The Union Necessity -- a public sector theory?

Conservatives often define government as an evil entity, slave owner, ruthless, destructive, etc…

Why wouldn’t people unionize against something like that.

Liberals often define expanding government as beneficial and only looking out for the common good...

Why do you need union "protection" from such an entity?

Point/counterpoint. LOL

would like to hear answers from both...

Personally I've never heard a conservative define govt as a slave owner, I've heard NBA stars refer to owners that way however. Government in itself is not the problem. When government begins to do the things for which it is not authorized is the problem, when it steps on your rights it is the problem, when it makes decisions not in your best interests it is the problem.
Ask anyone who's dealt with eminent domain if govt is destructive. Ask the people who died in Waco if it is ruthless

Keep in mind the people making the $800,000 paychecks like Jacobs are NOT union. Approving Issue 2 wont touch the mega fat cats, it gives them more power.

Too bad you cant raise the dead and ask FDR or George Meany.

phttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=6868

oldhometown – Liberals don’t define expanding government as beneficial. We define a government that works as beneficial. What’s the old saying? “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it.”

Fred – Conservatives (your boss included) often refer to tax payers as slaves, serfs… I Google some quotes for you if you’d like or try Lew Rockwell…

Liberals try to get into office to get a paycheck.

Is the aurgment that with issue 2 the university presidents wage can skyrocket because UTMC nurse staff levels are cut?

Ok, let me make sure i understand this. two entities (one is the union and the other is government representation) sat at a table and negotiated multiple topics including pay and healthcare to name a few. then one of the two entities decides that the arrangements they agreed upon were now to their liking and they decided they would change the rules so they would not have to honor these agreements. Does that sound correct?

if this happened in the corporate world there would multiple lawyers running to file lawsuits for breach of contract. unfortunately in the public sector the politicians like to play the blame game when they actually appear to be the issue. so what do they do but attack the middle class while they continue receiving full paychecks.

edit: "not to their liking"

So what is a public sector union needed for?

The point of a public sector union is to prevent discrimination by elected officials against their workers for having viewpoints different than them.

Example: You are a proud member of party X, who has worked very hard to help Joe Schmoe get elected to office. Joe lets you know that the Dept. of Basketweaving is hiring and that he can put in a good word for you with the appointed official in charge of the DoB, who is also of party X. You go work for DoB for several years, get a couple of promotions, buy a house, etc., all while maintaining your proud affiliation with party X. Election time comes along and the masses go crazy for a party Y candidate, Bob the Slob, who they elect. The first thing Bob does is start making the workplace uncomfortable for those affiliated with party X. The attitude at the DoB has shifted, and party Xers are being passed on for promotions, treated differently, scrutinized more, etc. Along comes a budget crunch, and Bob the Slob propose reorganizing the DoB in a way that eliminates your job, along with several other proud party Xers. You can't prove you lost your job because you were affiliated with party X, but the feeling out there is that if you weren't connected with Joe Schmoe, or didn't have that party X bumper sticker, you would probably still have a job, and would be able to properly support your family.

This situation happened all the time before public sector unions, and as a result a lot of public jobs ended up being full of inexperienced, apathetic employees or those that were looking for handouts from their political buddies. Strict hiring and firing practices, as mandated by union agreements, and having an organization willing to fight on your behalf, regardless of your belief, put an end to to such practices.

Remember, those who forget history are bound to repeat it.

^^ Amen to that, brother. Awesome post.

I agree, awesome post!

When Teamster embezzler James Hoffa, ran against Ron Carey, he stated that the "Teamsters wouldn't be a one party union like what Carey, turned the Teamsters into".
Carey , gave Dims about 94% of his members stolen dues .
Hoffa, has given 98% to the tax and waste Fascist-Dims?!
I know that this is as incongruent as anything...not to radical unionists though.So what if only 63% of unionists are Dims...to perdition with the rest...is the epistemic weirdness of unions ?!
The Strange and malevolent World of UNION FASCISM, at its worst !!

TAHL and brainswell - both bring up very sound and relevant points. i am a lefty who has been struggling with this as well. There are problems for both sides that legitimately need to be addressed.

The whole issue of who negotiates and approves the contracts with public employee unions is a huge issue. Politicians are incapable of putting the tax-payers first on this... they protect their own self interest in getting re-elected first so we wind up with contracts that go beyond being fair and equitable and financially viable into contracts that are overly generous and have bankrupted so many cities and states.

The states have not appointed professional arbitrators that create more reasaonable agreements based on their experience and expertise - instead, every little political entity and their attorney recreate the wheel every time - unions have the upper hand by pulling in nationa union affiliates.

The federal government has created for GS system which works incredibly well (other than the hiring process itself) in that it is fair with good benefits, a logical process for advancing in grade and pay and benefits.

to me, SB 5 is not the answer but neither is the system that exists. TAHL - thanks for bringing this up.

Brainswell is right. I was a state employee in the early 70s and witnessed what he describes firsthand. Whenever a new governor of the opposing party took office, it was time to clean house. People were fired and others were given promotions/raises based on political affiliation over skill. I saw people demoted although they had been employed far longer than the replacements who took their jobs.

Sandwich brings up an important point, too. Independent arbitrators should be used to settle disputes. The parties mutually agree on the arbitrator.

Create a non-partisan office to manage govt. employees and take the power away from politicos controlling the process and a lot of "conservatives" would come on board.

I don't want to take money out of anyone's pocket but I just don't feel candidates should be "fighting for government jobs" it's vote buying and pandering. When a partisan government employee negotiates with a government employee, taxpayers lose.

something similar to the fed program is my preference shorty and dbw - this would allow better portability between differing govts (city to state to county to fed) or between government and private sector as well. insulate employees from politicians to make rational decisions; stop patronage by having far fewer appointed positions.

individual states or local jurisdictions need a Brookings Institute (or combination of a couple think tanks) to come up with language for states to adopt by referendum because pols are not going to give this to the voters.

Unions got no lock on laziness, greed, malingering, abuse, undeserved wages or anything else. Management does it too. Lack of integrity can occur at any level and any place in the work force. Most people whether in management or union or work force just want to do their jobs and make a living. Its the trouble makers in both areas that ruin everything for the rest of the decent joes and josephines....

Brainswell brought up the issue of political patronage as one aspect in favor of unionization in the public sector.

There are two things to consider in that regard:

1) If you obtain your position due to favoritism by one party, why shouldn't you be subject to losing it due to the same reason? If it was okay for person X to obtain a job due to party favoritism, why shouldn't the other party be allowed to make the same decisions in replacing person X with person Y?

I'm not saying I approve of this, but it's a matter of consistency. You can't say it's okay to get a job due to political favoritism, but you can't lose one for the same reason.

2) And this is the more important factor: Ohio has a civil service commission specificially to address this issue. Individuals in the civil service cannot be fired, laid off, etc... due to political considerations. Certainly, not every position is covered by the civil service laws, but a vast majority of them are.

A legitimate question to ask is why we need both the civil service commission and unions to 'protect' the same employees? If there is something wrong with the way the civil service commission is working (which may have resulted in the 'need' for unionization), wouldn't it have made sense to modify, update, revise the civil service laws?

I don't know, but I'm asking and would appreciate if anyone has any history on this.

Who appoints the Civil Service Commission?

You can go back read about the issues facing Ohio in the early 1980s that led to the conclusion that unions were a necessity. Basically, in our society, and I believe this has been true since the 1930s, different segments of society, such as workers, need to feel empowered and need feel that their needs and concerns are addressed. When groups do not feel this way, and when they feel they are being rough-shod over they start to act out. this can be seen before the 1930s and in the 1980s in Ohio. It can be seen now with the occupy movements. Unions are one way the working class people of the country can feel they have a say and some empowerment to feel like they have input. This is for the health of the general population and the economy as a whole. When the top 1% hog all the goodies for themselves and continue to hamstring those under them, everyone, including that top 1% suffer.

Ilovetoledo, but it seems you want that 1% to suffer a little more though, right?

Nobody is suffering in this country. Everybody is whining including the top CEOs whose wages went up 275% while the rest of ours went backwards. You need to have balance, people need to be compensated and protected along with the top 1%. You need to balance power and you balance wealth. When everyone is working and producing and being rewarded then everyone wins. When one group is getting shafted it ultimately affects us all.

So I take it your in favor of taking from the 1% and distributing it around.

i think both sides of this ought to be able to agree - the problem is not the unions. it is the politicians who "negotiated" and approved the deal. politicians who benefit (votes in high percentages, money, campaign volunteers) from making the union members happy have a built in conflict of interest. they should have no part of the contract process.

politicians negotiate the tax-paying public's side of the relationship but they benefit by serving the public employee unions interest. union attorneys and leaders did their part within the law. it is pols who did not in good faith, fiduciary, serve the public interest. they served their narrow self interest (re-election) by giving people who vote in large numbers overly generous benefits etc.

the question isn't if one can appoint cronies shouldn't the other be able to. it should be, take almost these appointments away from politicians and seriously get rid of conflicts of interest.

Amen, Sandwich. If I had a deal like the unions have, I'd fight to keep it as well. Can't blame them for that. You hit the nail on the head - we need to fault the pols that enable a screwed up system. There needs to be a balance of power.

To answer Maggie's question, civil service didn't do much good for one person in particular that I can remember. I was hired and given a job that a current civil service employee had applied for. She filed a complaint. Her pay was raised to what I was making, but she didn't get the job. Political patronage trumped civil service.

Senate Bill 5, now Issue 2, does not make Ohio public employees "at will" employees. I see nothing in the bill which supports, allows, or enables the cronyism being discussed. The fear mongering, doom and gloom "attack on teachers, cops and firemen" rhetoric is not only baseless, but transparent. I only hope the voting public can see through it.

Regardless of which side you are on, get out and vote and encourage others to as well.

TAHL

popcorn

TAHL, thank you for your reasonable & insightful analysis on this ballot issue. I will vote YES on 2 despite YES signs being stolen, Kaptur spouting to 80 of her union hacks, etc.. Typical union/Lucas County crap. Sorry I can't hire busses & donuts at church to take the faithful to the polls to vote off their pre-printed list. Anyway, thanks and I never thought that I would say that I agreed with an Asshole Lawyer (is that allowed)??

Well , come next Wednesday I will probably be scratching my head that the electorate in Ohio had turned down issue 2. the amount of money being spend by the no folks will have been astronomical I'm sure. Then in the coming year I will try not to laugh as municipalities start shedding public service workers as budgets collapse. The humor will be that all of the folks losing their jobs will have voted no on issue 2 and did it to themselves.

Agree, these people should look at their pay stubs to see how much going to the union, then think about it. Look at how much these union bosses salaries are. Add it up. Shed these public unions.

And all voters should question the Quinnipiac polls, what is the science & the +/- ? It is not over yet.

I've carefully read all the posts here.

Its simple:
NO on 1, 2 & 3.

@Linecrosser: You may be right. In some places, those things may come to pass. I'm not too afraid of it happening on a broad scale, though. Fire too many public service workers, and public services go to hell. That makes for a LOT of angry voters. It also can make for a declining population in a given city or town, which is its own set of problems (and again, usually leads to angry voters). So far, it is looking like the voters are unwilling to blame their fellow middle-class working stiffs for the problems facing municipalities in Ohio these days. So who will they blame?

Holland, not sure how you made up your mind on 1 & 3 as this thread dealt with Issue 2 I thought. Looking at #1, though, I will vote no:the age issue is a problem as I don't think we need an entrenched judiciary, the rest is legalese which should be a separate issue. Issue 2 is a yes: it is about reform, control, & fairness to the taxpayer & the opposition argument is stale. Issue 3 is tough: I do not generally agree with any state mandates involving personal choice. I need to do more homework on this one.