As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

2010 Midterms AKA The Crying Game and lame ducks

14041424345

Posts

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Yes, it should be clear that voting alone doesn't ensure anything. Politicians lie, and they are happy to move the goalposts whenever they can. On the other hand, if you collective bargain, it's an obligation that can't be fucked with just because the new people in charge hate unions.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.

    I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.

    I concur. As a person living in Canada, I have to deal consistently with distorting power of public sector unions. IE: they are an expensive inconvenience, and ask for pay increases that are not commensurate with public revenue.

    It goes far beyond the whole "equitable distribution of profits" or "fair wage" etc.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.

    I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.

    This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.

    To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.

    Or that their influence through voting is sufficient to secure them reasonable employment terms, and they don't need collective bargaining on top of that.

    How does that make any sense?

    I mean, they aren't the only ones voting, for one major thing. Are there supposed to be ballot initiatives on their retirement packages now or something?


    As a firefighter and member of a public sector union, I thank you shryke, mask and krakow.

    As to everyone else, thank you for siding with Chris Christie in basically helping to destroy all the work that a lot of people put in over the last fifty years or so in making public sector jobs actually provide a decent standard of living, as opposed to keeping fire fighters and police in a state of near poverty.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.

    To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.


    There isn't anything wrong with it from an individual cop or teacher's perspective. However as a society there certainly are problems. The link between a shareholding employee and a voter is tenous at best. For one, each vote is equal and there is only one per person. Secondly executives are tied far more directly to the financial performance of a firm than bureacrats are to the spending contraints of government. Finally, there are provisions in many corporate charters that effectively insulate the CEO from the shareholders having much of a say in the governance of a corporation. So the analogy isn't really that applicable.

    Public sector unions are a bad idea because the public sector faces a far different system of incentives than the private sector does. First, you can argue that public sector employees simply need protections less than private sector employees. The profit motive isn't there and so the accompanying potential for abuse is lessened. Secondly, in a private sector you have two countervailing interests, employees and management. This means there are incentives to come to some sort of agreement that at least attempts to balance costs with benefits.

    In a public sector you have no such constraints. The bargaining table is a set of public sector employees and the politician or bureacrat they helped elect. The people harmed by offering a wage increase to these employees are taxpayers. So you have a concentrated interest group lobbying for wage increases (any given public union) and a diffuse group potentially lobbying against it (those taxpayers who actually care about the incremental amount a change will cost them). Such a lopsided dynamic heavily favors the concentrated lobbying group.

    I mean, I don't see how you can oppose corporate rent seeking via lobbying and yet support public unions. They are similar, except public unions have even more ability to extract rents than corporations do.

    Saammiel on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.

    I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.

    I concur. As a person living in Canada, I have to deal consistently with distorting power of public sector unions. IE: they are an expensive inconvenience, and ask for pay increases that are not commensurate with public revenue.

    It goes far beyond the whole "equitable distribution of profits" or "fair wage" etc.

    This isn't an argument against the existence of public sector unions so much as its an argument for better bargaining. It's been demonstrated here in the US that unions are willing to not only forgo wage increases but also to take pay cuts to maintain employment levels and get better benefits elsewhere.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Yes, it should be clear that voting alone doesn't ensure anything. Politicians lie, and they are happy to move the goalposts whenever they can. On the other hand, if you collective bargain, it's an obligation that can't be fucked with just because the new people in charge hate unions.

    In the space of a year Governor Christie has managed to change the health benefits of all NJ state employees and placed a soft cap on the payroll expenditures (not just salary but also as a function, manpower) and is set to introduce more legislation that will diminish both our pensions and place a hard cap on any salary increases, regardless of any departments current situation.

    None of this was spelled out during his campaign of course, and all of it is being done outside of any standing collective bargaining agreements any union had with any agency to date.

    wwtMask wrote: »
    This isn't an argument against the existence of public sector unions so much as its an argument for better bargaining. It's been demonstrated here in the US that unions are willing to not only forgo wage increases but also to take pay cuts to maintain employment levels and get better benefits elsewhere.

    Many public employee unions who recently signed a contracts (say in the last 2 years or so) took 0% raises for 1 or 2 years in the hopes of avoiding layoffs.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.

    To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.


    There isn't anything wrong with it from an individual cop or teacher's perspective. However as a society there certainly are problems. The link between a shareholding employee and a voter is tenous at best. For one, each vote is equal and there is only one per person. Secondly executives are tied far more directly to the financial performance of a firm than bureacrats are to the spending contraints of government. Finally, there are provisions in many corporate charters that effectively insulate the CEO from the shareholders having much of a say in the governance of a corporation. So the analogy isn't really that applicable.

    Public sector unions are a bad idea because the public sector faces a far different system of incentives than the private sector does. First, you can argue that public sector employees simply need protections less than private sector employees. The profit motive isn't there and so the accompanying potential for abuse is lessened. Secondly, in a private sector you have two countervailing interests, employees and management. This means there are incentives to come to some sort of agreement that at least attempts to balance costs with benefits.

    In a public sector you have no such constraints. The bargaining table is a set of public sector employees and the politician or bureacrat they helped elect. The people harmed by offering a wage increase to these employees are taxpayers. So you have a concentrated interest group lobbying for wage increases (any given public union) and a diffuse group potentially lobbying against it (those taxpayers who actually care about the incremental amount a change will cost them). Such a lopsided dynamic heavily favors the concentrated lobbying group.

    I mean, I don't see how you can oppose corporate rent seeking via lobbying and yet support public unions. They are similar, except public unions have even more ability to extract rents than corporations do.

    Teachers unions would like to have a word with you. They and other unions are being forced to choose between benefit/wage reductions and unemployment. This predicament has nothing to do with unions making unrealistic demands on the government and everything to do with politicians doing their level best to reduce the amount of revenue the local, state, and federal government can bring in via taxation. Then, when there are budget shortfalls, the money has to be made up somewhere, and the public employees are the first on the line to get cut. You're right that there's a lopsided dynamic heavily favoring a lobbying group, but that group is not composed of unions.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.

    To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.


    There isn't anything wrong with it from an individual cop or teacher's perspective. However as a society there certainly are problems. The link between a shareholding employee and a voter is tenous at best. For one, each vote is equal and there is only one per person. Secondly executives are tied far more directly to the financial performance of a firm than bureacrats are to the spending contraints of government. Finally, there are provisions in many corporate charters that effectively insulate the CEO from the shareholders having much of a say in the governance of a corporation. So the analogy isn't really that applicable.

    Public sector unions are a bad idea because the public sector faces a far different system of incentives than the private sector does. First, you can argue that public sector employees simply need protections less than private sector employees. The profit motive isn't there and so the accompanying potential for abuse is lessened. Secondly, in a private sector you have two countervailing interests, employees and management. This means there are incentives to come to some sort of agreement that at least attempts to balance costs with benefits.

    In a public sector you have no such constraints. The bargaining table is a set of public sector employees and the politician or bureacrat they helped elect. The people harmed by offering a wage increase to these employees are taxpayers. So you have a concentrated interest group lobbying for wage increases (any given public union) and a diffuse group potentially lobbying against it (those taxpayers who actually care about the incremental amount a change will cost them). Such a lopsided dynamic heavily favors the concentrated lobbying group.

    I mean, I don't see how you can oppose corporate rent seeking via lobbying and yet support public unions. They are similar, except public unions have even more ability to extract rents than corporations do.

    This is all just ... wrong.

    The public sector is just as much on a budget as the private sector.

    And like, seriously, "public sector employees simply need protections less than private sector employees"? .... WTF?



    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.

    I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.

    I concur. As a person living in Canada, I have to deal consistently with distorting power of public sector unions. IE: they are an expensive inconvenience, and ask for pay increases that are not commensurate with public revenue.

    It goes far beyond the whole "equitable distribution of profits" or "fair wage" etc.

    As another person living in Canada, you are so full of goose.

    shryke on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It doesn't matter whether the employees work in the public or private sector, they should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers.

    I don't know. I think the argument could be made that in the public sector, the unions ability to act as a voting block gives them too much power, because they are in essence electing their employers. This results in negative effects for society.

    This logic necessarily means that anyone who might be employed by the government should not be allowed to organize and vote on their collective interests. While I'd love for the US Chamber of Commerce to dissolve, I still think this reasoning is wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with teachers or cops voting collectively for people who they think will give them the best deal as employees.

    To put it another way, this is like saying that employees of a corporation that also own stock in said corporation shouldn't be allowed to form a bloc of shareholders because they might vote for executives who will treat them better.

    Or that their influence through voting is sufficient to secure them reasonable employment terms, and they don't need collective bargaining on top of that.

    How does that make any sense?

    I mean, they aren't the only ones voting, for one major thing. Are there supposed to be ballot initiatives on their retirement packages now or something?

    Thats already happening.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This isn't an argument against the existence of public sector unions so much as its an argument for better bargaining.

    Better bargaining is unlikely as long as the union has the power to just fire the other side.

    At the very least, the public sector needs to be open shop.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This isn't an argument against the existence of public sector unions so much as its an argument for better bargaining.

    Better bargaining is unlikely as long as the union has the power to just fire the other side.

    At the very least, the public sector needs to be open shop.

    Again, this is silly. Unions don't have that power. They aren't the only ones voting in elections. This is especially silly to say about the US, where unions are shrinking while PACs representing the interests of corporations and the rich are growing in influence.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This isn't an argument against the existence of public sector unions so much as its an argument for better bargaining.

    Better bargaining is unlikely as long as the union has the power to just fire the other side.

    At the very least, the public sector needs to be open shop.

    Again, this is silly. Unions don't have that power. They aren't the only ones voting in elections. This is especially silly to say about the US, where unions are shrinking while PACs representing the interests of corporations and the rich are growing in influence.

    The single most powerful voting bloc in the US is old white conservative Protestants. They vote every time, and they mostly vote Republican.

    Captain Carrot on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This isn't an argument against the existence of public sector unions so much as its an argument for better bargaining.

    Better bargaining is unlikely as long as the union has the power to just fire the other side.

    At the very least, the public sector needs to be open shop.

    Again, this is silly. Unions don't have that power. They aren't the only ones voting in elections. This is especially silly to say about the US, where unions are shrinking while PACs representing the interests of corporations and the rich are growing in influence.

    They clearly have more power then their private sector counterparts in their ability to deliver voting blocs and aggressively campaign for the firing or hiring of their own bosses. Private sector unions get to do this to elect people who might help set more favorable terms for them in their negotiations with their bosses, but public sector unions get to actually influence their bosses behavior towards them through electioneering.

    This is as clear as day.

    And then on top of that, their bosses are in a position to help deliver to them long term benefits that are disastrous for society as a whole but that they'll help pass anyways because politicians are, as a rule, very short sighted creatures. And this is how it actually works.

    And then on top of that, public sector unions, like all unions, exist in large part to defend the status quo. With companies there is always the threat of bankruptcy as a final veto on this behavior, but with public sector unions (I'm looking at you teacher and cop unions) they will do everything in their power to continue with failed policies and prevent accountability for corruption.

    geckahn on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    If you think unions have gotten anything but fucked overall in the last twenty years, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

    Captain Carrot on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    This is all just ... wrong.

    The public sector is just as much on a budget as the private sector.

    And like, seriously, "public sector employees simply need protections less than private sector employees"? .... WTF?

    They have a budget, they don't have a profit motive to provide a strong incentive to control costs. And they need less protection because of that lack of a profit motive. Government is far less likely to engage in worrisome behavior because it isn't constrained by the competition and profit seeking that arises in private industry. In addition they are more likely to uphold their own worker safety regulations and the like than the private sector.

    Saammiel on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm curious why MM doesn't want public sector workers unionizing.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    If you think unions have gotten anything but fucked overall in the last twenty years, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

    The real issue is we've made damn near zero progression worker rights and things like health care. Unions arose in the first place to address thing the govt was too in the pockets of big business to deal with. if we had decent regulation in this country unions wouldn't be as necessary.

    nexuscrawler on
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Teachers unions for me are a problem, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

    On the one hand, it's impossible to fire bad teachers, but there also needs to be some insulation of teachers from political/cultural winds.

    I'm also on the fence about things like pilot/flight attendendant/transportation unions, which are semi-public, in the sense that the corporations they exist in are regulated to some extent. It's less bad here in the US because of the many airlines, but the British Airways strike, for example, had the potential at least to shut down a large portion of transportation in and out of that country.

    VishNub on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    If you think unions have gotten anything but fucked overall in the last twenty years, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

    It has basically been all downhill since the start of the 90's (sooner for some unions) with some unions kinda just riding inertia till now.

    No one has won any new benefits.

    No ones standard of living is going up, its been a downward slide with a lucky few just holding on.

    Everyones membership is decreasing.

    Also as an aside, whoever said that better/more intelligent bargaining is the answer hit the nail on the head.

    A lot of public service employees in NJ (teachers/police/firemen, but all varied from each municipality) would accumulate sick time from year to year and at the end of their careers they would be compensated for it. This was done back in the old days as an incentive to get people to show up to work everyday.

    When wages finally came up to a livable standard, some municipalities (like the one I work in) would negotiate to change their sick policy, others didn't, and as a result would end up giving significantly large payouts at the end of peoples careers. Who is really at fault here?

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm curious why MM doesn't want public sector workers unionizing.

    Taxes. Any other reason is a justification for him paying lower taxes.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    This is all just ... wrong.

    The public sector is just as much on a budget as the private sector.

    And like, seriously, "public sector employees simply need protections less than private sector employees"? .... WTF?

    They have a budget, they don't have a profit motive to provide a strong incentive to control costs. And they need less protection because of that lack of a profit motive. Government is far less likely to engage in worrisome behavior because it isn't constrained by the competition and profit seeking that arises in private industry. In addition they are more likely to uphold their own worker safety regulations and the like than the private sector.

    :lol: OMG, the sheer ignorance of this is staggering. "they don't have a strong incentive to control costs"???? Cause funding for the public sector is never limited, amiright?

    Look man, there's no arguing with you if you believe stuff this dumb.

    shryke on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Teachers unions would like to have a word with you. They and other unions are being forced to choose between benefit/wage reductions and unemployment. This predicament has nothing to do with unions making unrealistic demands on the government and everything to do with politicians doing their level best to reduce the amount of revenue the local, state, and federal government can bring in via taxation. Then, when there are budget shortfalls, the money has to be made up somewhere, and the public employees are the first on the line to get cut. You're right that there's a lopsided dynamic heavily favoring a lobbying group, but that group is not composed of unions.

    And yet, according to the BLS the unemployment rate of their occupational category is far less than virtually every other (except direct government employees). So where is the empirical evidence of this undue pain they are being forced to bear. In case you haven't noticed we are in the midst of a massive recession, everyone is suffering to some extent. And bringing up California as an anecdote is terribly unconvincing. They face problems the rest of the nation doesn't due to the somewhat unique nature of their terrible governance.

    Saammiel on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    VishNub wrote: »
    Teachers unions

    You're missing a verb and/or adjective there sailor.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    speaking of Nj maybe they wouldn't need a teachers union if the govt didn't do things like lay off all their teachers for like a week at the end of every school year

    nexuscrawler on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    If you think unions have gotten anything but fucked overall in the last twenty years, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

    Look at all those ultrasuccessful strikes and increasing membership. :lol:

    Couscous on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Unions are a political red herring and little more at this point, they're the ACORN of the labor market

    override367 on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    geckahn wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This isn't an argument against the existence of public sector unions so much as its an argument for better bargaining.

    Better bargaining is unlikely as long as the union has the power to just fire the other side.

    At the very least, the public sector needs to be open shop.

    Again, this is silly. Unions don't have that power. They aren't the only ones voting in elections. This is especially silly to say about the US, where unions are shrinking while PACs representing the interests of corporations and the rich are growing in influence.

    They clearly have more power then their private sector counterparts in their ability to deliver voting blocs and aggressively campaign for the firing or hiring of their own bosses. Private sector unions get to do this to elect people who might help set more favorable terms for them in their negotiations with their bosses, but public sector unions get to actually influence their bosses behavior towards them through electioneering.

    This is as clear as day.

    And then on top of that, their bosses are in a position to help deliver to them long term benefits that are disastrous for society as a whole but that they'll help pass anyways because politicians are, as a rule, very short sighted creatures. And this is how it actually works.

    And then on top of that, public sector unions, like all unions, exist in large part to defend the status quo. With companies there is always the threat of bankruptcy as a final veto on this behavior, but with public sector unions (I'm looking at you teacher and cop unions) they will do everything in their power to continue with failed policies and prevent accountability for corruption.

    You realise the biggest PACs and lobbyists are corporate, right? That's where all the money is.

    And those guys are FAR better at influencing elections.

    shryke on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    This is all just ... wrong.

    The public sector is just as much on a budget as the private sector.

    And like, seriously, "public sector employees simply need protections less than private sector employees"? .... WTF?

    They have a budget, they don't have a profit motive to provide a strong incentive to control costs. And they need less protection because of that lack of a profit motive. Government is far less likely to engage in worrisome behavior because it isn't constrained by the competition and profit seeking that arises in private industry. In addition they are more likely to uphold their own worker safety regulations and the like than the private sector.

    :lol: OMG, the sheer ignorance of this is staggering. "they don't have a strong incentive to control costs"???? Cause funding for the public sector is never limited, amiright?

    Look man, there's no arguing with you if you believe stuff this dumb.

    They have a far less imposing constraint than the public sector. Are you honestly arguing that the incentive for government to cut costs is greater than that of private industry? Or that rent seeking doesn't occur due to the influence of public sector unions?

    Again, given that you presumably accept that corporation collect rent via the influencing of government policy, why is it so hard to accept that pools of employees do the same?

    Saammiel on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm curious why MM doesn't want public sector workers unionizing.
    For most of the reasons mentioned by others upthread. Primarily, there is a huge problem with unions using their electoral clout to extort better terms at the negotiation table. A private sector union doesn't play a role in selecting a corporation's CEO, while the teacher's union can throw its weight behind a mayoral candidate who will be more friendly to its interests.

    A corporate CEO who opposes a union may be removed by the shareholders. A politician who opposes a union might find himself out of office as a result of that union's actions.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    the big unions have long been the steadyiest source of cash for the Democratic party.

    thats why the GOP hates them so much

    nexuscrawler on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    This is all just ... wrong.

    The public sector is just as much on a budget as the private sector.

    And like, seriously, "public sector employees simply need protections less than private sector employees"? .... WTF?

    They have a budget, they don't have a profit motive to provide a strong incentive to control costs. And they need less protection because of that lack of a profit motive. Government is far less likely to engage in worrisome behavior because it isn't constrained by the competition and profit seeking that arises in private industry. In addition they are more likely to uphold their own worker safety regulations and the like than the private sector.

    :lol: OMG, the sheer ignorance of this is staggering. "they don't have a strong incentive to control costs"???? Cause funding for the public sector is never limited, amiright?

    Look man, there's no arguing with you if you believe stuff this dumb.

    They have a far less imposing constraint than the public sector. Are you honestly arguing that the incentive for government to cut costs is greater than that of private industry? Or that rent seeking doesn't occur due to the influence of public sector unions?

    Again, given that you presumably accept that corporation collect rent via the influencing of government policy, why is it so hard to accept that pools of employees do the same?

    See, and now you are shifting goalposts with lightning speed. You were arguing that public unions were WORSE then the private sector, not the same.

    And the public sector often has MORE imposing constraints. The incentive for governments to cut costs is HUGE, especially in the US where "lower taxes, more services" is a fucking universal mantra. Government slashes at their employees as much as they can beacuse unlike the private sector, they often have no viable way of increasing revenue.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    I'm curious why MM doesn't want public sector workers unionizing.
    For most of the reasons mentioned by others upthread. Primarily, there is a huge problem with unions using their electoral clout to extort better terms at the negotiation table. A private sector union doesn't play a role in selecting a corporation's CEO, while the teacher's union can throw its weight behind a mayoral candidate who will be more friendly to its interests.

    A corporate CEO who opposes a union may be removed by the shareholders. A politician who opposes a union might find himself out of office as a result of that union's actions.

    And a politician who opposes corporate interests will find himself out of office as a result of those corporations actions. That's the real other side to your comparison, not some bullshit about CEOs.

    Both public and private groups use their money and people to influence politicians for their own benefit. The private sector is just richer and better at it and all around worse off for the rest of us.

    shryke on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    the big unions have long been the steadyiest source of cash for the Democratic party.

    thats why the GOP hates them so much

    I believe that labor unions have been overtaken by plaintiffs' lawyers as the primary donors to Democrats.

    Hachface on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    speaking of Nj maybe they wouldn't need a teachers union if the govt didn't do things like lay off all their teachers for like a week at the end of every school year

    They wouldn't need a union if the government actually funded their pension obligations and there was a system in place that guaranteed that good teachers weren't crushed under heel for standing up for their students.

    The problem with the bad teacher argument is that for every shitbird that you can't shake because they have a union behind them, theres another teacher thats doing an excellent job that the union kept the administration from running out because they became some principals personal vendetta.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    RedTide wrote: »
    speaking of Nj maybe they wouldn't need a teachers union if the govt didn't do things like lay off all their teachers for like a week at the end of every school year

    They wouldn't need a union if the government actually funded their pension obligations and there was a system in place that guaranteed that good teachers weren't crushed under heel for standing up for their students.

    The problem with the bad teacher argument is that for every shitbird that you can't shake because they have a union behind them, theres another teacher thats doing an excellent job that the union kept the administration from running out because they became some principals personal vendetta.

    or thats its easier to fire a good experienced teacher and hire a new kid for less cash

    nexuscrawler on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I'm curious why MM doesn't want public sector workers unionizing.
    For most of the reasons mentioned by others upthread. Primarily, there is a huge problem with unions using their electoral clout to extort better terms at the negotiation table. A private sector union doesn't play a role in selecting a corporation's CEO, while the teacher's union can throw its weight behind a mayoral candidate who will be more friendly to its interests.

    A corporate CEO who opposes a union may be removed by the shareholders. A politician who opposes a union might find himself out of office as a result of that union's actions.

    I don't see how that's all that different from a corporation founding a PAC to influence an election

    nexuscrawler on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Teachers unions would like to have a word with you. They and other unions are being forced to choose between benefit/wage reductions and unemployment. This predicament has nothing to do with unions making unrealistic demands on the government and everything to do with politicians doing their level best to reduce the amount of revenue the local, state, and federal government can bring in via taxation. Then, when there are budget shortfalls, the money has to be made up somewhere, and the public employees are the first on the line to get cut. You're right that there's a lopsided dynamic heavily favoring a lobbying group, but that group is not composed of unions.

    And yet, according to the BLS the unemployment rate of their occupational category is far less than virtually every other (except direct government employees). So where is the empirical evidence of this undue pain they are being forced to bear. In case you haven't noticed we are in the midst of a massive recession, everyone is suffering to some extent. And bringing up California as an anecdote is terribly unconvincing. They face problems the rest of the nation doesn't due to the somewhat unique nature of their terrible governance.
    Teachers have relatively low unemployment because they are rare within the population.

    Being a certified teacher is roughly akin to being an albino buffalo in purely numbers terms.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    No one has yet presented a GOOD reason that being able to vote for your bosses is an inherently bad thing. The idea that a group of people shouldn't vote in their personal best interest is retarded. Rich people can group together in a PAC and influence others to vote for republicans in order to get low taxes. Why shouldn't workers be allowed to group together in a union to vote for Democrats in order to get more favorable collective bargaining for their union?

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    What are the benefits of being a member of a union in the US aside from the bargaining tool? In Denmark, our unions also act as a safety net.

    If you pay into the optional "A-kasse" you get wage protection if you get laid off in the amount of a minimum wage payout each month for up to 5 years. So say you get fired, your union will go "okay, we'll give you X amount of money which corresponds to a little below mimimum wage to keep you going until you find a new job"

    Its exceedingly successful and some of the larger, more legitimate unions easily weathered the employment bust during the last 2 years for their members this way.

    Demiurge on
    DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I'm curious why MM doesn't want public sector workers unionizing.
    For most of the reasons mentioned by others upthread. Primarily, there is a huge problem with unions using their electoral clout to extort better terms at the negotiation table. A private sector union doesn't play a role in selecting a corporation's CEO, while the teacher's union can throw its weight behind a mayoral candidate who will be more friendly to its interests.

    A corporate CEO who opposes a union may be removed by the shareholders. A politician who opposes a union might find himself out of office as a result of that union's actions.

    Yet CEOS and corporations have massive electoral clout as well, with interests that usually run counter to worker's interests.

    And shareholders aren't going to remove a CEO for opposing Unions.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    You realise the biggest PACs and lobbyists are corporate, right? That's where all the money is.

    And those guys are FAR better at influencing elections.

    Ummm, this cycle they were fairly big, but unions are hardly absent from the lobbying scene. Here is the list from opensecrets. #1 through #4 are all corporate donations, but both 5 and 6 are unions, one of which is explicitly a public sector union and the other of which is a blend I believe.

    Not to mention you can oppose the efforts by both groups to capture rents.

    Saammiel on
This discussion has been closed.