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.

Comments

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

That marketplace economics theory of yours might work well in a Disney cartoon, but this is the real world.

In the real world a person sends out "X" number of resumes while looking for work. It's rare to get to competing job offers at same time, so when an reasonable job offer comes in, most people will take the job offer. Personal economics (of having rent/mortgage, bills, food, expenses) means the rumour warning of this being a bad boss (or company) to work for falls of deaf ears. Folks cannot afford to pass up paying jobs because boss is bad. Folks figure they can/will put up with the bullshit as long as bills are getting paid.

In theories of marketplace economics it is purposed that companies offering inferior products/services should wither up and die. Fact is shitty companies often survive despite being overpriced crapola. And superior quality companies often go the way of the dinosaur.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Yes, and what does that good employee do once they get the job with the crappy boss?

That's right, they grin, bear it, and put their resume right back up on Monster.

As far as shitty companies survive by producing shitty overpriced crapola, sure they do, for a while. They might even do it forever if there is a market for shitty overpriced crapola, and for some things there is always room for that and enough fools who will buy into marketing hype to keep a few of these companies in business.

Still though those companies only survive by giving the fools in society what they want. The companies have no power, only the consumers of their products do and those consumers can shut those companies down almost overnight if their preferences shift.

The same goes for workers. This argument that the company has all the power is utter BS. Yes it is true that we all need to eat and will take any job that comes along, no matter how shitty in a time of need, the question is how many of us are dumb enough to stay in them for one minute longer than we have too? Not very many.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I never argued the company has all the power. No one entity does. Power is struggled for and fought over. Pen being mightier then sword, therefore tactics are less heavyhanded then they have been in the past (when big business would have had cops and judges in back pocket and organizers would disappear ( like the Blair Mountain strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain)).

But to back off and suggest that free market can sort everything out is simply naive and ignorant.

I actually don't believe unions are all that necessary in the 21rst century. Many should be dismantled and disorganized because they impede good production, fair competition, etc.

Still the reason that unions are born in the first place is because the free market has a shitty reputation for sorting things out. The free market needs teethers just like free people. Otherwise there is chaos.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

But you are talking like Unions are not a part of the Free Market.

They are completely a part of it.

A FREE market means that workers are FREE to form a Union and companies are FREE to ignore them if they wish. Thing is in both cases that FREEdom is only from legal proscription. It is not freedom from consequences.

So if you feel your employer is taking advantage of you feel free to form a Union, your employer is free to choose whether he wishes to acknowledge and engage in collective bargaining with said union or ignore it but he has to recognize that both choices have consequences and costs and they will have to bear those costs on their own because they are the ones who made their employees unhappy enough to want to form a union.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Gotcha.

Is this the way it works in the public sector under government?

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Well unfortunately this is not the way it works in the private sector currently, as both Unions and corporations seek political rents to be able to force the other side into behaving in the desired way. For quite a long time Unions have by far had the upper hand, so much so that in many cases corporations have stopped bothering to try and fight them but just pretty much give them what they want until it becomes too much and then they either shut down or ship the work offshore.

In the public sector however it can never work this way because there is never a profit motive driving efficiency. Executives overcommiting to union contracts will not cause the government to shut down and those executives (whether they be elected or appointed positions) will not suffer any harm from it and with the political power that a well organized union can bring to bear may receive substantial benefit from acquiescing to the Unions every whim while the taxpayers at large bear the eventual cost.

So, should public sectors be allowed to form Unions? Absolutely. However governments should be specifically barred from engaging in any collective bargaining with or officially sanctioning or recognizing those Unions.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The free market needs restictions just like free people.

The reason the stock markets in Canada and Poland didn't collapse (when every bank in USA and Europe was vulnerable) is directly the result of tight regulation.

The crisis now (as it's always been) is jobs, and unemployment. Unions and their bargaining rights should be reviewed and regulated so that business don't shut down and/or move overseas. It is ridiculous unions are so powerful that they can effectively kill the economy (like in Detroit). As it's ridiculous that our taxes go to pay for union spa/gym (which was a CUPE demand). My taxes should be spent sparingly.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Unions didn't kill the economy in Detroit. Reliance on the car industry, poor management of the car industry, mechanization, and foreign competition conspired to kill Detroit.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

the question is how many of us are dumb enough to stay in them for one minute longer than we have too? Not very many.

No, not very many.
Which is why a smart corporation (and there are many) will make it so that leaving them for a 'better' job will be excruciatingly painful. When leaving for a better job means that you'll probably lose your house, your car, suffer extreme poverty...well, better the devil you know.