Even FDR Understood: No Collective Bargaining for Public Servants
Public servants — meaning government employees — don’t work for greedy miscreants exploiting them for personal profit. They work for democratically elected officials representing the will of the people. This is just one reason why there is no legitimate role for government unions, and there should be no collective bargaining rights for public servants.
Since public servants work for the people, their wages, benefits, and working conditions are set in accordance with the will of the people, as determined by the democratic process. This is why it is not legitimate to ask the people to compromise with public servants in collective bargaining. And this is why the pay, benefits, and working conditions for federal workers are set by acts of Congress, not through collective bargaining.
If public servants do not like the pay, benefits, and working conditions offered to them by the people as determined through the democratic process, nothing requires them to be public servants. This is why public servants are not slaves without collective bargaining, as soon-to-be-unemployed collective bargaining agents have suggested.
Since public servants work for the people, any strike by them would be a strike against the people. The government cannot allow the essential public services it provides to be shut down while it negotiates the pay, benefits, and working conditions for public servants through collective bargaining.
The right of collective bargaining for private sector workers is not at issue in Wisconsin, though the government unions, the Democrats, and President Obama want to confuse the public on precisely that question. Under current law, there are plenty of market and legal checks on private sector unions to keep them from abusing the public. The ultimate limit if they push too far is that their company will be driven out of business. Though that does happen sometimes, it only happens when management fails to do its job in resisting excessive union demands. Otherwise, within current market and legal checks, private sector unions actually perform a helpful market function in ensuring that employers keep up with market wages and working conditions as expeditiously as possible.
Not so for government unions, as governments cannot be driven out of business. They gain their revenue forcibly through taxes. As a result, there is no market limit to how much such unions can milk the public.
Moreover, government unions themselves can choose who negotiates with them on behalf of the people, through their votes and political support. In return for lavish pay and benefits far exceeding private compensation, the unions provide a kickback in campaign contributions and muscle to their political benefactors, financed by the taxpayers. This inherent conflict of interest involved in government unions leads to oppressive political corruption, where there is no political limit as well as no market limit to the plunder of the public by government unions.
What is at stake in Wisconsin is whether public servants work for the American people, or whether the American people work for a “public servant” aristocracy enjoying far greater pay and benefits than the taxpayers who are forced to subsidize them through the above-described political corruption.
These are the reasons why even an ultimate liberal like Franklin Delano Roosevelt agreed with me that there should be no collective bargaining for public servants. As quoted by Michael Walsh in yesterday’s New York Post, Roosevelt said:
All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public-personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people.
Bravo!!! Clear and succinct. Says it all!
Too bad it appears our fellow Americans are too dense to understand the pernicious nature of public sector unions.
Read the polling data and weap!
http://www.pollingreport.com/work.htm
How do we educate a population on the dangers of public sector unions?
Yes, I’ve been trying to explain this to people for over the last five years but no one wanted to take a hard look at their teachers, police and fire fighters as well as all those low profile clerks, as there was this prevalent idea, or even law (propaganda), that these folks were making below private sector wages, that they were sacrificing. Now that people’s eyes are open during this recession and era of dangerous government debt they “want to see the money”, especially where its all gone. And then they watch their public employee neighbor making twice as much for low level work and getting raises and bonuses on top of that. It’s especially bad if they’ve suffered a pay cut or layoff while their pampered public employee neighbor goes on strike. It’s even worse when their greedy public employee neighbor’s illegal strike disrupts public services and costs people even more time and money. But it’s really, really bad when a majority of people vote to stop all this and the guilty party run off because they don’t want to lose their fat campaign contribution cow, thereby making a mockery of democracy, which to them is apparently a “one way” street.
“How do we educate a population on the dangers of public sector unions?”
Too late…
The Commie Teachers Union has ‘dis-educated” 3 generations of citizens already. Thats was the plan, man.
How can a kid in public school today be expected to grasp the relationship between Public Sector Unions and the taxpayes, when their PARENTS never a heroic tale George Washington in a classroom?
They took away all memory of who we once were, so we are now who they want us to be..
The ignorant tax slaves of their Royal Lifestyle….
Distracted with “heroic tales” of multiculturalism, evironmentalism, and grievence industries, masquarading as an “education”, while they laugh all the way to (our!) bank accounts.
The rot is too deep, its over.
Excellent!!! I have been making the same arguments for years though rarely with such clarity.
I live in a hard-core union town dominated by the local Democratic organization. The head of the teacher’s union,the top officers in the local AFSCME branch and the heads of all of the other unions representing public employees are members of the county Democratic Central Committee (not so affectionately known by some as “The Politburo.”) They sit with the same elected officials with whom they negotiate come contract time. It’s an incestuous relationship to say the least. For years our mayors and county commissioners have been giving away the store to the unions even though it was clear that tax collections and other revenues were seriously declining. Now every year brings a fresh “budget crisis” which is patched up by robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul. Needless to say our town is hardly a mecca for new business but the unions remain very happy.
What does the fact that the employers are the taxpayers have to do with the right to unionize? The government is still perfectly capable of taking unfair advantage of employees and taxpayers alike.
Don’t get me wrong. The unions are acting like spoiled children, and I want federal right-to-work laws because there is no way the unions have any moral right to force anyone to pay them dues to keep their jobs. I also think the fleeing Democrats should be really embarrassed. However, I think that some people have a persistent but incorrect belief that average government employees have it much better than they actually do and the fact that they work for the government somehow shields them from any unfair employment practices whatsoever. There are ways for uncaring bosses to trap people in their jobs, and some people have more realistic options than others, so while I think competition for labor is an important factor, I think saying if an employee doesn’t like it he can always leave is a bit of an oversimplification when talking about collective bargaining in and of itself.
The difference between private and public unions is that public unions become a de-facto unelected branch of government. Putting pressure on the owners of a private business so as to get a larger share of the profits is one thing. Creating public union contracts that have greater legal force than the will of the tax payers (as expressed in an election) is completely another. You can vote to fire your congressman. You cannot vote to fire an absolutely horrible tenured public school teacher – the force of the union becomes greater than the will of the taxpayer-employers. There is absolutely nothing the public can do about an awful flunky at the DMV, or at any of a thousand agencies. They no longer work for the people – they work for the union.
The issue with “collective bargaining” is who you are collectively bargaining with.
Very well said! Another aspect of public sector unions is that actual management of the agency or real supervision of employees becomes an impossibility. Every order, directive, task and procedure must first be filtered through the lanaguage of the collective bargaining agreement. If the employee simply dosn’t like his/her assignment or working conditions then they can initiate the almost endless grievance process. As a result most “supervisors” in public agencies just sit on their hands and wait to collect their pensions while trying to present as small a target as possible.
I do agree that in some places there need to better methods for firing people. I also want federal right-to-work laws so that employees are not forced to support the unions; I don’t believe that all employees like the current situation. However, I don’t think getting rid of public sector unions altogether is necessary or even desirable. I think federal right-to-work laws would probably do enough to hold the unions accountable for their behavior.
I think I see and agree with your basic point without agreeing with your solution. It has become clear that in some areas of the public sector, there need to be some better means in place to go about firing people.
I guess the trick is that the government is usually supposed to be the referee and not take sides, but that in the public sector the government is unavoidably on a side. When the unions spend so much money that they receive by unfair means to get politicians elected, nobody is really representing the taxpayers. However, I think federal right-to-work laws or right-to-work laws in every state would cause unions to lose a lot of money and power. Government employees are taxpayers, too, and they also write household budgets, and love their country. The unions, with some of their tactics, also make their own enemies. If right-to-work laws go into place, the system should no longer be rigged and politicians will have to actually represent the taxpayers in union negotiations.
“The government is still perfectly capable of taking unfair advantage of employees and taxpayers alike. ”
Then shouldn’t taxpayers have the same right to band together and demand relief when the government takes unfair advantage of the service we provide (taxes); and if not satisfied, withhold that service? The baseline for our service for each subsequent year, to be fairly aligned with the unions “rights”, should be that taxes must be capped at the prior years level and decline as inflation increases, since taxpayers certainly have as much of a right to be financially solvent as the government workers do.
That would still put taxpayers significantly below government unions, because ultimately, they can quit, but taxpayers can’t quit without taking the burdensome step of physically leaving the jurisdiction.
The fact that a citizen is forced to pay money to the government without the ability to take their business elsewhere if they don’t like how the government is handling it is exactly why I think the government needs to be kept as small as possible. However, I see collective bargaining on the part of public employees to be a separate issue. I don’t think the current system is good, and I think the unions are seriously abusing their power, but I also don’t think limiting the right of free association for civil servants is the answer.
As others have said, if it was simply the privilege of free association, nobody would be complaining.
But when they tax us, form a union, pay union dues with our tax money, bribe elected officials with that money to gain lavish compensation, and disrupt services if they don’t get more the next time….its way beyond free association. It’s crime.
Public unions serve no pupose other than to corrupt the system.
The tax money is being used to hire these people. Once it’s paid in the form of the salary, it’s not your tax money anymore. It’s the money of the employee, to do with as the employee pleases. You can feel that the employee is getting paid more than market value, or just too much, but your tax money is being used to hire the employee only. What the employee does with the money isn’t really your concern.
Where are you getting “bribe”?
If an employee of a private company doesn’t show up to work, is it a crime? If not, how is it a crime for a public employee (such as a teacher or a bureaucrat, somebody whom lives are not depending upon) not to go to work? An employee disciplinary issue, sure, but a crime? Please distinguish forming a union in and of itself from free association.
Anywhere there is an employer-employee relationship, a union can conceivably serve a purpose. Public employees aren’t all the villains they are being discussed as, and I think they should have largely the same rights as their private counterparts. I used to work as a civil servant, and every last person I met worked very hard and did their best. We were pretty much as vulnerable to unfair bosses as everybody else, and the salaries weren’t anywhere near what anti-public sector people like to put up as examples.
Unions confiscate money from their members. Many members have no choice in the matter. It’s a form of theft. That’s crime #1.
Public unions serve the public, yet their dues are used to fund political capaigns, an obvious conflict of interest. That’s crime #2.
The teachers are paid to teach. Like the military, Police and Firefighters, they aren’t paid to come to work when they feel like it. A soldier would be court martialed. That’s crime #3. Lying about it is crime #4.
There is violence and threats of violence at those rallies. That is crime #5.
They are lawless. Criminals. I don’t care if they are little old ladies or not. They are committing crimes and are criminals.
There is no place for unions in the government; as FDR and many others have said. There are no greedy employers to control, no nefarious work conditions to correct; and unions and governement are mutually corruptive. I don’t consider collective bargaining a crime, but makes no sense for government jobs and should be banned as well.
right to unionize
Rule #1 – reject the premise. Sorry, rights come from God and that little gem came from the other side. Not only that, if it was a right it would apply to all 50 and that isn’t true by a long shot.
“What does the fact that the employers are the taxpayers have to do with the right to unionize?”
Its quite simple….In private industries, the “firewall” of Union demands is Profitability in the Marketplace. A union cannot (in theory, at least) DEMAND a business operate at a loss in order to pay them. They cannot (in theory) DEMAND bankrupsy of the Employer as the fair and natural cost their salary. The limit to generosity to a Union in the private sector is tied to an actual, physical, real-word condition.
There is, however, no profit that CAN be generated in Public Unions. They SELL nothing in the market place to offset their COSTS to the employer….there is no measurement of the viability/ sustainability of their salary, as they are simply a “cost”. The Employer can never say to their latest demand, “Impossible, it will now cost more to produce than the item sells for”. The Public Union has no natural limit, no fair or obvious “firewall” with which to attach their demands to reality.
Taxes simply go up, up, and up in order to sustain them. When the tax burden of THIS generation is run beyond its capacity, (even in states with “Balanced Budget” requirements) they simply tax the NEXT generation, by using borrowed Federal Money (‘stimulus”) to pay the Unions TODAY.
There is no accountability. No formula of proportional impact to “the business” No limit. No reality check.
This basic conflict it THE REASON why Public Sector Unions should be outlawed.
Even FDR knew that much
Eventually bankruptcy will help focus a public too easily duped by tearful students in Union ads. The phoney $800 billion in stimulus money went to bailout the Democrat government Workers’ Party. This was nothing but political patronage & plunder on a grand scale. Why did Obama keep expanding the federal payroll & boosting the salaries? Vote buying. No one votes against a great paycheck paid for with printed money.
“No one votes against a great paycheck paid for with printed money”
You mean “other peoples money”…
Taxing my great granchildren tomorrow, to but their votes today
Good article. But in order to be consistent, there also is no reason for police and firefighter unions.
Right! There have always been arbitrators all along the way for grievances by any government employee. If the employee didn’t like the result at one step, they could appeal to the next higher step, and have their grievance reviewed.
And there have always been Veteran Organizations that arbitrated for the Vets, above and beyond the regular process of the grievance process.
Very true – In fact the argument against unionization is even more pronounced with public safety workers. Not only do unionized police and firefighters gain all the advantages of their collective bargaining agreement but they can also play the “hero” card with the public. There isn’t an elected official in the world who wants to be accused of being “soft on crime” or unconcerned with public safety. As a result candidates fall all over themselves courting the police and firefighters unions both for campaign cash and also for the invaluable endorsement of our “heros in uniform.”
BTW – This should not be construed as a slam on police officers and firefighters. Far from it. My father was a cop and he’ll always be a hero to me. However public safety is usually anywhere from forty to seventy percent of the annual budget for a couonty or municipality. Their contracts have more impact on local public finance than any other entity. Under normal conditions they are the last to take a budget hit due to their overall political clout. However that’s changing and a lot of police and fire departments are being forced to re-think their operations to save money. This is not popular with the rank-and-file who are used to doing things their own way.
The full letter written by FDR in 1937 should be required reading for every Fleebagger Democrat.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2675825/posts
After discovering the stimulus money flow in Wisconsin, the Republican and Independent voters are being disenfranchised by the funds being diverted to the public worker unions.
Republican and Independent voters may vote, but their money is spent against them for the support of the Unions and the Democrat Party.
Basically, you can vote any way you want, but your money is used to cancel your vote.
Nice job: clear, concise and well reasoned.
You made two crucial points that bear repeating:
1. Public sector strikes are strikes against the people.
2. Taxpayers are the only ones who are now expected to obey the law.
I just love a good cherry-picked quote! This one is all around the internet these days.
Here’s more from the FDR letter (which A.M Mallet above so kindly provides a link to) :
“The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.”
If you read the whole document, it’s clear that FDR didn’t believe that Government employees shouldn’t be represented by unions, he believed they shouldn’t strike.
But I bet the author knew that.
Yes, but if you can’t strike, then what’s the point of having the union in the first place?
Presenting views is not collective bargaining. Nice try at redirection and changing the subject.
CR: Nice attempt at shifting definitions! If FDR says that they have the right to “organize to present their views” in order to secure reasonable pay, safe working conditions, etc. that seems an awful lot like collective to me.
Oh, and let me guess: you’re just a HUGE admirer of FDR, aren’t you? You SO admire everything he did that you quote him all the time.
Cherrypickers- they’re the pits.
I’ve posted on this issue elsewhere at PJM.
The public service unions MUST be disabled. What has happened over the years is that unions have moved from their original ‘help-the-worker’ in the private sector to their current practice of functioning as massive and wealth-focused Corporations. Unions had a function in the early industrial ‘Charles Dicken’s phase’ where the employer had all the power and the worker had none. That phase is long, long gone – and the rhetoric of ‘Victim’ used by the Public Sector unions is rubbish.
In the private and private sector the aid-to-the worker has been taken over by the govt, with various work regulations, wage scales, worker safety protection etc. When this happened, the unions lost their function – and, the worker’s weren’t interested in them. PLUS, importantly – unions in the private sector bled the companies to the extent that they either bankrupted them (the big auto companies) or the companies left the US to set up in foreign countries. The US worker lost their jobs. The unions …los their dues.
Remember – Unions have only ONE interest. Money. The unions moved into the public sector.
Effectively, unions are giant Corporations. They have one interest: Money. They are also Parasites. They feed off the wages of the workers. Unions produce no goods for sale; they produce no service for sale. They do not operate in the competitive market. So – what are they? In the public sector, the union is actually parasitic on the taxpayers. The unions feed off the taxpayer funded salaries of the civil service.
AND – The unions have set up a Special Set of citizens in the nation (they really can’t be called workers anymore). The Elite. The Ruling Class.
This Special Set are privileged. Their salaries are higher than the private sector; salary increases are double that of the private. Benefits are, in many cases, not paid from their salaries but are EXTRA to their wages and are thus, paid for by the private sector taxpayer. These benefits such as health care, pensions, banking of sickdays, travel costs, computers, care etc etc – are all benefits outside of their wages, outside of taxes – and all, paid by the private sector taxpayer. Can or should the taxpayer fund a Special Set of Workers? Why?
These people are unaccountable, tenured – they can’t be fired. The unions have thus set themselves up as an important Set of the population. The union dues are used, not merely for the Executive and the Special Set, but for political purposes; the Unions buy politicians. The Unions control the Democratic Party – which works to enhance their financial power. This includes higher wages and benefits; it includes releases from various govt programs (such as health care); it includes releases from taxation…and so on.
Unions, which are massive corporations – and which provide no goods or services to the people – take in MILLIONS in dues every year. Millions. They use it to fund themselves – and to buy politicians. So this Elite Class of Employees..uses taxpayer money to set themselves up in incomes unavailable to the private sector – and their subset sidekick, the union, uses the taxpayer to bribe the politicians to continue to favor them.
In return, unionites vote for the Democratic party. That’s why the National Democrats are helping the Wisc. Unions – and why Obama, rejecting the private American citizen, spoke out in support of this Special Set. Because Unions give him a lot of money.
No nation can afford to set up a sector of the population whose membership is so proportionally high to that of the rest of the population (the private sector) – and which is parasitic on the private sector economy.
It has to be broken. These people in this parastic branch of the economy have to return to the real world. And the unions, those massive Corporations, have to be destroyed so that our politicians will be uncorrupted, and made to work for ALL the people of America. Not just a Privileged Set of Parasites.
They do not have a “basic right to unionize” unless you simply mean their right to act in free association.
They have no right not to be fired for any collective or individual action they take to raise their wages.
They have no right to strike. They have no right to force others to join their union or pay their dues. They have no right to be the sole representative of any workers other than those who are part of whatever organization they form.
Public sector unions are anti-democratic, plain and simple. So are private sector unions in non right-to-work states.
I think you meant your post as a reply to #12 Martin Hale. I agree with all your points.
There certainly is no ‘right to unionize’. Or ‘right to strike’. Indeed, freedom of association might mean that a group could form a union, but this same freedom means that others have the right NOT to associate with this same union. At the moment, union membership and dues are compulsory. That’s a violation of the Constitutional right – of freedom of association.
You don’t need a union to discuss wages, salary scales and so on. You don’t need a union taking in MILLIONS in dues every year – to carry out that task. And, then, the union has no right to, on its own, use your dues to support a political party. Your dues are supposed to be spent on work-related issues – not corrupting politicians.
If supporting politicians who’ll kick-back money for public unions were not enough, we seem to be witnessing the growth of an ideological industry that is wholly at odds with capitalism- communism. Was not Stern a self-avowed communist? This Trumpka guy gives one the chills when speaking to an audience.
When taken to excess, public unions with politicians in their pockets create places like California where debt knows no limit. The scale gets tipped and it’s a one-way ride from there, creating a Public Debt bubble that eventually has to pop. Let’s see: Dot.com, housing, and now debt.
Unfortunately, when ‘it’ pops you won’t know if it’ll suck wealth from taxpayers like a black-hole through crushing tax burdens or will unleash a tsunami of freshly minted ‘coin’ that will have the same effect- wiping out wealth by inflating the cost of everything we buy.
It comes as no surprise then, that America’s exceptionalism seems to have come to a grinding halt when collectivist and communitarians(what the heck-”communists”) are chewing it’s leg off.
Speaking as someone trained in and experienced in the dark art of Labour Relations, I’d like to offer a sightly differing opinion.
I would agree with certain limitations on unions in the public sector without taking away the basic right of government employees to unionise and collectively bargain over wages (excluding benefits), hours and conditions of employment.
Specifically, I’m thinking of the following:
- No public employee union involvement in electoral politics or referendum issue voting. No campaign donations; no sponsored political adverts; no volunteer time on campaigns.
- No public employee union benefits above and beyond those offered other government workers.
- No strikes, or labour disruptions by any public employee union.
- All current collective bargaining agreements voided and all public pension plans dissolved.
These steps would allow public employees to organise and collectively bargain without creating the current conflicts of interest which are hurting our public sector operations.
“the basic right of government employees to unionise ”
Funny, I pay their salary and I don’t recall giving government employees that basic right.
And since when has the ability to unionise been a basic right anyway?
Where are all these basic rights coming from?
It seems to me that every time I begin to hear about somebody’s basic right, my basic right to pursue happiness with what I’ve saved over decades of honorable work goes out the window.
But I guess when MY common-sense and constitutionally allowed basic rights conflict with your stealth, dictatorial, unagreed-upon basic rights, the other guy automatically wins. That seems to be the basic plan.
“Where are all these basic rights coming from?”
Pro, you just gotta remember to put on your translator. They speak Bolshevism cloaked in code words in order to dupe anyone they can and you should always reject their premise FIRST. What these people call rights are Human Rights and they are the antithesis of the US constitution and Natural Law.
There is no such thing as collective rights in this country. Other than demanding safer working conditions (ONLY when work involves machines or substances that will kill you for the slightest mistake), there should be no unionism. It breeds communism, violence and anti-Americanism.
Writing in the 1960s, liberal economist John K. Galbraith spoke of “countervailing balances”, as one finds in the power relation between business employer and labor union. The business manager has a fiduciary responsibility to keep the business economically viable (profitable), while maintaining a satisfied and productive workforce. The union has no incentive to drive the enterprise out of business.
But there’s no such balance when dealing with public sector unions. The politicians just want to stay in office. And if it takes buying off those public employees with taxpayer money, well, it’s not their money. And long-term pension benefits? That’s someone else’s problem; they’ll be gone by the time those bills come due.
“What we are witnessing in Wisconsin today is the total breakdown of democracy, and the collapse of the rule of law.”
Yep, ahead of schedule actually.
Maybe so far ahead of schedule that America will wake up and see what is plainly in front of our eyes.
Rob from the people give to the Democrat Party so they can get more goodies. Viscous circle of corruption.
“there are plenty of market and legal checks on private sector unions to keep them from abusing the public. The ultimate limit if they push too far is that their company will be driven out of business. Though that does happen sometimes,”
Sure, as in the case of GM (Government Motors), which taxpayers generously bailed out when the Obama administration decided to step in and take over. When the free market began to work its revenge after years of irresponsible behavior shared by GM management and the unions alike, their folly was rewarded by the government.
As for the current labor strife in WI, the solution for WI is to end the existing unionized monopoly of public education. Spending on public education is typically one of the largest components in local and state budgets. The state should encourage competition from charter and private schools by providing vouchers to parents of school children. if those schools are allowed to flourish, the ranks of the unionized public school teachers can be allowed to shrink by attrition if parents choose to opt out of the current system and enroll their children elsewhere.
There you go; How many Conservative workers are out of the closet at GM?
I’m certainly of the opinion that Government Employees, at any level,
should not be allowed to unionize – it’s a direct conflict against
the taxpayers and responsible government. But if you are going to
allow government employees to unionize then these government unions
should not be allowed to give money to finance political campaigns -
state, local or federal. Public Union funding of government officials
political activities is nothing more than legalized corruption and
bribery.
This would basically nullify all the leverage government unions
have acquired over the years. It also wouldn’t hurt to commence
large scale layoffs of government employees we don’t need – a good
start would be sacking the 200,000 federal employees Obama has added
since he ascended to the throne.
If I were artistically inclined I’d draw a cartoon with some taxpayers being squashed to death under the load of a giant ‘Government’ trough, with some grotesquely fat cows labeled ‘Public Employees’, ‘Unions’, Big Green’, etcetera, gorging at it. It’d be even better seeing a jack-ass with a cattle prod zapping the citizens under the trough.
Maybe it could even have another frame where the cows then go on strike and starve the citizens.
The easiest way to put it is this:
Unions provide democracy-like mechanisms to curb the power of dictatorial company owners. Public sector unions make no sense because employees have a vote and are therefore ALREADY “shareholders”. You can’t organize to negotiation with yourself.
“dictatorial company owners”
Sorry, there is no such thing. No company owner has the power to compel you to do a damn thing and unless Democrats keep getting their way, you can always take your skills down the street to the next company.
This whole article is such a ‘duh’, it’s amazing it even needs to be said at all. There really ARE so many incredibly myopic/stupid/selfish/evil people in this country….
One wonders why there isn’t a ‘union’ for the ‘union bosses’? Surely, they can’t possibly be making enough money to be ‘content’????????
I’m a teacher from Minnesota and for the last 18 years $800 dollars a year is automatically taken out of my paycheck and given to the Teacher’s Union in this state. When I started teaching I was told that I could be a member and pay the full dues (around $800) or I could not be a member and still have to pay fair share dues (perhaps around $600, I can’t remember).
I decided to become a member since the difference was so little and it sounded good to be part of a Union. Over the years as I have realized the role the Unions play in getting Democrats elected and it is extremely frustrating since I am pro-life, and my money is being used to get pro-abortion candidates elected.
It sounds like unions are akin to the damned Mafia coupled with a ‘clique’.
How do you cut loose from the noose of the Mafia without being hung out to dry?
We need to kill public Unions…PERIOD. It’s terrible when good people have no choice but to join the union mafioso or be shunned and disregarded or worse.
My grandmother was a school teacher and she was the one who inspired me to home-school my own child. I can’t imagine if I had gone into the teaching profession only to be met with so much Leftist strong-arming and union thuggery.
Why do you stay??????????
MN…. the second generation of organized labor in America was actually organized by the early ‘protection’ mafia’s of the East Coasts big cities of the times. The most nortorious were the two Irish Catholic-Protestant factions who not only devised and organized protection corruption…but elections corruption. The Pols, the Italians, etc., followed suit. These corruptions eventually led to organized labor unions who became part of the communist and socialist movements in America. Eventually, the lone Communist labor union consilidated with and become known as the AFL-CIO which of course has all the history I’m sure you are aware of.
ALL of the labor unions are members of the socialist parties of America and several international socialists parties today. They have never represented anything other than corrupt organized crime entities!
What we are witnessing in Wisconsin today is the total breakdown of democracy, and the collapse of the rule of law.
Brought on largely by your friendly neighborhood Democrat Party.
In a perfect world, the public would never vote for their kind again. Unfortunately, the world isn’t perfect…
Heres what I see everybody leaving out!
The federal government legislated a government Agency call the National Labor Relation Agency….specifically to protect unions rights to organize and……..
Constitutionally, this violates the States Rights on such matters not specifically addressed in the constitution. However, since its been legislated, it only allows States the ability to become Right To Work States and they cannot ban labor unions the right to organize in such States.
As is always the case, that stinky smell of most national and States problems is traced to the U.S. Congress and legislation they have passed or otherwise left to the Executive Branch to regulate.
Want to fix most of the problems….including labor unions? Get a congress that understands the underlying core problems congress has created and make them legislate to fix them! Want something to think about? There was specific reasonings why the founders did not grant that piece of land called Washington, D.C statehood.
First order of business is to legislate that government employees are prohibited a protected right to strike.
Second order of business is to legislate nearly all government employees who have any access to or are employeed in any department or agency to classified information or are classified as emergency or public education services employees SHALL NOT be eligible for labor union membership.
Third order of business is to legislate that any private sector employees employed with any company or entity that does contractual business with the government shall be classified as ‘confidential employees’ throughout the duration of any government contracts and not eleigible for labor union membership.
Fourth order of business is to legislate that neither private or public labor union member employees shall be protected during assigned working hours to picket and SHALL NOT be protected for strikes…and that negoitations SHALL be enforced through mediation to some conclusion of agreement and or denial of the labor unions petitions…LIMITED TO pay/benefits, work place safety or training.
Strikes present as civil tort actions resulting in damages to either the governments and or private industry and business….under our constitution juris prudence system and therefore, lawfully protected strikes should be unconstitutional!
This would put all labor unions in their rightfull place if we must allow them.
Key to winning this issue is to separate the public & private unions in the mind of the public. The underlying basis for the public unions is illegitimate, but people will misunderstand if the move to blur the lines succeeds. As a union officer for a small private local, I believe union Leadership must oppose the public unions or go down with them. Read my take here:
http://samschaos.blogspot.com/2011/02/hey-gov-walker-this-union-man-is-right.html
http://samschaos.blogspot.com/2011/02/fdr-afl-cio-opposed-public-unions.html
http://samschaos.blogspot.com/2011/02/return-of-taxpayer.html
The saddest aspect of this labor strife, in the federal government, is its legal basis. This epic societal organization of the federal work force rests on a personal decision of President John F. Kennedy. Congress never made this hard “purse string” authorization. Kennedy allowed unionization of federal workers to garner the union vote. From his administration, the “negotiations” were between Democrats and the major Democratic constituency, unions. The only new aspect, due to our economic collapse, is the wide spread recognition of the tsunami of retirement “rights” given to the aging boomer generation. For those who comprehend arithmetic, these costs can only be carried if the private sector is enslaved for the benefit of older government workers.
There are forty year veterans in Congress who knew this during ‘Nam. They enjoy a cushy retirement, as their nation is suffering. Voters should ponder why they voted for people decade after decade, who brought us to this sorry point.
Our government does not work. Congress does not implement the will of the people; it takes care of insiders.
I really appreciate your commentary, Mr. Ferrara. Very insightful, clear and to the point.
I’ve also just posted an article that comes to similar conclusions but from a somewhat different perspective.
You can see it in the Commentary section of the home page of our website, http://www.America-the-Exceptional.com .
Keep up the good work!
Combining the ideas of “Public Servant” and “job rights” makes less sense than military intelligence.
But even this separation of business and government has changed dramatically. Here, at a public institution, government and management are extremely tight and decisions are often made in the interest of outside business interests instead of the public or public employees. Strong unions are necessary to counter the ever present assault of business against the smooth, efficient, and cost effective running of the institution.
A labor historian explains why FDR would support the Wiscosin protesters (and collective bargaining for Public Workers)today:
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/02/18/fdr_and_wisconsin
It’s the DEMOCRATIC Party…
As long as Republicans continue to sell our government to the highest private bidders, you can’t tell me workers have to surrender their rights too.
FDR and Union Tyranny
As a former, retired, teacher union member whose father was a member of a company union, I don’t in the least feel hypocritical in opposing the actions of Wisconsin teachers. Bottom line is, they’re wrong, in the extreme.
When I began as a public school English teacher in the early 70′s in suburban Long Island, I had no intention of joining either the local or state unions. Even then, the state union was decidedly liberal and, in fact, there was a movement afoot to expunge the word, “union,” in favor of “association” in order to preserve a sense of teacher professionalism.
“Union” won out in that debate, not that it mattered since the umbrella organization, the National Education Association, the NEA, which partners with the American Federation of Teachers, the AFT, is a de facto union, with 3.2 million members.
In any event, during my first year I refused on principle to join the local but succumbed in my second after repeated interruptions of my class by an importuning union rep. As it turned out, I subsequently learned that the district administration, in conjunction with the union, frowned on those who didn’t join and if I hadn’t signed on I may not have had a job my third year.
With that as preface and introduction to the current education crisis in Madison, Wisconsin and elsewhere, it’s been more than disquieting to discover that I was at least in partial agreement with the greatest liberal icon in the history of liberal icons, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Not that FDR was opposed to unions or collective bargaining–far from it–but he knew the inherent dangers of public employees negotiating with governments via union representatives.
As he said, ”All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public-personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations:” http://tiny.cc/pnwwf
Apparently, today’s public employee unions never got that message as to the “insurmountable limitations” and the impossibility of such situations. Nor can they seem to grasp FDR’s reminder that, in collective bargaining with governments, “The employer is the whole people,” meaning that, seated on the other side of the negotiating table, are not representatives of some greedy corporation but the American public.
Extrapolating from Roosevelt’s words, when public employee unions demonstrate and agitate and demand, they are demonstrating and agitating against “the whole people” and their demands are not being made against a mayor, governor, or president but rather against every taxpayer.
President Ronald Reagan . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3744)