Skip to comments.Should public sector workers have the right to unionize?
Posted on 02/22/2011 12:27:41 AM PST by HMS Surprise
INDIANAPOLIS Over the howls of hundreds who are gathering at the Statehouse to protest, Republican state lawmakers are pushing forward this week with several measures that reduce the influence of organized labor.
Funding for unions could suffer a blow under the most controversial of those bills one that would allow workers at all Indiana businesses to choose not to pay union membership dues. Proponents call it "right to work," and a House committee endorsed it Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at courierpress.com ...
HELL, NO !
There is no need for adherence to realistic pay schedules when the employer is the government, which doesn’t have to abide by the same rules as business.
If the government overpays people, they do so with OPM (other people’s money) and are immune to immediate (or even eventual) correction by market forces.
imagine if the kids have the ability to create an union against their parents.
They can go politicking all they want, but on their own time please.
Hell, NO too!
Collective bargaining as defined from a piece by Mish Shedlock at his blog site:
“direct your attention to Shane Atwell’s rock-solid rationale as to why collective bargaining is extortion.
‘Collective bargaining’ is not what its name indicates. In fact, it means exactly the opposite of what you’d guess. Collective bargaining refers to the obligation of an employer to recognize the elected representatives of a group of workers and his further obligation to negotiate with those representatives. This last part is what makes ‘collective bargaining’ extortion.
Under collective bargaining laws, employers have to recognize an elected union and have to negotiate with them.
Imagine if the tables were turned and employers had the right to ‘employer bargaining’, under which the employer could demand whatever pay reductions or workday increases he wanted, the employees had to negotiate with the employer, and employees couldn’t quit!
[Such an arrangement] could only be classified as slavery.
The right to terminate the employer-employee relationship is a fundamental right of both employer and employee. Employment should be mutually beneficial to employer and employee and open to termination by either when it becomes non-beneficial (limited of course by any voluntary contractual agreements).
Collective bargaining laws have achieved two things for unions and union members. First the negotiations strongly tend in one direction until the employer moves his operations offshore [or to another state not subject to collective bargaining]. This ratcheting is inevitable given that employers are forbidden their ultimate tool: terminating employment.
Second, the misnamed [term] ‘collective bargaining’ has given an aura of moral righteousness to the unions who pretend to be fighting for true American values like the freedom of association. [However], they are fighting for values quite foreign to [the United States], values that come from Marxist collectivism, i.e. the expropriation of the property of employers and the negation of their rights.
[Therefore, wages and benefits garnered under collective bargaining arrangements are fraudulent in nature and should therefore be subject to revision.]
Contact your representatives and urge them to fight collective bargaining. [Please] support ballot initiatives [to restrict or eliminate collective bargaining] when they appear.
Any text in brackets above is mine. Thanks Shane. And good luck to Lanny Ebenstein in his mission to help right the wrongs in California.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock”
50% YES, 49% NO - ONLY 51 VOTES THUS FAR.
No 55% 34
Yes 44% 27
total votes: 61
No they have civil servantr protectiions on top of Sate, Federal and county laws.
“The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the head of the National Federation of Federal Employees. In the private sector, organized employees and the employer meet across the bargaining table as (theoretical) equals.
But in the public sector, said FDR, “the employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.” Allowing public-employee unions to engage in collective bargaining would mean opening the door to the manipulation of government policy by a privileged private interest.
Well, it’s even worse than that when it comes to public employees. They’re saying that they have a right to negotiate with/coerce the elected representatives of We the People.
That’s not republican self-government. It’s something else entirely.
Don’t the tax payers pay for a large portion of their health care?
“Unions” imply strikes, and public workers should not be allowed to strike.
The idea of “working for the public” means something like “working for the greater good”.
I know, I know. Worn out concepts...
Especially when we as taxpayers get no breaks in paying taxes while government workers are out on
The idea of working for the public means something like working for the greater good.
That's the funny thing. If they really do believe they are doing the public a favor, then why take any salary? If these loser non-teachers really believe that they are doing this "for the children" then they should have no problems taking pay cuts or even working for free. Of course, most of us don't think that public sector workers should work for free, but the idea that they should is the logical extension of their mentality of thinking they're doing us all a favor.
Insisting that civilian public sector workers be compensated in a manner similar to the private sector is not asking too much.
No. We can thank John F. Kennedy for this debacle. Public sector unions received a boost in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988, which granted bargaining rights to federal employees. The pace of organizing among all public sector unions subsequently accelerated.
That's my main beef. They shouldn't have more job security than anyone else. They shouldn't have better benefits than the average person who has to pay for their own health care or has to settle for less.
Why should joe average who is scrimping to get by have to pay high taxes just so they can have top benefits? A lot of people are laid off and or having to cut back. Why not them? Plus they get 3 months vacation per year.
Hell if this Keeps up the Unions will need more dues to Bus all The Protestors around the Country!!!!!
Keep it up ,sorry Ineed some Relief I live in Connecticut and we Have a Newly Elected Democrat Governer and Democrat Legislature Forever and we are Getting a 1.5 billion dollar Tax Increase ON EVERYTHING,but dont worry the Gov Is asking the Unions for 1 billion in Concessions which I am Positive he will Get ! HA
NO!!! And I say that as a public employee. (Local govt)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.