The real issues with Public Sector Unions

[martybegan]

As a disclaimer, I work for a firm that does consulting work for a government agency. (Environmental Engineering).

While the whole Wisconsin thing has brought the debate over unionization of public sector workers to the forefront, The debate really does not go into the structural issues of the problems with unions for goverment employees. As stated above, I work for a company that does goverment contract work. This gives me what I belive to be an insight into some of the issues found in goverment work and unionization.

To me the biggest problem is not with the unions themselves, but on the effects they have on elected officals. This is far more prevalent at the local level than the federal. Lets go with a comparison to a car manufacturer, with union workers. Here the union's goal is to ge the most compensation for its people. There is a limit however, and the union knows this, on how far it can go. If it makes it too expensive for the owner to sell the cars it makes, the owner goes out of business, and the people lose thier jobs. Thus a balancing act is created. The owners want to make as much money for thier stockholders as possible, the union wants to make as much money for its workers as possible, but both do not want the whole thing to go out of business.

This balancing act is not seen in government. People can not simply go to another service provider for basic goverment services. You create a permenent clientele, short of people actually moving out of the municipality. In effect the company can not go out of business, because there is no competition for the services provided. Furthermore, the goverment can basically set the costs of those services via taxes, and short of voting said people out, there is not much that can be done.

Here is where the concept of public sector unions as currently set up runs into trouble, particularly in areas where there is a larger portion of the workers employed by said goverments. The unions here gain enough power to sway elections. This creates a situation where politicans need to rely on the support of the very people they employ to get into office. At this point the balance you have in a private sector worker/owner relationship is basically non existant. It becomes easier for the politicans to give the unions what they want, instead of doing what is right for thier customers (taxpayers.) This leads to increased budget issues, which leads to more taxes.

The other issue is that todays unions have run out of the basic things to fight for. They have the 40/35 hour workweek, they have overtime, and benefits. At this point all they can go for is wage increases, not based on senority or position, but just increases for increases sake, and protecting archaic work rules, with lower productivity. Work rules exist in private unions, but they still fall under need to keep up productivity, as if they cut it down too much, the company goes out of business, and everyone loses. This need to keep up productivity is largely abesent from public jobs. Again, they really cannot lose thier customers.

The final issue I see is how unproductive people are dealt with. Private unions do have protections in place to stop people from being fired for arbitrary reasons, but in the end, they still have to abide by the need to work efficently to produce a product, so (again) the company does not go out of business, and everyone loses thier jobs.

In the public sector, the way to handle unproductive people is to basically find them some position where thier perfromance does not affect things too much. Trying to get rid of someone once they are in is next to impossible. It is actually easier to layoff people indiscrimiately then to get rid of one person who is terrible at thier job. This then requires the people who actually care about thier jobs to work harder, use overtime, and basically cover for those who dont work.

What is the solution to this? I'm not really sure, but it has to start somewhere. I think banning all unionization in public sector work is a rash move, but something has to be done. Making it easier to get more productivity out of public sector workers would probably be a start.

 

[WillowTree]

The Gov. want the union members to pay more toward their pensions and toward the health care, he wants to limit their collective bargaining powers to "wages" only. It's either that or a massive layoff.

 

[martybegan]

The Gov. want the union members to pay more toward their pensions and toward the health care, he wants to limit their collective bargaining powers to "wages" only. It's either that or a massive layoff.

The area I feel he is over reaching with is the trying to stop the union from collecting dues, and with the whole having to certify every year. Those moves just look petty.

The limiting of the bargaining power to wages only is basically adresssing my last few points about inane work rules.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Gov. want the union members to pay more toward their pensions and toward the health care, he wants to limit their collective bargaining powers to "wages" only. It's either that or a massive layoff.

The area I feel he is over reaching with is the trying to stop the union from collecting dues, and with the whole having to certify every year. Those moves just look petty.

The limiting of the bargaining power to wages only is basically adresssing my last few points about inane work rules.

The way I understood it was the governor was for letting people choose whether or not to join a union and pay dues, not that the union couldn't collect dues.

 

[washamericom]

this whole epic in wisconson reminds me of tailgunner joe, the red scare and a good dose of mccarthyism

 

[whitehall]

You can't get blood from a stone. It's human nature to demand more money and more benefits but what happens when the state runs out? If the public sector unions continue to demand more money sooner or later workers get laid off and services go down hill or chaos reigns. That's what Wisconsin and a lot of other states are facing. It's incomprehensible that teachers have the nerve to demand more money and benefits when everyone knows the public school education is sub-standard.

 

[WillowTree]

The Gov. want the union members to pay more toward their pensions and toward the health care, he wants to limit their collective bargaining powers to "wages" only. It's either that or a massive layoff.

The area I feel he is over reaching with is the trying to stop the union from collecting dues, and with the whole having to certify every year. Those moves just look petty.

The limiting of the bargaining power to wages only is basically adresssing my last few points about inane work rules.

Collecting dues from everyone? Including those who really don't want to belong to a union and pay dues? He wants a right to work state. I see nothing wrong with that. I thought libruls were all about "the right to chosse".

 

[barry1960]

The Gov. want the union members to pay more toward their pensions and toward the health care, he wants to limit their collective bargaining powers to "wages" only. It's either that or a massive layoff.

It would be easier to respect the governor's position if it included all public unions, but he is exempting law enforcement since he received their support in the election.

 

[washamericom]

The Gov. want the union members to pay more toward their pensions and toward the health care, he wants to limit their collective bargaining powers to "wages" only. It's either that or a massive layoff.

It would be easier to respect the governor's position if it included all public unions, but he is exempting law enforcement since he received their support in the election.

so ?

 

[WillowTree]

The Gov. want the union members to pay more toward their pensions and toward the health care, he wants to limit their collective bargaining powers to "wages" only. It's either that or a massive layoff.

It would be easier to respect the governor's position if it included all public unions, but he is exempting law enforcement since he received their support in the election.

and this means we don't have to respect democrats position cause they received union support.. is this a correct assumption?

 

[WillowTree]

obie wan passed a health care bill he expects us all to follow except for the 700 he exempted.(lots of unions). are we supposed to respect obie wan's position? arewehuh?

 

[martybegan]

The Gov. want the union members to pay more toward their pensions and toward the health care, he wants to limit their collective bargaining powers to "wages" only. It's either that or a massive layoff.

The area I feel he is over reaching with is the trying to stop the union from collecting dues, and with the whole having to certify every year. Those moves just look petty.

The limiting of the bargaining power to wages only is basically adresssing my last few points about inane work rules.

The way I understood it was the governor was for letting people choose whether or not to join a union and pay dues, not that the union couldn't collect dues.

Its that, and then the union would have to collect dues outside of the payroll system. Just like taxes, its easier to have it deducted from your paycheck then to actually have to write a check.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The area I feel he is over reaching with is the trying to stop the union from collecting dues, and with the whole having to certify every year. Those moves just look petty.

The limiting of the bargaining power to wages only is basically adresssing my last few points about inane work rules.

The way I understood it was the governor was for letting people choose whether or not to join a union and pay dues, not that the union couldn't collect dues.

Its that, and then the union would have to collect dues outside of the payroll system. Just like taxes, its easier to have it deducted from your paycheck then to actually have to write a check.

Payroll deduction isn't the issue. Payroll systems allow for deduction of union dues just like they allow for deductions to be setup for 401(k)/403(b)'s, insurance, etc... (any voluntary benefit).

The change is to being a "closed shop" situation where dues is taken automatically from every employee instead of being elected voluntarily by the employee. Moving to a voluntary joining of the union does not preclude having payroll deduction for your dues if you so choose.

Here in Virginia we are a "right to work" state and employment contracts are not negotiated by the teachers union, joining the union is voluntary, and if you so choose you can have dues payroll deducted. (It's just another voluntary deduction setup by the employer.)

Dues would not have to be collected "outside the payroll" system, however it could be voluntary instead of mandatory.


>>>>

 

[Flopper]

Collective bargaining is a good idea and should not be restricted. There is really only two ways a union can press it's demands, either collective bargaining or work stoppage. Strikes hurt everyone, management, employees, and customers. Without collective bargaining, contracts become difficult or impossible and without contracts, the organization is susceptible to wildcat strikes at anytime.

There are a number of effective ways for government to break the back of unions, if that is what's desired. Restricting collective bargaining is not one of them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The area I feel he is over reaching with is the trying to stop the union from collecting dues, and with the whole having to certify every year. Those moves just look petty.

The limiting of the bargaining power to wages only is basically adresssing my last few points about inane work rules.

The way I understood it was the governor was for letting people choose whether or not to join a union and pay dues, not that the union couldn't collect dues.

Its that, and then the union would have to collect dues outside of the payroll system. Just like taxes, its easier to have it deducted from your paycheck then to actually have to write a check.

Why should a company take on the costs of collecting dues for a union?

 

[Flopper]

The way I understood it was the governor was for letting people choose whether or not to join a union and pay dues, not that the union couldn't collect dues.

Its that, and then the union would have to collect dues outside of the payroll system. Just like taxes, its easier to have it deducted from your paycheck then to actually have to write a check.

Why should a company take on the costs of collecting dues for a union?

They shouldn't unless it's part of a collecting bargaining agreement.

 

[barry1960]

The Gov. want the union members to pay more toward their pensions and toward the health care, he wants to limit their collective bargaining powers to "wages" only. It's either that or a massive layoff.

It would be easier to respect the governor's position if it included all public unions, but he is exempting law enforcement since he received their support in the election.

and this means we don't have to respect democrats position cause they received union support.. is this a correct assumption?

You have made an incorrect assumption.

What I mean is that the governor's position is that the state is in a deficit and that the public employees are a significant expense which must be cut back. These expenses include their benefit package along with their retirement. The strategy is to cut the benefits of these employees now, eliminate their collective bargaining, so that future cuts will be easy to make as the need arises. However, if Wisconsin is like just about every other state, then law enforcement also enjoys generous benefits, probably much more generous than other public employees with regards to retirement. Their retirement is earlier at a greater percentage of salary. So excluding them makes no sense, if your stated reason for cutting public employees is to balance the budget. If public employee retirements are too generous and cannot be sustained, why omit the law enforcement officers?

 

[Toro]

What is the solution to this? I'm not really sure, but it has to start somewhere. I think banning all unionization in public sector work is a rash move, but something has to be done. Making it easier to get more productivity out of public sector workers would probably be a start.

Hi.

I am an investment professional. I worked in a government agency for years. I added a couple hundred million dollars in value to my agency. That's real hard money, audited and everything. I was paid a government salary. In the private sector, someone who had done what I did would have been paid millions of dollars. Please send me a check for my productivity. Thanks.

 

[Tea Bag Partier]

As a disclaimer, I work for a firm that does consulting work for a government agency. (Environmental Engineering).

snip
What is the solution to this? I'm not really sure, but it has to start somewhere. I think banning all unionization in public sector work is a rash move, but something has to be done. Making it easier to get more productivity out of public sector workers would probably be a start.

Marty, full disclaimer: I've worked in both the private sector and the public sector. I've made millions of dollars for stockholders, and I've also worked in the public interest. I've enjoyed both styles of work.

And you know what one of the biggest wastes of tax money I've seen is ? The consulting fees to consultants who land a government contract. Almost all of the crap we got from consultants was next to useless, and we could have done it better - and cheaper - ourselves. Not to say your company is riding the taxpayer gravy train, or that your company provides an inferior product. Maybe you guys are doing great work, and services to the tax payer.

But there's that government contracting thing has as much waste, if not more, than some firefighters salary. Hello, Halliburton? Kellog Brown and Root?


I have easy and simple answers for your queries.

Make elections publicly financed. Then you don't have to worry if unions are influencing campaigns, or if corporations are influencing gravy train government contracts.

Unless one just wants to get rid of unions for emotional and ideological reasons, it really is that simple. I believe there are already a number of states that have publicly financed campaigns. Its not rocket science.

 

[martybegan]

As a disclaimer, I work for a firm that does consulting work for a government agency. (Environmental Engineering).

snip
What is the solution to this? I'm not really sure, but it has to start somewhere. I think banning all unionization in public sector work is a rash move, but something has to be done. Making it easier to get more productivity out of public sector workers would probably be a start.

Marty, full disclaimer: I've worked in both the private sector and the public sector. I've made millions of dollars for stockholders, and I've also worked in the public interest. I've enjoyed both styles of work.

And you know what one of the biggest wastes of tax money I've seen is ? The consulting fees to consultants who land a government contract. Almost all of the crap we got from consultants was next to useless, and we could have done it better - and cheaper - ourselves. Not to say your company is riding the taxpayer gravy train, or that your company provides an inferior product. Maybe you guys are doing great work, and services to the tax payer.

But there's that government contracting thing has as much waste, if not more, than some firefighters salary. Hello, Halliburton? Kellog Brown and Root?


I have easy and simple answers for your queries.

Make elections publicly financed. Then you don't have to worry if unions are influencing campaigns, or if corporations are influencing gravy train government contracts.

Unless one just wants to get rid of unions for emotional and ideological reasons, it really is that simple. I believe there are already a number of states that have publicly financed campaigns. Its not rocket science.

I agree that some forms of consulting are very very wasteful. Look at the city time clusterfuck as an example in NYC.

The use of consultants in my line of work is more that the city doesnt want to have its own Engineering Design/Construction managment teams, at least enough to cover all the jobs being done. I think the core reason is that keeping that many engineers on the public payroll is far to expensive, and the fact that if a consultant sucks they can get rid of them without all the pain that comes with hiring civil servants.

The other advantage is that you transfer the overhead costs to someone else, as well as only hiring the specialties you actually need. For example, you are coring a water tunnel, it take 10 years. At the end you dont need tunnel people anymore. if you contracted it out, those people leave and you go on with life. if you hire them as city workers, getting rid of them is next to impossible, and you are stuck with tunnel experts with no tunnels to make.