Public Sector Unions = Tax-Hiking Monsters...

[midcan5]

A unionized public employee, a Tea Partier and a CEO are seated at a meeting. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. When no one is watching the CEO reaches across, takes 11 cookies and slips them in a pocket. A bit later he looks at the tea partier and whispers, "Watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

LOL Note the corporate tools don't get the joke nor the truth.

Curious how Americans go after Americans making close to fair wages, blaming them rather the military industrial complex that wastes billions, eventually trillions. Nineteen madmen did something billions of dollars in useless war hardware didn't stop, but the right wing tools only march to hurt fellow Americans. Can anyone really figure that out? If a corporate exectives makes millions and fails, the republicans bail them out, it was Bush who started tarp. But ask for a fair wage or even minimum wage and the conservatives are up in arms. What a bunch of wackos. The other night there was a piece on the fact most corporations pay no taxes, don't you think if sanity were anywhere to be found, you'd hear about this on conservative corporate owned media? Nah, instead Charlie Sheen and stupidity rule the airwaves.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

 

[midcan5]

Big difference between corps and public sector jobs. Corporations employee's are not paid by taxpayer dollars. The unions are allowed to collective bargain pensions, healthcare and etc with taxpayer money.

You can't be serious!!! You missed the military industrial complex which we all pay for.

Check these books out.

The Conservative Nanny State


The Corporate Tax Dodge
Corporate Taxes


"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

 

[jeffrockit]

How, exactly, is that conflict of interest?

As for saying noted that "even FDR" was opposed, it's both a fallacious (appeal to authority) argument and one which rests on a misunderstanding of the role of government in negotiations.

Here is how:
The unions need the politicians to acquire pay and benefits exceeding what they could get in the private sector, plus job security; and the politicians need the unions for financial campaign support and votes on election day. They give each other what they want - and the taxpayers - who are NOT at the bargaining table, by the way - get screwed.

Several problems with that argument:

1. If what you're saying was true, public sector workers would be paid more than private sector workers. The reality is that, except for the people at the lowest end, public sector workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts.
Stats don't support your position:
Benefits widen public, private workers' pay gap - USATODAY.com

2. Union contributions to candidates who they believe will provide them with higher compensation is no different that corporate contributions to candidates who they believe will reduce taxes or regulations. The argument you're making is an anti-union one, but it's also an anti-corporate one as well.
Corps are not funded by taxpayer dollars and with unions in the privates sector, all parties are at the bargaining table. Not so for public sector where taxpayers who foot the bill are not there

3. Your argument makes the assumption that elected officials are somehow a separate population from the people who elect them.

They are, in that the population has no control over the budgets and how the public sector is paid. Public Sector employees are able to elect their own bosses whereas private sector's can not. In non right to work states, employees must pay union dues and have no choice who the union chooses to support regardless of the individual's party affiliation.
"Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates."
Obama Thanks His Friends: Government Spending and Union Support. Appears to be a bit lopsided to me.

 

[Polk]

Here is how:
The unions need the politicians to acquire pay and benefits exceeding what they could get in the private sector, plus job security; and the politicians need the unions for financial campaign support and votes on election day. They give each other what they want - and the taxpayers - who are NOT at the bargaining table, by the way - get screwed.

Several problems with that argument:

1. If what you're saying was true, public sector workers would be paid more than private sector workers. The reality is that, except for the people at the lowest end, public sector workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts.

2. Union contributions to candidates who they believe will provide them with higher compensation is no different that corporate contributions to candidates who they believe will reduce taxes or regulations. The argument you're making is an anti-union one, but it's also an anti-corporate one as well.

3. Your argument makes the assumption that elected officials are somehow a separate population from the people who elect them.

You are ignoring that corporations are seperate entities, that even if they are able to influence politicians for favorable legislation, they still need to sell SOMETHING to someone to make any money. In fact, I do believe that compaines that doe business directly with government agencies DO have limits on how they can donate campaign money to various candidates.

The issue you are ignoring is that politicians can create legislation that DIRECTLY benefits the unions, are the ones who negotiate the contract with the unions, and in the end, at least in some localities, are pretty much dependent upon thier support for winning elections. Removed from the corporate analogy you use above is the need to sell anything. Government's product and revenue stream are pretty mandatory if you want to live in a certain area. Add in the belief that all you need to do is keep raising taxes as well as the concept of a constantly increasing budget and you have the disaster we hae today.

I never denied corporations are separate entities. What you're ignoring is that workers and the government are separate entities. The state is not looking to pay employees the highest possible amount. They, like businesses, are looking to get by with paying employees the lowest amount possible. Politicians can create legislation that directly benefits unions, just as they can pass ones that directly benefit businesses. The fact that the government doesn't sell a product is absolutely meaningless. The incentives are the exact same.

 

[martybegan]

Several problems with that argument:

1. If what you're saying was true, public sector workers would be paid more than private sector workers. The reality is that, except for the people at the lowest end, public sector workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts.

2. Union contributions to candidates who they believe will provide them with higher compensation is no different that corporate contributions to candidates who they believe will reduce taxes or regulations. The argument you're making is an anti-union one, but it's also an anti-corporate one as well.

3. Your argument makes the assumption that elected officials are somehow a separate population from the people who elect them.

You are ignoring that corporations are seperate entities, that even if they are able to influence politicians for favorable legislation, they still need to sell SOMETHING to someone to make any money. In fact, I do believe that compaines that doe business directly with government agencies DO have limits on how they can donate campaign money to various candidates.

The issue you are ignoring is that politicians can create legislation that DIRECTLY benefits the unions, are the ones who negotiate the contract with the unions, and in the end, at least in some localities, are pretty much dependent upon thier support for winning elections. Removed from the corporate analogy you use above is the need to sell anything. Government's product and revenue stream are pretty mandatory if you want to live in a certain area. Add in the belief that all you need to do is keep raising taxes as well as the concept of a constantly increasing budget and you have the disaster we hae today.

I never denied corporations are separate entities. What you're ignoring is that workers and the government are separate entities. The state is not looking to pay employees the highest possible amount. They, like businesses, are looking to get by with paying employees the lowest amount possible. Politicians can create legislation that directly benefits unions, just as they can pass ones that directly benefit businesses. The fact that the government doesn't sell a product is absolutely meaningless. The incentives are the exact same.

But you are still ignoring the fact that especially in local governments the politicians being elected often rely on the support of the public unions, the very groups they have to negoitate with when the contracts come due. They have an incentive to not be as hard in the negotiations as compared to a private company, that has to maintain its profitablility.

Ive also made my position clear in several posts that the main issue is not wages, or even benefits. The main issue to me is the work rules/greivence polices that make it impossible to improve worker efficency or get rid of people who won't do thier job. These are the less noticable items you find in the collective bargaining agreements and the ones the politicians can give in on the easiest, as the public usually does not notice them.

This makes any reduction in a bureacracy impossible, once you create a job title and work assignment, you are stuck with it, even if the person doing it sucks, or you dont need it anymore.

 

[Polk]

You are ignoring that corporations are seperate entities, that even if they are able to influence politicians for favorable legislation, they still need to sell SOMETHING to someone to make any money. In fact, I do believe that compaines that doe business directly with government agencies DO have limits on how they can donate campaign money to various candidates.

The issue you are ignoring is that politicians can create legislation that DIRECTLY benefits the unions, are the ones who negotiate the contract with the unions, and in the end, at least in some localities, are pretty much dependent upon thier support for winning elections. Removed from the corporate analogy you use above is the need to sell anything. Government's product and revenue stream are pretty mandatory if you want to live in a certain area. Add in the belief that all you need to do is keep raising taxes as well as the concept of a constantly increasing budget and you have the disaster we hae today.

I never denied corporations are separate entities. What you're ignoring is that workers and the government are separate entities. The state is not looking to pay employees the highest possible amount. They, like businesses, are looking to get by with paying employees the lowest amount possible. Politicians can create legislation that directly benefits unions, just as they can pass ones that directly benefit businesses. The fact that the government doesn't sell a product is absolutely meaningless. The incentives are the exact same.

But you are still ignoring the fact that especially in local governments the politicians being elected often rely on the support of the public unions, the very groups they have to negoitate with when the contracts come due. They have an incentive to not be as hard in the negotiations as compared to a private company, that has to maintain its profitablility.

Ive also made my position clear in several posts that the main issue is not wages, or even benefits. The main issue to me is the work rules/greivence polices that make it impossible to improve worker efficency or get rid of people who won't do thier job. These are the less noticable items you find in the collective bargaining agreements and the ones the politicians can give in on the easiest, as the public usually does not notice them.

This makes any reduction in a bureacracy impossible, once you create a job title and work assignment, you are stuck with it, even if the person doing it sucks, or you dont need it anymore.

And politicians who are supported by a major corporation will go easy on regulations that could harm that corporation. The key claim being made here is that workers should have to play by a different set of rules than firms.

As for the work rules issue, that's one that's independent from the existence of unions. There is nothing to stop the state from eliminating those provisions in negotiations.

 

[martybegan]

I never denied corporations are separate entities. What you're ignoring is that workers and the government are separate entities. The state is not looking to pay employees the highest possible amount. They, like businesses, are looking to get by with paying employees the lowest amount possible. Politicians can create legislation that directly benefits unions, just as they can pass ones that directly benefit businesses. The fact that the government doesn't sell a product is absolutely meaningless. The incentives are the exact same.

But you are still ignoring the fact that especially in local governments the politicians being elected often rely on the support of the public unions, the very groups they have to negoitate with when the contracts come due. They have an incentive to not be as hard in the negotiations as compared to a private company, that has to maintain its profitablility.

Ive also made my position clear in several posts that the main issue is not wages, or even benefits. The main issue to me is the work rules/greivence polices that make it impossible to improve worker efficency or get rid of people who won't do thier job. These are the less noticable items you find in the collective bargaining agreements and the ones the politicians can give in on the easiest, as the public usually does not notice them.

This makes any reduction in a bureacracy impossible, once you create a job title and work assignment, you are stuck with it, even if the person doing it sucks, or you dont need it anymore.

And politicians who are supported by a major corporation will go easy on regulations that could harm that corporation. The key claim being made here is that workers should have to play by a different set of rules than firms.

As for the work rules issue, that's one that's independent from the existence of unions. There is nothing to stop the state from eliminating those provisions in negotiations.

Its only government workers that have to play by a different set of rules, just like companies that work directly for the government have to follow a different set of rules as well. The reason is that the people we "hire" to negotiate the best deal possible as taxpayers are the same people who can be dependent on the unions to keep them in office. At the same time the goverment is the only business that can force you to pay for the increases in its costs. Most other coprorations exept ultilites, and they are regulated will pay the price of you not buying thier stuff if the cost for thier services/items goes too high. Not government, they can tax you all they want and your only way to fight back is basically to move away.

And the work rule issue to me is the key of the whole thing. Its one of the easier things the politicians can agree to help out the union during negotations, creates situation where you need too many people to do a given task, and protects the worst employees by making it easier to bury them in some hidden job than fire them. This forces you to hire more people, or use overtime to make up the difference, costing more money.

 

[Polk]

But you are still ignoring the fact that especially in local governments the politicians being elected often rely on the support of the public unions, the very groups they have to negoitate with when the contracts come due. They have an incentive to not be as hard in the negotiations as compared to a private company, that has to maintain its profitablility.

Ive also made my position clear in several posts that the main issue is not wages, or even benefits. The main issue to me is the work rules/greivence polices that make it impossible to improve worker efficency or get rid of people who won't do thier job. These are the less noticable items you find in the collective bargaining agreements and the ones the politicians can give in on the easiest, as the public usually does not notice them.

This makes any reduction in a bureacracy impossible, once you create a job title and work assignment, you are stuck with it, even if the person doing it sucks, or you dont need it anymore.

And politicians who are supported by a major corporation will go easy on regulations that could harm that corporation. The key claim being made here is that workers should have to play by a different set of rules than firms.

As for the work rules issue, that's one that's independent from the existence of unions. There is nothing to stop the state from eliminating those provisions in negotiations.

Its only government workers that have to play by a different set of rules, just like companies that work directly for the government have to follow a different set of rules as well. The reason is that the people we "hire" to negotiate the best deal possible as taxpayers are the same people who can be dependent on the unions to keep them in office. At the same time the goverment is the only business that can force you to pay for the increases in its costs. Most other coprorations exept ultilites, and they are regulated will pay the price of you not buying thier stuff if the cost for thier services/items goes too high. Not government, they can tax you all they want and your only way to fight back is basically to move away.

And the work rule issue to me is the key of the whole thing. Its one of the easier things the politicians can agree to help out the union during negotations, creates situation where you need too many people to do a given task, and protects the worst employees by making it easier to bury them in some hidden job than fire them. This forces you to hire more people, or use overtime to make up the difference, costing more money.

You come so close to getting it, then fall back. The key word your entire statement comes in the second sentence. Can. Yes, elected officials can be dependent on labor unions. Just like they can be dependent on other groups of donors. The problem is in thinking this makes public employees unique. It does not. There are tons of groups in society who support candidates looking for protection and aid in event of that candidate's victory. The government can't force you to pay money, unless that's the will of the voters in the district. We have a representative form of government.

On work rules, we agree that the process of hiring/firing public employees could use some streamlining. I'm sure we'd disagree over the level, but that's an issue for another day/thread.

 

[Trajan]

And politicians who are supported by a major corporation will go easy on regulations that could harm that corporation. The key claim being made here is that workers should have to play by a different set of rules than firms.

As for the work rules issue, that's one that's independent from the existence of unions. There is nothing to stop the state from eliminating those provisions in negotiations.

Its only government workers that have to play by a different set of rules, just like companies that work directly for the government have to follow a different set of rules as well. The reason is that the people we "hire" to negotiate the best deal possible as taxpayers are the same people who can be dependent on the unions to keep them in office. At the same time the goverment is the only business that can force you to pay for the increases in its costs. Most other coprorations exept ultilites, and they are regulated will pay the price of you not buying thier stuff if the cost for thier services/items goes too high. Not government, they can tax you all they want and your only way to fight back is basically to move away.

And the work rule issue to me is the key of the whole thing. Its one of the easier things the politicians can agree to help out the union during negotations, creates situation where you need too many people to do a given task, and protects the worst employees by making it easier to bury them in some hidden job than fire them. This forces you to hire more people, or use overtime to make up the difference, costing more money.

You come so close to getting it, then fall back. The key word your entire statement comes in the second sentence. Can. Yes, elected officials can be dependent on labor unions. Just like they can be dependent on other groups of donors. The problem is in thinking this makes public employees unique. It does not. There are tons of groups in society who support candidates looking for protection and aid in event of that candidate's victory. The government can't force you to pay money, unless that's the will of the voters in the district. We have a representative form of government.

On work rules, we agree that the process of hiring/firing public employees could use some streamlining. I'm sure we'd disagree over the level, but that's an issue for another day/thread.

Public unions have a monopoly position that gives them undue influence due to collective bargaining and the gov.s constraints in what they can or cannot do, they cannot terminate the contract ( ala walker) and turn to another supplier as they could with a private supplier.

and..



private sector unions and private companies negotiate over dividing private profits, it is an adversarial relationship. Public sector unions negotiate with politicians who want their votes over how to divide money that belongs to the taxpayer. It's party1 and party2 agreeing on how to divide money from party3, with no input from party3. Ask Milton Freidman how that works out.

Reason TV...

 

[Polk]

You guys keep missing the key point. There is input from "Party 3". They're called elections.

That's also the reason why public employees and state/local governments have an adversarial relationship. If they did not, you'd see public sector pay which far outstrips private sector pay. That's not the case.

 

[The T]

Its only government workers that have to play by a different set of rules, just like companies that work directly for the government have to follow a different set of rules as well. The reason is that the people we "hire" to negotiate the best deal possible as taxpayers are the same people who can be dependent on the unions to keep them in office. At the same time the goverment is the only business that can force you to pay for the increases in its costs. Most other coprorations exept ultilites, and they are regulated will pay the price of you not buying thier stuff if the cost for thier services/items goes too high. Not government, they can tax you all they want and your only way to fight back is basically to move away.

And the work rule issue to me is the key of the whole thing. Its one of the easier things the politicians can agree to help out the union during negotations, creates situation where you need too many people to do a given task, and protects the worst employees by making it easier to bury them in some hidden job than fire them. This forces you to hire more people, or use overtime to make up the difference, costing more money.

You come so close to getting it, then fall back. The key word your entire statement comes in the second sentence. Can. Yes, elected officials can be dependent on labor unions. Just like they can be dependent on other groups of donors. The problem is in thinking this makes public employees unique. It does not. There are tons of groups in society who support candidates looking for protection and aid in event of that candidate's victory. The government can't force you to pay money, unless that's the will of the voters in the district. We have a representative form of government.

On work rules, we agree that the process of hiring/firing public employees could use some streamlining. I'm sure we'd disagree over the level, but that's an issue for another day/thread.

Public unions have a monopoly position that gives them undue influence due to collective bargaining and the gov.s constraints in what they can or cannot do, they cannot terminate the contract ( ala walker) and turn to another supplier as they could with a private supplier.

and..



private sector unions and private companies negotiate over dividing private profits, it is an adversarial relationship. Public sector unions negotiate with politicians who want their votes over how to divide money that belongs to the taxpayer. It's party1 and party2 agreeing on how to divide money from party3, with no input from party3. Ask Milton Freidman how that works out.

Reason TV...

Yep. it's nothing but money laundering that gives the Unions more power than they deserve quite frankly.

And odd that Statists here decry 'corporations'...but what are unions but corporations unto themselves? "Big Labour"?

 

[Polk]

You come so close to getting it, then fall back. The key word your entire statement comes in the second sentence. Can. Yes, elected officials can be dependent on labor unions. Just like they can be dependent on other groups of donors. The problem is in thinking this makes public employees unique. It does not. There are tons of groups in society who support candidates looking for protection and aid in event of that candidate's victory. The government can't force you to pay money, unless that's the will of the voters in the district. We have a representative form of government.

On work rules, we agree that the process of hiring/firing public employees could use some streamlining. I'm sure we'd disagree over the level, but that's an issue for another day/thread.

Public unions have a monopoly position that gives them undue influence due to collective bargaining and the gov.s constraints in what they can or cannot do, they cannot terminate the contract ( ala walker) and turn to another supplier as they could with a private supplier.

and..



private sector unions and private companies negotiate over dividing private profits, it is an adversarial relationship. Public sector unions negotiate with politicians who want their votes over how to divide money that belongs to the taxpayer. It's party1 and party2 agreeing on how to divide money from party3, with no input from party3. Ask Milton Freidman how that works out.

Reason TV...

Yep. it's nothing but money laundering that gives the Unions more power than they deserve quite frankly.

And odd that Statists here decry 'corporations'...but what are unions but corporations unto themselves? "Big Labour"?

If you had read the thread, you'd notice I've been pretty direct in comparing the jocking of unions and corporations for state influence. I'd also note I haven't "decr[ied]" either. I see nothing wrong with both firms and individuals jockeying for the position that will benefit them the most.

 

[martybegan]

And politicians who are supported by a major corporation will go easy on regulations that could harm that corporation. The key claim being made here is that workers should have to play by a different set of rules than firms.

As for the work rules issue, that's one that's independent from the existence of unions. There is nothing to stop the state from eliminating those provisions in negotiations.

Its only government workers that have to play by a different set of rules, just like companies that work directly for the government have to follow a different set of rules as well. The reason is that the people we "hire" to negotiate the best deal possible as taxpayers are the same people who can be dependent on the unions to keep them in office. At the same time the goverment is the only business that can force you to pay for the increases in its costs. Most other coprorations exept ultilites, and they are regulated will pay the price of you not buying thier stuff if the cost for thier services/items goes too high. Not government, they can tax you all they want and your only way to fight back is basically to move away.

And the work rule issue to me is the key of the whole thing. Its one of the easier things the politicians can agree to help out the union during negotations, creates situation where you need too many people to do a given task, and protects the worst employees by making it easier to bury them in some hidden job than fire them. This forces you to hire more people, or use overtime to make up the difference, costing more money.

You come so close to getting it, then fall back. The key word your entire statement comes in the second sentence. Can. Yes, elected officials can be dependent on labor unions. Just like they can be dependent on other groups of donors. The problem is in thinking this makes public employees unique. It does not. There are tons of groups in society who support candidates looking for protection and aid in event of that candidate's victory. The government can't force you to pay money, unless that's the will of the voters in the district. We have a representative form of government.

On work rules, we agree that the process of hiring/firing public employees could use some streamlining. I'm sure we'd disagree over the level, but that's an issue for another day/thread.

What is missing from your statement is the fact that not all voters vote. The problem is in local elections groups such as public unions can get a larger percentage of thier people to vote, not only to actually come to the polls, but to vote to support those who will support them. This skews thier influence from one person one vote.

The big difference still comes from the fact that other entities such a corporations, or even private unions lack the direct connection of politician to unionized worker. One is the boss, the other the worker. You get a situation where the boss is much more reliant on the worker than the customer for his continued positon. Take a look at a place like New York. Even the Democratic governor realizes the situation is insane.

 

[The T]

Public unions have a monopoly position that gives them undue influence due to collective bargaining and the gov.s constraints in what they can or cannot do, they cannot terminate the contract ( ala walker) and turn to another supplier as they could with a private supplier.

and..



private sector unions and private companies negotiate over dividing private profits, it is an adversarial relationship. Public sector unions negotiate with politicians who want their votes over how to divide money that belongs to the taxpayer. It's party1 and party2 agreeing on how to divide money from party3, with no input from party3. Ask Milton Freidman how that works out.

Reason TV...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je3UT7ol1JY&feature=player_embedded

Yep. it's nothing but money laundering that gives the Unions more power than they deserve quite frankly.

And odd that Statists here decry 'corporations'...but what are unions but corporations unto themselves? "Big Labour"?

If you had read the thread, you'd notice I've been pretty direct in comparing the jocking of unions and corporations for state influence. I'd also note I haven't "decr[ied]" either. I see nothing wrong with both firms and individuals jockeying for the position that will benefit them the most.

Are you admitting that you are a Statist? I wasn't addressing your post but commenting on Trajan's post.

 

[martybegan]

You guys keep missing the key point. There is input from "Party 3". They're called elections.

That's also the reason why public employees and state/local governments have an adversarial relationship. If they did not, you'd see public sector pay which far outstrips private sector pay. That's not the case.

You keep going back to pay, and its not all about that. its about not paying for benefits. Its about not being able to get rid of incompetent people after a few years. its about not being able to get rid of work rules that have been outdated for 40 years.

I made the point in another thread, due to the fact that not all people vote, the unions have undue influence in local elections. As the members have a vetted self interest, they usually vote in greater numbers, as well as vote for those who will take care of them. Add in places like NY where there if no effective option past the democrat the local party foists upon you, and you have the situation we have now.

 

[editec]

It really is shocking & appalling once you realize how many $Billions Public Unions have spent over the years lobbying Government to raise Taxes. They should probably be prosecuted for Rape. It's very sad.

I agree.

NO UNION ought to be contributing to campaigns.

Likewise, NO CORPORATION of any kind ought to have that right,

So you agree with that, Lib?

 

[Trajan]

You guys keep missing the key point. There is input from "Party 3". They're called elections.

exactly and the dems from the Wisconsin senate need to come back and vote...right?

That's also the reason why public employees and state/local governments have an adversarial relationship.

if they did, we would not be here discussing this. how do they have an adversarial relationship?

If they did not, you'd see public sector pay which far outstrips private sector pay. That's not the case.

did you watch the video? apparently not.

 

[Polk]

Its only government workers that have to play by a different set of rules, just like companies that work directly for the government have to follow a different set of rules as well. The reason is that the people we "hire" to negotiate the best deal possible as taxpayers are the same people who can be dependent on the unions to keep them in office. At the same time the goverment is the only business that can force you to pay for the increases in its costs. Most other coprorations exept ultilites, and they are regulated will pay the price of you not buying thier stuff if the cost for thier services/items goes too high. Not government, they can tax you all they want and your only way to fight back is basically to move away.

And the work rule issue to me is the key of the whole thing. Its one of the easier things the politicians can agree to help out the union during negotations, creates situation where you need too many people to do a given task, and protects the worst employees by making it easier to bury them in some hidden job than fire them. This forces you to hire more people, or use overtime to make up the difference, costing more money.

You come so close to getting it, then fall back. The key word your entire statement comes in the second sentence. Can. Yes, elected officials can be dependent on labor unions. Just like they can be dependent on other groups of donors. The problem is in thinking this makes public employees unique. It does not. There are tons of groups in society who support candidates looking for protection and aid in event of that candidate's victory. The government can't force you to pay money, unless that's the will of the voters in the district. We have a representative form of government.

On work rules, we agree that the process of hiring/firing public employees could use some streamlining. I'm sure we'd disagree over the level, but that's an issue for another day/thread.

What is missing from your statement is the fact that not all voters vote. The problem is in local elections groups such as public unions can get a larger percentage of thier people to vote, not only to actually come to the polls, but to vote to support those who will support them. This skews thier influence from one person one vote.

The big difference still comes from the fact that other entities such a corporations, or even private unions lack the direct connection of politician to unionized worker. One is the boss, the other the worker. You get a situation where the boss is much more reliant on the worker than the customer for his continued positon. Take a look at a place like New York. Even the Democratic governor realizes the situation is insane.

Choosing to not vote is, in itself, a choice. Stating that unions are different from corporations in the sense that they have a direct connection to workers is a fair point, though I'd argue it's not the most meaningful part of their political activity (unionization is higher in the most liberal parts of the nation, and even then, union households roughly 60-40 for the Democrats). The much bigger role of labor unions in the political discourse is as a fundraising asset for the Democratic Party.

 

[Polk]

Yep. it's nothing but money laundering that gives the Unions more power than they deserve quite frankly.

And odd that Statists here decry 'corporations'...but what are unions but corporations unto themselves? "Big Labour"?

If you had read the thread, you'd notice I've been pretty direct in comparing the jocking of unions and corporations for state influence. I'd also note I haven't "decr[ied]" either. I see nothing wrong with both firms and individuals jockeying for the position that will benefit them the most.

Are you admitting that you are a Statist? I wasn't addressing your post but commenting on Trajan's post.

I'm sure you'd refer to me as one, which would be the relevant point here.

 

[Polk]

You guys keep missing the key point. There is input from "Party 3". They're called elections.

exactly and the dems from the Wisconsin senate need to come back and vote...right?

No. They're using a perfectly valid parliamentary procedure to block a vote. It's no different from the Republicans filibustering everything that moved in Washington for the last four years.

That's also the reason why public employees and state/local governments have an adversarial relationship.

if they did, we would not be here discussing this. how do they have an adversarial relationship?

If they did not, you'd see public sector pay which far outstrips private sector pay. That's not the case.

did you watch the video? apparently not.

Heritage can make all the claims they won't, but that doesn't make them true.