you're feeling is that is anti-democratic IDK, would you suggest workers do the work and then employers vote on what they pay them? Democratic freedom is the freedom to make agreements, not the freedom to decided you do not want to follow through with your commitments without penalty.
Please keep your person information personal.
Is it really so bad that if I sign a two year contract with my employer that they have to employee me for two years, or that if they agree to employee me forever that they have to give me 60 days notice before firing me?
edit:Is it really so bad that if, hand in arms with my fellow widget twiddlers, I sign a two year contract with my employer that they then have to employee me, hand in arms with my fellow widget twiddlers, for two years, or that if they agree to employee me forever that they have to give me, hand in arms with my fellow widget twiddlers, 60 days notice before firing us all?
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes