undefined | Better HN

0 pointskoolba7y ago0 comments

> It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good?

To society as a whole I'd say the net effect is negative. Note that I'm specific talking about public sector unions and not unions in general. And by net effect I'm referring to the overall effect on States and municipalities, not just the handful of members who receive direct benefit from the unions.

> That's an extreme position.

As a member of public sector union it may be extreme to you but that's your personal opinion. Being on the receiving end of any benefit of said unions would imply that you have biases of your own.

> You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction?

You'd suppose incorrectly and I never suggested anything like that. Cheering the destruction of institutions that (IMHO) are a net negative to our society is neither illegal nor promotes illegal activity.

> I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. That money comes from my pay and not taxpayers. My salary is paid for by the state but my dues come from my salary and are not part of my benefits. The union is not taxpayer funded. If you really think this then to the extent that my salary is used to pay for groceries does that make the supermarket partially taxpayer funded?

The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector. By definition there is one government for a given region / level and it's in the interests of the public sector unions to ensure that government gets larger and pays them (and their members) more. That's the vicious feedback loop.

> My union influences my workplace rules to the extent that they bargain my working conditions on my behalf. They have negotiators much more knowledgeable about negotiation than I am and they negotiate on my behalf. By law our workplace rules cover everyone whether or not they are in the union.

Eliminating public sector unions doesn't mean that OSHA disappears. And if the pay or benefits are not enough to retain talent vs. the private sector then you're free to go find employment in the private sector. IMHO it's not the government's responsibility to provide you with a job.

> It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation.

Again perhaps to you it is but you're also not giving someone the right to negotiate separate terms or avoid the system entirely. I say that right trumps yours.

> Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good?

Again, I can't see any net good in the concept. It's too susceptible to abuse. Google "public sector union bankruptcy" for some fun reading.

> I ask my liberal friends who decry Trump (as I do) can you name some good things he has done. Most can't. They are too extreme to even consider the other side. You sound like an extremist on this issue.

I find it interesting that you've attempted to label me as an extremist three times in a single comment. A difference of opinion, a strong opinion, or a vocal one are never grounds for such crap.

0 comments

dragonwriter7y ago

> The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector.

Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions.

koolbaOP7y ago

> Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions.

Source? Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA.

What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector?

[1]: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/federal-emplo...

dragonwriter7y ago

> Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA.

Federal agencies can apply alternate standards if they decide general OSHA rules don't work for them; while this requires DoL sign-off, IIRC, this option is not available to individual private employers.

> What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector?

Aside from the above, another example is that a variety of regulations under FLSA, including standards for exemption, do not apply to federal employees when adopted by the Labor Department; OPM sometimes adopts conforming regulations that apply similar standards to the federal civilian workforce and sometimes does not.

Similarly, states often limit the applicability of their own labor laws to themselves, though they are of course bound by federal laws to the extent that they aren't either specifically exempted or Constitutionally immune.

jalical7y ago

Covered by OSHA But with exemptions in place for adverse conditions (oversees).

And all Workman's compensation claims go through a government agency (Department of Labor).

With zero ability to sue or claim damages like you would have in other businesses.

If you get hurt via some hilariously OSHA-illegal workplace incident, the most you can hope for is a schedule reward of some number of your work weeks plus forced retirement, and most people have to fight to get that using their own resources and legal help. All the while being treated as a criminal or a draft dodger.

So in the end, an OSHA-unsafe environment has no repercussions to governmental organizations ($$ as normal or firing).

sykh7y ago

I see you’ve changed your stance from no good to no net good. The former is extreme and that’s the language you used. Now you are using the latter language. That’s not extreme.

It is law that everyone gets the benefit from a union’s collective bargaining. It’s unreaonable to expect people who benefit from the bargaining to not pay for it. In economics it’s known as the free rider problem.

chimeracoder7y ago

> It is law that everyone gets the benefit from a union’s collective bargaining.

No, it's not. It's the law that unions must represent anyone whom they claim as part of their bargaining unit.

However, unions have great freedom to define bargaining units how they like. They already take advantage of that ability, in order to invalidate decertification elections (by retroactively choosing a differently-sized unit from the one that was eligible for the election).

The law you are citing exists because unions are authorized to collect dues from all members of a bargaining unit, including those who don't belong to the union. The law ensures that unions don't extract money from non-members while also refusing them representation. Otherwise, they would literally be allowed to charge as much as they want, and people who don't join would simply be paying for the benefits of the people who do.

There is no free-rider problem, because those members are only included in the bargaining unit because unions want to use them to pad their numbers. If they weren't able to collect dues from them, they would simply redefine their units and walk away with the same net revenue from their members.

sykh7y ago

the collectively bargained agreement with an employer affects everyone under the scope of that agreement. This includes people who are not members of the union. The contract is for everyone within a bargaining unit. For instance, at my college every instructor's working conditions are set forth in the master contract. This includes those not in the union. The union can’t make a contract only for those instructors who are part of the union.

The free rider problem occurs once so called right to work gets enacted. There is no free rider no because everyone pays fair share (in states that don’t have right to work laws).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointskoolba7y ago0 comments

> It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good?

> That's an extreme position.

As a member of public sector union it may be extreme to you but that's your personal opinion. Being on the receiving end of any benefit of said unions would imply that you have biases of your own.

> You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction?

> It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation.

Again perhaps to you it is but you're also not giving someone the right to negotiate separate terms or avoid the system entirely. I say that right trumps yours.

> Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good?

Again, I can't see any net good in the concept. It's too susceptible to abuse. Google "public sector union bankruptcy" for some fun reading.

I find it interesting that you've attempted to label me as an extremist three times in a single comment. A difference of opinion, a strong opinion, or a vocal one are never grounds for such crap.

0 comments

dragonwriter7y ago

> The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector.

koolbaOP7y ago

Source? Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA.

What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector?

[1]: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/federal-emplo...

dragonwriter7y ago

> Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA.

> What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector?

jalical7y ago

Covered by OSHA But with exemptions in place for adverse conditions (oversees).

And all Workman's compensation claims go through a government agency (Department of Labor).

With zero ability to sue or claim damages like you would have in other businesses.

So in the end, an OSHA-unsafe environment has no repercussions to governmental organizations ($$ as normal or firing).

sykh7y ago

I see you’ve changed your stance from no good to no net good. The former is extreme and that’s the language you used. Now you are using the latter language. That’s not extreme.

chimeracoder7y ago

> It is law that everyone gets the benefit from a union’s collective bargaining.

No, it's not. It's the law that unions must represent anyone whom they claim as part of their bargaining unit.

sykh7y ago

The free rider problem occurs once so called right to work gets enacted. There is no free rider no because everyone pays fair share (in states that don’t have right to work laws).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse