Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Are Government Employee Labor Unions Legal?
Maceman

Posted on 07/01/2005 12:29:19 PM PDT by Maceman

Allowing government employees to unionize is a bad idea whose time is long past.

I can understand, though not buy into, the logic of believing that people need labor unions to give them protection against the overwhelming economic and political power of their evil, greedy capitalist overlords.

But even if one buys this argument, that logic breaks down with respect to government employee unions.

I mean, given that government is the source of all good for all the people, what justification is there for believing that government employees would need protection from the power of their benevolent government?

Who are these government employees really bargaining with? The answer is: We the People.

Do these employees need protection from the overwhelming power of We The People? Are WE THE PEOPLE going to screw them over without unions?

Well, I don't know the answer. But I do know that at the negotiating table, right now it's WE THE PEOPLE who are getting it up the tuchus.

Government employees generally have job security, generous and irrevocable benefit packages, enviable vacation allowances, and in many cases are legally exempt from the laws (i.e. Social Security) that the government has imposed on the rest of WE THE PEOPLE.

When it comes to compensation, private sector employees don't do so nearly so well in comparison, mainly because no private commercial enterprise can survive long-term mismanagement and uneconomic cost structures.

But government has no such constraints in a term politically short of ten years, which is to say, from a practical political standpoint, forever.

Moreover, the government employees have practical day to day control of the operational levers that control government power.

The union/government coalition of France is instructive regarding the extent and the tragedy of such power.

So we need to change the template. We need to reframe the proposition that it is the govenrment employees who must be protected from the power of WE THE PEOPLE.

The truth is just the opposite: It is WE THE PEOPLE who need protection from the government employee unions, because THEY are the ones who enjoy the overwhelming economic and political power in our relationship with them.

I am not saying that government employees are not skilled and dedicated people, or that they don't deserve to be fairly compensated for their efforts.

But that is also true of employees in the private sector, and they don't get the same power, perks and job security protections as government employees.

When one looks at the 20th century history of Organized Labor and government, it is clear that government employee unions have successfully exercised often overwhelming influence on the outcomes of elections, and in passing or defeating key legislation outside of their compensation issues.

The power of the NEA to dictate the curriculum in our public schools is Exhibit Numero Uno for my case.

It is time that WE THE PEOPLE begin to reconsider whether government employee unions should enjoy such obvious power and prosperity, or whether we ought not pass legislation to severely limit and eventually eliminate the power of organized labor in government employment.

The transition from what we have now to a union-free government workforce will undoubtedly take a long time and be an incremental process.

But our nation needs to move in this direction, whether in baby steps or giant steps.

Government employee unions are a 20th century relic of a by-gone Progressive era. Their continued operation will not serve well the interests of WE THE PEOPLE in the coming few decades.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: governmentemployees; organizedlabor; unions

1 posted on 07/01/2005 12:29:20 PM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Maceman

If it's any consolation, the Gov't Employees Union I belong to has never done anything to benefit me that I can tell.


2 posted on 07/01/2005 12:31:43 PM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

3 posted on 07/01/2005 12:33:38 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite

It takes your dues money and contributes to cam- I mean issue oriented groups of interest to organized labor.


4 posted on 07/01/2005 12:36:58 PM PDT by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite
If it's any consolation, the Gov't Employees Union I belong to has never done anything to benefit me that I can tell.

Well then, why are you a member?

5 posted on 07/01/2005 12:38:41 PM PDT by Maceman (The Qur'an is Qur'ap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
For the same reason it's legal for those who live off the government to vote - gov't employees, pensioners, welfare recipients, etc.

It's a clear conflict of interest, but who cares, right?

6 posted on 07/01/2005 12:40:00 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

I beleive in free association, so if a group of employees wants to get together and try to collectively bargain, they have every right to. So long as their demands are not to excessive, there is a point at which an employer wants to give in to keep the workers happy and not have the cost of them all quitting and haveing to re-train new workers. In essence, I beleive in freedom on both the side of the company and the workers. There should be no laws either for or against unions one way or another.


7 posted on 07/01/2005 12:44:09 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
This is the very question I posed to a well connected person from the Washington area. It was felt that the question had probably been tried in some court some time or another. We couldn't find one case.

IMHO Government Unions are unconstitutional as We The People pay their salaries and they can vote as a block against us and for all the above reasons.

8 posted on 07/01/2005 12:48:44 PM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve8714; Maceman

Well, actually, they don't take any dues from me. Somebody must be paying them, but it's not me.


9 posted on 07/01/2005 12:56:16 PM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

I am a federal employee. I have no idea why some federal employees feel they need a union. I've never joined the local at my place, and never will.


10 posted on 07/01/2005 12:58:24 PM PDT by GreenHornet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
Having worked in the government the unions are there for the purpose of making the people who run the unions rich and to support the democrat party. They use union dues to make political hay for the democrats. That is why the democrats are so vocal about more government workers the more GS employees the more money in the political coffers of the people who support the democrats. Their pay is decided by congress. So what does the union do, except make money for the union bosses and to support the democrat party???????
11 posted on 07/01/2005 12:58:35 PM PDT by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
There should be no laws either for or against unions one way or another.

Well, right now there an awful lot of laws that favor the interests of the public employee unions.

12 posted on 07/01/2005 1:03:00 PM PDT by Maceman (The Qur'an is Qur'ap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abram; Alexander Rubin; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
13 posted on 07/01/2005 1:08:26 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
It's one of the many bad decisions made by JFK, so that the Democrats could to add to their built-in constituency.
14 posted on 07/01/2005 1:16:36 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
For the same reason it's legal for those who live off the government to vote - gov't employees, pensioners, welfare recipients, etc. It's a clear conflict of interest, but who cares, right?

I care. I don't think anyone who lives off taxpayers should be allowed to vote, except the military.

15 posted on 07/01/2005 1:33:37 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Rodney, you are completely and totally wrong. There is nothing 'free' about a union. It is organized thuggery that has no place in our government, our schools, or frankly anywhere in our free nation. Let's be clear about what the union is. It is THE mechanism for Socialist governence and the tool of our enemies.

Like our friends from behind the former Iron Curtain who love Democracy because they have seen the evil tyranny of Communism, I grew up in Union country, and have seen first hand the oppression that it brings. The rotten smell of socialism clings to our unionist leftys as they work to destroy the foundations of our freedom.

Go down to your local free paper rack and pick up a pro-union rag. It will become quite clear to you where their loyalties lie. The author of this article is exactly right. There is NO PLACE FOR UNIONS IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT!


16 posted on 07/01/2005 1:46:04 PM PDT by Bart Mann (Defense of virtue is not extremism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bart Mann

If I kept my daughter out of school I would be arrested for depriving her of an education. So why can teachers hold her education hostage by striking and not suffer the same fate?


17 posted on 07/01/2005 1:49:28 PM PDT by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

5 U.S.C. Chapter 71

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 7101 Findings and purpose

(a) The Congress finds that—
(1) experience in both private and public employment indicates that the statutory protection of the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them—
(A) safeguards the public interest,
(B) contributes to the effective conduct of public business, and

(C) facilitates and encourages the amicable settlements of disputes between employees and their employers involving conditions of employment; and

2) the public interest demands the highest standards of employee performance and the continued development and implementation of modern and progressive work practices to facilitate and improve employee performance and the efficient accomplishment of the operations of the Government. Therefore, labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest.


18 posted on 07/01/2005 2:10:20 PM PDT by lOKKI (You can ignore reality until it bites you in the ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT

Yep its an ugly ugly circle. Unions pay Democratic politicians campaign contributions. When the Democrats win they give big benefit increases to the government unions. Which then means more money coming into the Democratic party campaigns.

The Democrats then also move to expand the percentage of the population working the government as much as possible. Not only out of their love of communism, but it then is more workers to skim campaign contributions.. and in many cases outright bribes from.

You then also have a growing percentage of the population which is either directly working in the government or who has a spouse or some family member in the government. So anyone who wants to cut the government faces severe hostility from a large percentage of the population. As it is their families livelihood on the line.

No democracy in the world that I know of, is the government getting smaller as a percentage of the economy. It keeps growing out of control.. the only limitation comes eventually when like in old Europe it begins choking the rest of the economy so badly that it can no longer support the increases in wages and benefits to government workers, let alone new government workers.


19 posted on 07/01/2005 2:19:26 PM PDT by ran15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
So long as their demands are not to excessive...

dude... when govt employee get better medical and retirment bennifits than the AVERAGE working stiff... THAT IS EXCESSIVE in my book!!!

20 posted on 07/01/2005 2:22:23 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
I agree but getting rid of them will be like convinceing a grown adult male to get circumsized.. Unless he be very very dumb.!. You'd have put a staight jacket on him and then hog tie him to a tree.. and the noise that ensued after that, during the operation, would scare a Komodo Dragon..

They would yell and grunt like starving pigs..
On second thought.. sounds like a good idea for a bill..
The drama queens fainting would be worth it just to see it..

21 posted on 07/01/2005 2:27:44 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed me to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lOKKI
the public interest demands the highest standards of employee performance and the continued development and implementation of modern and progressive work practices to facilitate and improve employee performance and the efficient accomplishment of the operations of the Government.

I think history has proven that unions encourage the exact opposite!

22 posted on 07/01/2005 2:30:54 PM PDT by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lOKKI
This is very, very different than the National Labor Relations Act (applicable to private employment) which gives employees the right to engage in "Section 7" activities (organize and bargain collectively) and also protects their right to refrain from such activity. In my opinion, the problem with collective bargaining rights in the public sector is that "management" doesn't have the same incentives to run the organization in an efficient and cost effective manner as in the private sector. Hence, the tendency is give in to exorbitant demands for the sake of labor "peace", since the only adverse outcome is that someone else (i.e., the elected officials) will simply raise taxes. The "enterprise" will not be driven out of business if management doesn't behave responsibly. The assumption behind the NLRA, that collective bargaining or the threat thereof is necessary to balance the power of labor vs. managment, doesn't really apply.
23 posted on 07/01/2005 3:28:51 PM PDT by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite

Good.


24 posted on 07/02/2005 7:14:16 AM PDT by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson