Are Public Unions Necessary?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Wisconsin is raising hell in its attempts to balance a budget that's heavily weighed down by union-bargained benefits for public employees. Of course, they're taking the "nuke it from orbit" approach and removing collective bargaining rights from public employees.

My question is this: Why do we have collective bargaining for public employees at all? After all, unions grew out of the need for a power capable of balancing that of capital. But there's no real need for that in the public sector, right? Public sector workers are extremely powerful in the political process, "selecting the elected officials with whom they (ultimately) bargain." There's the argument that government, sheltered as it is from immediate consequences and business incentives, is unresponsive to economic realities to begin with - and needing to kowtow to powerful unions only makes that worse. For most jobs, from what I can tell, skills that are valuable in the public sector are equally valuable, or more valuable, in the private sector. Someone who knows, and can enforce regulations is very useful for a company seeking to comply with them. Administrative work is largely similar between corporate and public jobs. So for many public employees there is no real need for unionization - the government's need to compete with the private sector should keep pay and benefits roughly commensurate, but there is some disparity in public employees' favor. FDR, famous backer of unions though he was, opposed public unions as "intolerable."

The counter-argument I've heard is that many fields only offer employment in the public sector (teachers spring to mind). This means that the same dynamic exists as existed between the Company Town bosses and the laborers. There, I can see an argument. But for government construction workers, plumbers, lawyers, and administrative personnel, skills are essentially fungible, and competition with the private sector for those skills should keep compensation competitive.

So what are your thoughts? I'll grant that teachers, social workers, and other gov't-exclusive jobs may need unions. But what about the rest? Why does the DMV clerk have a union membership?

ETA: My state's recent experience with unions in the public sector has been a case study in why they suck. In New Hampshire, our budget was seriously unbalanced (most of our tax base comes from property taxes, and as property values fell, so did gov't revenues), and we needed to cut public services. The unions refused to take job cuts, preferring instead to foist the additional costs off on local government (cities/towns). So we had more employees doing less work. Public services were worse-impacted because the Governor was forced to institute furlough days, rather than simply leaving everything open but with fewer staff members. In the meantime, our court system was forced to cut so deep they had to suspend trials for a month, and they're not even open normal business hours anymore. As a result, the courts are facing constitutional challenges for failure to provide speedy trials.

The Social (Unrest) Network

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

 (edited for font) There is no doubt that social networking sites such as Facebook in Egypt and Twitter in Iran 2009 have played an important part in world politics. This was highlighted in an article in the New York Times concerning the protests in Egypt. However, social networking sites have become an instrument, not a panacea, for regime change; much like a military.

 The amazing part of this is that the leaders of these tools of change recognize this more than those who wield these tools. Such is the case with Facebook as stated by Founder Mark Zuckerberg:

 

( Dueling Thoughts )

A couple of interesting articles about Belgium and Israel:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/02/201121713555577175.html

^Before wading into the pliosaur-ridden waters of Israel-Palestine, I can now say that Belgium has marked a new world record of the longest any state has existed without forming a government. This is kind of making the anarchists' case for them.
( cut for FLs )

What say you? Is Israel becoming more and more authoritarian (and thus like everywhere else in the Middle East) or is it simply that people are noticing what's always been the case, *or* is segregating Arabs in a city that legally belongs to neither Israel *or* the PLO somehow morally justifiable because God says so?

American Society and Character

[russj.livejournal.com]

I can't stop thinking about this article, which was posted on the website "American Thinker" over a month ago.

"Historically, societies tend to stratify themselves along economic or preordained class lines.

The United States has long prided itself on the belief that class distinctions were no longer a part of a unique American culture.

However, the present social structure has evolved into a three-tier social order directly traceable to the unprecedented prosperity of the past six decades.

This structure is predominantly influenced not by wealth, but by education and occupation.
1. The uppermost level of society, often referred to as the "elites" or "the ruling" and/or "the governing class," sits astride the social order.
   
2. The citizens who provide the primary labor and resources for the economic engine of the country make up the second tier.
   
3. The third comprises those who have been betrayed by a self-serving education system and are conditioned to be totally dependent on government.

Unlike any other period in the nation's history, one stratum of society, the American elites of the past half-century, have by their control of education, entertainment, the media, and politics totally dominated and overwhelmingly and negatively influenced the culture and national character.

These elites are chiefly responsible for what the national character is today."

In "American Society And Character," Steve McCann made some very insightful points, which have been underscored by recent events in the news:

In Egypt, the people are demonstrating against their rulers.

In Wisconsin, the ruling class is demonstrating against the people.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-18-1Apublicunions18_ST_N.htm

You don't agree that the teachers union is part of our ruling class?
The teachers there are protesting against reductions to their benefits, which include:

• Job security that is unheard of in the private sector
  
• More paid holidays than you get--unless you also work for the government
  
• Better medical care with lower co-pays and premiums
  
• Over two months time off every year
  
• Automatic pay raises that you probably haven't gotten recently
  
• Unbelieveably generous pension plans--instead of 401.K.
  
• Don't work unpaid overtime to keep work on schedule.
  
• Get plenty of sick days that they can cash in if unused.
  



I agree with Mr. McCann. When the elite class can get the dependent class to vote their way it is very close to a majority coalition. And if they keep getting their way, the USA is doomed to a continual decline--in happiness, prosperity, security, and living standard.