Your opinion of the Teacher's Union

[Arwon]

Cegman: My employer is a government agency. It has budget constraints, directives from higher up, efficiency and productivity dividends to meet. It is not there to look out for my employment conditions. My union is necessary to do that. Without a union you're in a very vulnerable, one-sided negotiation position against a very entrenched and powerful employer.

A few years ago the boss of my agency interpreted a government directive to "find some productivity savings" as "illegally sack 200 people without notice". It wrecked morale, caused a lot of problems with producing our key outputs, and caused more people to quit as a conseqeunce of the mess. It took the union to fight that, to win the case in the Industrial Relations Commission to stop the sackings and get those jobs back, and thus force the boss to work a bit harder to balance his priorities with the interests of us, the workers.

Do people really not get that public entities are not benevolent masters any more than private firms are? It's interesting that so many people who are normally all about attacking the evils of government suddenly think they're not bastards at the negotiating table.

 

[cegman]

Retain what was fought for. Fight off the slashings of corporatist thugsgoons like Walker.

What did public unions fight for? I wasn't around when they started forming in 1958 but I don't understand what public unions had to fight for? Were working conditions horrible like the conditions that caused workers to unionize?

I guess I don't understand unions because I am a computer support person and we don't have a union because there are laws that protect us from working too much and we don't really do backbreaking labor like electricians and plumbers. I don't have a huge problem with unions in general I just don't understand what Public unions fought for...

 

[DinoDoc]

What did public unions fight for?

Money.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2010/oct/17/ha-fdrs-warning-public-employee-unions-a-no-no/Now I have no idea on the source and could grab another link in Google if this one is too biased but I guess my question is

What do unions do nowadays. Why do public employees need to be a union?

If someone could answer these two questions I would gladly go against Walker.

Because people like Walker want to take away their rights.

Over the last 30 years the unions were steadily run into the ground by people like Thatcher, Reagan and Blair, so that now when we actually need some sort of counter-balance to those with the actual power, who want to run us even farther into the ground than we are currently.

If there were strong unions pushing on the politicians (on both "sides" of the "divide") to not go down the brain-dead (but highly lucrative for the already rich) route of constant de-regulation, do you think we would be in the mess we are in currently? No, me neither.

Now you could argue that the unions were too powerful (at least in Europe) and needed to be reorganised and pruned back a bit until they were what they were supposed to be, but that still does not excuse the (ongoing) attempts to destroy them, all because a small few want to get slightly richer slightly quicker.

If that does not convince you Walker is wrong I can't see how anything will.

 

[Arwon]

there are laws that protect us from working too much

Wonder who got those instituted.

 

[DinoDoc]

Wonder who got those instituted.

Not the public unions.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not the public unions.

Not Governors like Walker either.

 

[Arwon]

Not the public unions.

Bet they did. Our CPSU is very much a part of broader workers' rights campaigns, I doubt your public sector unions are any different.

 

[JollyRoger]

If the public unions haven't accomplished anything, why the desire to get rid of them? They are apparently harmless.

 

[cegman]

Cegman: My employer is a government agency. It has budget constraints, directives from higher up, efficiency and productivity dividends to meet. It is not there to look out for my employment conditions. My union is necessary to do that. Without a union you're in a very vulnerable, one-sided negotiation position against a very entrenched and powerful employer.

A few years ago the boss of my agency interpreted a government directive to "find some productivity savings" as "illegally sack 200 people without notice". It wrecked morale, caused a lot of problems with producing our key outputs, and caused more people to quit as a conseqeunce of the mess. It took the union to fight that, to win the case in the Industrial Relations Commission to stop the sackings and get those jobs back, and thus force the boss to work a bit harder to balance his priorities with the interests of us, the workers.

Do people really not get that public entities are not benevolent masters any more than private firms are? It's interesting that so many people who are normally all about attacking the evils of government suddenly think they're not bastards at the negotiating table.

Well if I were the guy above the boss of your agency I would've expected him to justify his actions. Based on the fact that he "illegally sacked people without notice" and wrecked the morale and caused problems with production. I doubt that this boss would've been able to justify his action.

I can be fired without reason or notice because of how my contract is worked out right now. Why do people that work in a government agency need more protection? I'm sorry that I don't see it. I know my experience and I've talked to people and I'm trying really hard to see what these unions are protecting? If the agency doesn't need these people why keep them on if the agency does need these people then they are going to have to pay them for it.

I do really want to understand this. Maybe it is my naivety to the world but I just don't understand it.

Side note is the Economist an excessively conservative magazine or is it decently unbiased? I google searched and couldn't find a good answer.

 

[BSmith1068]

What do you see going on here other than a governor dealing with a missive deficit trying to rebalance his books while a) getting the State out of the union dues collecting business and b) attempting to rebalance the political power scale between taxpayers and unions back toward the taxpayers.

I see a Governor dealing with a massive deficit trying to make a political play and eliminate a favorite thorn in the side while a) forcing cuts to wages and benefits in perpetuity for some unionized public employees while simultaneously pushing through large tax cuts and b) attempting to push the political power scale between the Republican Party and organized labor even farther towards the Republican Party by eliminating said thorn in the side entirely.

If you are having this big of a cash problem that you have to cut the budget by huge amounts, why do you pass large tax cuts? (and don’t give me that crap about tax cuts spurring the economy). Why do you selectively choose which unions you seek to destroy, coincidentally along lines that match who gives you more political funding?

I am not denying that Wisconsin has some huge budget problems, but as I have argued all along, the moves by Walker are far more than just an honest dude trying to fix the budget.

 

[cegman]

If the public unions haven't accomplished anything, why the desire to get rid of them? They are apparently harmless.

Because they cost people money. I don't like excessively bureaucratic groups and what I have heard like I said, in my naivety I believe that these public unions are grossly over bureaucratic. But that is just based off of 2 peoples stories that no longer work for public unions (not teachers). And they have accomplished things they have gotten some very good contracts but with public unions sometimes they are bargaining with people that they helped to elect. That isn't the case in private unions the union can't elect the people it bargains against.

Roosevelt himself argued against public unions. Public unions have only been around in the US since 1959 they did not have any effect on the laws that FDR signed that put limits on working conditions.

 

[JollyRoger]

Because they cost people money. I don't like excessively bureaucratic groups and what I have heard like I said, in my naivety I believe that these public unions are grossly over bureaucratic.

You could say the same about corporations. Why not get rid of state-created shields to individual liability so that there is less of an incentive to incorporate?

 

[cegman]

I see a Governor dealing with a massive deficit trying to make a political play and eliminate a favorite thorn in the side while a) forcing cuts to wages and benefits in perpetuity for some unionized public employees while simultaneously pushing through large tax cuts and b) attempting to push the political power scale between the Republican Party and organized labor even farther towards the Republican Party by eliminating said thorn in the side entirely.

If you are having this big of a cash problem that you have to cut the budget by huge amounts, why do you pass large tax cuts? (and don’t give me that crap about tax cuts spurring the economy). Why do you selectively choose which unions you seek to destroy, coincidentally along lines that match who gives you more political funding?

I am not denying that Wisconsin has some huge budget problems, but as I have argued all along, the moves by Walker are far more than just an honest dude trying to fix the budget.

I would never argue any politician is doing things for the greater good. He is doing this as a power play. I also don't blame him either I would do something similar to protect my power. The reason I can see that this could be a good thing is that I don't understand the need for these unions. If I can get a reasonable answer then I would be against this because it is a obvious power play. (I know it might not be possible to give me a reasonable answer because there are so many things I don't know but that is the great thing about democracy is that if I'm too stupid to understand then maybe there is another person who does understand)

 

[BSmith1068]

I would never argue any politician is doing things for the greater good. He is doing this as a power play. I also don't blame him either I would do something similar to protect my power. The reason I can see that this could be a good thing is that I don't understand the need for these unions. If I can get a reasonable answer then I would be against this because it is a obvious power play. (I know it might not be possible to give me a reasonable answer because there are so many things I don't know but that is the great thing about democracy is that if I'm too stupid to understand then maybe there is another person who does understand)

Quite simply, Scott Walker is a shining example of why public unions are needed. If someone is willing to go to the lengths that Walker has to take advantage of a select group of state employees, imagine what he could do without the union to at least provide some voice to the targeted employees.

 

[cegman]

You could say the same about corporations. Why not get rid of state-created shields to individual liability so that there is less of an incentive to incorporate?

I don't know. Is there a good reason? I've gotten to the point where I know how I feel I'm just trying to get answers on why other people feel differently.

Probably just like unions with corporations there are good and bad.

There are corporations like Enron but on the other side there are people who have sued and destroyed small corporations for things that I might've gone .

I've decided I don't know the correct answer on if Walker is right or wrong I have heard lots of why he was right I'm just looking for why he was wrong? You haven't really answered that yet.

I'm not trying to attack or argue. I say what I do because I'm trying to explain what I think so that people can tell me where my logic and thinking are incorrect.

 

[cegman]

Quite simply, Scott Walker is a shining example of why public unions are needed. If someone is willing to go to the lengths that Walker has to take advantage of a select group of state employees, imagine what he could do without the union to at least provide some voice to the targeted employees.

So you're saying that we need these unions otherwise when a new governor is elected he will fire the people who voted against him. Ok I guess I could see that but what prevented this from happening before 1958? Did we have problems of this happening before then? I haven't heard anything about it happening but if it did that would be a huge missing piece in what I'm not understanding.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I do really want to understand this. Maybe it is my naivety to the world but I just don't understand it.

Side note is the Economist an excessively conservative magazine or is it decently unbiased? I google searched and couldn't find a good answer.

I do think you are being somewhat naive. Usually things like this come down from on high, and while the person doing the actual firing will be somewhat disciplined if he/she does do the firing, they would also be disciplined if they did not.

And yes the economist is right-wing, though it usually is scrupulous in properly backing up it's claims.

Oh, and I can't understand how anyone with a decent brain, and who is not a member of the upper classes cannot see the neccessity of the trades union both in public and private enterprises. They are organisations created by ordinary people for ordinary people. If the owners of factories, etc. can form corporations and business groups then why cannot the workers do the equivalent.

 

[cegman]

I do think you are being somewhat naive. Usually things like this come down from on high, and while the person doing the actual firing will be somewhat disciplined if he/she does do the firing, they would also be disciplined if they did not.

And yes the economist is right-wing, though it usually is scrupulous in properly backing up it's claims.

Oh, and I can't understand how anyone with a decent brain, and who is not a member of the upper classes cannot see the neccessity of the trades union both in public and private enterprises. They are organisations created by ordinary people for ordinary people. If the owners of factories, etc. can form corporations and business groups then why cannot the workers do the equivalent.

Well I might have a problem because I have family who is upper class. I'm very much middle class but i have three uncles who created a corporation and don't allow unions. They came from is lower middle class home with just their mom raising them because their father died from a heart attack soon after his firstborn son died working in a factory with him. I also have worked jobs where I worked with union members in a private company and hated them with a passion because they didn't work very hard and cost me money because i got paid per job I did while they slowly moved things out of my way.

The reason I don't understand public unions is because the people they bargain against are at times elected by them. What politician is going to argue against some of his strongest supporters. I don't agree with a lot of FDR because he was more liberal than I am and he didn't like public unions I just see that as affirmation that if FDR is conservative about something it is for a good reason.

I'm not saying that I'm right I'm saying these are why I think the way I do and am interested in hearing why I'm wrong.

 

[JollyRoger]

The reason I don't understand public unions is because the people they bargain against are at times elected by them.

Same with CEO's of corporations seeking government contracts.