http://a-new-machine.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
a-new-machine.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2011-02-17 09:41 am
a-new-machine.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2011-02-17 09:41 am
Are Public Unions Necessary?
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.
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.
no subject
Education. The school boards are still in charge, some in more states than others, but national implementation of acts like No Child Left Behind has worsened the situation and created mandates that are nonsensical.
And yes, how much is enough? People complain about education spending without putting forth any ideas about the most efficient way to run our system.
There's no one easy answer, but the solution has to include local accountability with strong support for good teachers, good schools, and an increase in parental involvement. None of those things can be achieved by national mandates or a centralization of educational power, and have, in fact, curtailed those very things.
no subject
Our system does include local accountability. School boards are in charge. The main problem is that local governments can't do anything right.
But anyway, our system isn't actually that bad, if you aren't poor.
"The most recent results (2006) showed the following: students in U.S. schools where the poverty rate was less than 10 percent ranked first in reading, first in science, and third in math. When the poverty rate was 10 percent to 25 percent, U.S. students still ranked first in reading and science. But as the poverty rate rose still higher, students ranked lower and lower. Twenty percent of all U.S. schools have poverty rates over 75 percent. The average ranking of American students reflects this. The problem is not public schools; it is poverty. And as dozens of studies have shown, the gap in cognitive, physical, and social development between children in poverty and middle-class children is set by age three."
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781
no subject
Without a doubt. But the Department of Education is older than I am, for example. The downward trend doesn't completely dovetail with the increase in federal involvement, but it's certainly not doing it any favors.
Our system does include local accountability. School boards are in charge. The main problem is that local governments can't do anything right.b
Except they're not, as they now have national, as well as state, tests and standards to meet. That means the school boards are no longer in charge of education, but rather in charge of meeting arbitrary standards.
But anyway, our system isn't actually that bad, if you aren't poor.
I can't imagine you're happy with that. I'm not.
no subject
No, I'm not happy with the divergence in results - and the corresponding inequality of opportunity - but it's important to understand the problem. Even with those federal and state standards, those teachers' unions, those school boards, and all that jazz, most American schools finish at the top of the rankings. That means the problem is fundamentally different from what you are complaining about. Perhaps our education would eventually fix itself if we could address poverty.
no subject
I have a bigger problem with federal standards than I do state standards. I'm extremely in favor with keeping educational control on the local level.
Even with those federal and state standards, those teachers' unions, those school boards, and all that jazz, most American schools finish at the top of the rankings. That means the problem is fundamentally different from what you are complaining about. Perhaps our education would eventually fix itself if we could address poverty
I don't think the problem is one of poverty, although the way we do education in terms of locking students into schools geographically certainly makes the issue look bigger than it is. Income level doesn't create good or bad teachers, or good or bad schools. It doesn't impact parent involvement (even middle class, and many upper class, families are broken or have dual incomes). If we do education right, class won't matter.
no subject
And obviously this is a self-perpetuating cycle.
no subject
no subject
Oh, then you want GA, where educational control is on the county level, ensconced with the County Board of Education. OK.
no subject
no subject
And generally, the Boards of Education do. It's how they line their pockets (http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-board-this-is-536785.html). I've been trying to help get rid of these fuckers (http://dekalbschoolwatch.blogspot.com/) for a few years now, but they've got too much political clout to be ousted or not elected again. Oh well, Reason #53 of why I would work for federal or state before I'd ever work local.