Sam does a good job of discussing this SCOTUS case; MinnPost Janus vs Unions Case Here is my first comment that has garnered no responses.
My usual questions.
- How many here who strongly support Public Employee unions make your personal spending choices in order to support Private Employee unions and their employees?
- Do you make your purchases to ensure the products and services are provided by American Union Workers whenever possible? KOGOD Index
If so, excellent !!! If not:
Now I am against Free Loaders in general, however I am not sure that forcing someone to pay dues to a non-governmental organization they oppose is acceptable either. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules.
- What is your rationale for being pro-public employee union when you know that it drives up the taxes for all of us?
Here are some wise words from FDR Regarding Public Employee Unions
39 comments:
What is your rationale for being pro-public employee union when you know that it drives up the taxes for all of us?
I believe people should be able to bargain as a group. The state does that, so why shouldn't the people who work for the state?
--Hiram
Own shares in a corporation? Why is the corporation allowed to do things without your consent and without consulting you. As a shareholder, why should you be forced to pay the salaries of executives with whom you disagree? Why should your shareholder dollars be used in ways that you find morally or religiously offensive?
--Hiram
Hiram,
I am not sure what you mean that the State bargains as a group? We have more than 300 independent school districts and thousands of other entities that employees can apply to work for.
As for company stock... The government does not mandate whose stock you buy...
The government doesn't mandate who you work for, either. If you don't want to work in a union shop, work somewhere else.
I am not sure what you mean that the State bargains as a group?
The state is the people who live there. Subdivisions of the state like school boards and municipalities are part of the state.
As for company stock... The government does not mandate whose stock you buy..
I choose the stocks I own just as I choose the state where I live.
--Hiram
Sean,
I would agree with you in the Private Sector...
However these are public positions paid for by tax payers, tax paying citizens should not have to choose...
FDR said it much better and in more detail
Hiram,
So you are saying ISD281 is part of the "state". Just as TORO is part of the private economy.
So people who work for ISD281 or Toro should be able organize, form a union and collective bargain.
____
As for "choosing to live in MN", good point. However can MN force you as a citizen to pay the Union dues? That is why the SCOTUS is reviewing the issue.
"FDR said it much better and in more detail"
OK, so if FDR says it, it's gospel? Thanks, then, for signing up for FDR's Second Bill of Rights.
What personal responsibilities come with those rights?
I am not sure if FDR saying it made it gospel, but he explained it well.
So you are saying ISD281 is part of the "state"
Sure. All local governments are part of the state.
Just as TORO is part of the private economy.
Yes, the state like Toro is part of the economy. I don't know that there is anything particularly private about the economy.
The government does not mandate whose stock you buy...
Does the government tell you where to live?
However can MN force you as a citizen to pay the Union dues?
Yes. That is the law. Can the government force you to pay taxes? Even though you disagree with what the tax money is used for? Even when the uses to which the government puts your taxes violate your religious beliefs?
--Hiram
From my viewpoint...
Government forcing citizens to be a member of private organization and pay union dues is very different from requiring citizens to pay taxes...
And actually we will know more when SCOTUS rules.
Government forcing citizens to be a member of private organization and pay union dues is very different from requiring citizens to pay taxes...
How so? Is the money in the two cases different?
--Hiram
Speaking of the Second Bill of Rights... This is kind of funny.
Hiram,
I assume you are just being difficult, but I will try anyway...
The money is the same, but the organizations are very different.
Taxes are paid into our representative government and spent by them for the betterment of us our society.
Dues are paid into a private organization with no governmental ties.
Do you think the government should mandate that citizens be forced to pay fees if they choose to visit a church?
Or that government should mandate that we pay a fee when we use a gas stations restroom?
I think we as a whole, benefit from higher wages. Stagnating wages has been one of the problems in our economy for decades now. It's one of the reasons are country is becoming destabilized, it helps to explain the presidency of Donald Trump.
Of course we as tax payers pay lots of money to churches and support them in lots of different ways. I am pretty much ok with it. Churches do lots of good things, just like unions. Churches have lots of problems, just like unions.
Doesn't government mandate you can't have fees in public restrooms? Is that the same thing or different?
--Hiram
So your concept goes something like this... If the public employees:
- make more money
- have tenure based compensation / job security
- instead of performance / accountability based
- and the rest of American workers pay more in taxes to support these higher wages, the additional ineffectiveness, and the reduced efficiencies
- it is better for us in some way.
"Government forcing citizens to be a member of private organization and pay union dues"
Government isn't forcing this. It's the workers who are choosing to be unionized.
And, again, if you don't like it, work somewhere else. Isn't that the conservative solution to sexual harassment?
As I said, with Private Organizations I agree with you.
With Tax Payer funded public organizations, I think everyone should be free to work their without having to pay into Unions.
There is such an inherent conflict of interest in place when the "workers" fund the campaigns of their "supervisors". This is very obvious during School Board elections.
You shouldn't lose your rights based on who your employer is.
Who is losing their Rights?
I am happy to have Unions where dues are paid of one's free will.
Then if the employees see the Union benefitting them they can pay more.
If the Union is seen as a waste, employees will pay less.
There is such an inherent conflict of interest in place when the "workers" fund the campaigns of their "supervisors
Maybe, but isn't there always a conflict of interest when dealing with an entity as generalized as the state? If I am dealing with someone with a conflict of interest, it's up to them to resolve it. Their conflict must never be allowed to be exploited to my disadvantage.
--Hiram
With Tax Payer funded public organizations, I think everyone should be free to work their without having to pay into Unions.
Does that mean members of public union members shouldn't have to pay taxes? doesn't that represent a conflict of interest for union members?
--Hiram
G2A Conflict of Interest Classic
Hiram,
Are you concerned that the Public Employee / Tax Payers may try to make government more effective and more efficient so their taxes will not need to increase so quickly?
I think the rest of us citizens can accept that...
This is an excellent piece I stumbled across.
"This is an excellent piece I stumbled across."
The issues described here are problems with politicians (and society), not unions. There's two sides of every contract. If city council members or school board members or state legislatures are signing off on bad contracts, then voters should hold them accountable. Part of the problem here, too, is that we've placed the police and fire departments on a pedestal, making it an affront to criticize them in any way. It's no wonder that Scott Walker exempted police and fire unions from his other union-busting activities. We can salute their heroism without giving their unions absurd contracts.
Did you get to the bottom?
"It's absolutely true that Republicans want to dismantle public employee unions partly because it'll help them electorally. But when you reflect on the ideological interest that Democrats have in a public school system that functions well, a prison system that incarcerates fewer people, and municipalities where there's enough money to fund libraries, parks and recreation, and other public goods, their failure to rein in even the most egregious public-employee-union-backed excesses sure makes it seem like they are no less motivated by base electoral calculations.They're even sacrificing public perception of how effective government can be in the process.
Which brings us back to what the rules ought to be. As I see it, the status quo is clearly untenable. I am not ready, however, to outlaw all public employee unions. Instead, I'd preserve the right to bargain collectively while limiting the scope of that right. Public employees unions should be able to negotiate compensation packages, but only the total amount of compensation owed each employee for a period no longer than an election cycle, which would make the costs a lot more predictable and transparent, and build political accountability into the process. As a nudge, the package would be structured, by default, with prudent percentages going to health care and retirement savings, but if the union or the individual employees wanted to override that mix, it would be their business. The municipality would only be in the business of negotiating the total amount it allocates up front to compensate an employee for a given year.
Public employee unions could also negotiate for improved job safety, a core good unions facilitate. But not for job security or seniority requirements (though government employees would enjoy all of the protections against wrongful termination from which folks in the private sector benefit). Especially when it comes to public safety employees and teachers, it's vital that the worst can be fired easily. The public's welfare must be a more urgent priority than job protections so robust that they jeopardize it. (Wrongful termination in the private sector is hardly a huge problem.)
These several reforms address the most problematic effects of public employee unions that we've observed in the real world, while preserving the ability of government workers to negotiate collectively for better compensation, and when necessary, to address safety issues pertaining to their jobs. They are neutral on the question of how much public employees ought to be paid. And they give elected officials greater flexibility to grapple with the changing finances of their jurisdictions. Surely that's at least an improvement over a status quo that is bankrupting many."
And of course it has to do with Unions, Politicians, Society and Our Laws...
I can not think of any other group who is able to openly bribe their boss with "donations"...
I was wondering how it would be received if I gave my Boss $500 immediately before my year end review... Kind of like how the RDale Union did to their preferred Board candidates. Well $500 cash + a lot of free advertisements.
How is it different to receive a $500 donation from a union as opposed to a $500 donation from an industry association?
Is anyone in government forcing the folks in that industry to make payments to the association so that "donations" can be made to members of the government?
In the RDale history case... The elections and the Board signing the employment contract with a raise were within a couple of months of each other... It just did not look good.
Just about as bad as when a Mayor gets a big contribution and then gives a big construction contract to the contributor 2 months later without competitive bids.
Neither should be acceptable...
Workers can opt out the union's political fund.
I have to wonder though if those people are retaliated against?
Employee Freedom Week Link
I don't know there is anything untenable about the status quo. Public employee unions aren't exactly new. But it's also true that income disparity has contributed to election of Trump, clearly suggesting that weak unions undermine American's political stability.
--Hiram
"I have to wonder though if those people are retaliated against?"
If so, then they should file a complaint. That's not acceptable.
Please explain...
"income disparity has contributed to election of Trump"
Source?
I see it differently... I think the Liberal Elite agenda and their desire for ever more governmental control was the main reason that Trump was elected.
File a complaint with who? The Union?
Source?
The 2016 election.
--Hiram
Hiram,
That proves a result... Not the cause...
Post a Comment