Public Sector Unions

[August1991]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ksLlAi3iIc&feature=player_embedded#!

This will eventually come to Canadian provinces too.

[Shady]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ksLlAi3iIc&feature=player_embedded#!

This will eventually come to Canadian provinces too.

Very true. Gov. Christie is in a huge battle with New Jersey's state unions. Not only that, but public sector unions in America are bankrupting several states.

Study: States Must Fill $1 Trillion Pension Gap

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- States may be forced to reduce benefits, raise taxes or slash government services to address a $1 trillion funding shortfall in public sector retirement benefits, according to a new study that warns of even more debilitating costs if immediate action isn't taken.

The Pew Center on the States released a survey Thursday of state-administered pension plans, retiree health care and other post-employment benefits in all 50 states that blamed a decade's worth of policy decisions for leaving them shortchanged

Link

[Michael Hardner]

I just did some quick Wiki research on the state of NY State's schools.

From what I see, they spend about $28B to educate a population of 20M versus Ontario spending $15B on a population of 13M.

The top rate of an Ontario teacher after 10 years is 90K, and I can't believe it's anything close to that in New York. So what gives ? Can anyone explain that ?

I'm ok with reducing costs, but health care needs to be the focus here as that is the biggest threat right now.

And, as ever, our #1 problem is unity - and coming up with an approach to problems. The Harris way was to go to war, and the McGuinty way was to buy peace. To my mind, David Miller wasn't given enough credit for fighting the city workers in his garbage strike. It was a conflict, but he played it fair and got concessions.

[Shady]

I just did some quick Wiki research on the state of NY State's schools.

From what I see, they spend about $28B to educate a population of 20M versus Ontario spending $15B on a population of 13M.

Christie is from New Jersey, not New York.

The top rate of an Ontario teacher after 10 years is 90K, and I can't believe it's anything close to that in New York.

Actually it's about the same. Except in New Jersey, teachers don't pay anything into their benefits.

I'm ok with reducing costs, but health care needs to be the focus here as that is the biggest threat right now.

And, as ever, our #1 problem is unity - and coming up with an approach to problems. The Harris way was to go to war, and the McGuinty way was to buy peace. To my mind, David Miller wasn't given enough credit for fighting the city workers in his garbage strike. It was a conflict, but he played it fair and got concessions.

I don't think teachers in Ontario are anything as bad as in New Jersey. Ontario teachers have their own private pension investments. The sticking point in New Jersey is the one year pay freeze. Apparently teachers there refuse to work even just one year without getting a raise. Even if there's no money to award such raises.

[Michael Hardner]

Christie is from New Jersey, not New York.

My assumption is that northern US states are facing similar challenges - and I submitted kind of a side topic, comparing Ontario with NY.

Actually it's about the same. Except in New Jersey, teachers don't pay anything into their benefits.

It seems you're right.

I don't think teachers in Ontario are anything as bad as in New Jersey. Ontario teachers have their own private pension investments. The sticking point in New Jersey is the one year pay freeze. Apparently teachers there refuse to work even just one year without getting a raise. Even if there's no money to award such raises.

Thanks.

[Pliny]

Public sector unions should not exist nor should public sector employees have a vote.

[Jack Weber]

Public sector unions should not exist nor should public sector employees have a vote.

...and all private sector unions should be abolished because they are a hinderance to the free market,right?

I have'nt got a problem with teachers unions so much as I have a problem with their right to strike.

For example,most fire dept's,police dept's,ambulance services,etc are unionized and have collective agreements in place.But they are declared an essential service so they do not have the right to strike.If the contract negotiations break down,and there is an impasse,the whole thing goes to binding arbitration.Both sides realize this,and realize that binding arb is a 50/50 crapshoot,so most agreements get hammered out without a problem.I think teachers should work under the same conditions...

Edited June 6, 2010 by Jack Weber

[DFCaper]

...and all private sector unions should be abolished because they are a hinderance to the free market,right?

No, the private sector is a more heartless entity than our society. I trust the government more than the private sector. I have a hard time believing that people in this country wanting to see fellow citizens seeing gov't employees be the poorest members of our society with unfair treatment. Private obviously could care less, as we see how much companies care about there employees in China.

I do think the current private unions have a bit too much power, and like how described in the video, do not care about the company. Not a good situation for a company when it's employees are indifferent to the success of the company. In fact, unions are big companies themselves now, and inherently evil as such.

Edited June 5, 2010 by DFCaper

[dre]

Public sector unions should not exist nor should public sector employees have a vote.

[August1991]

Private sector unions are falling in Canada, and now represent about 25% of employees. Public sector unions are rising, and now represent about 75% of employees.

IOW, unions in Canada are an affair of government employees.

Moreover, most government employees in Canada are employed by provincial governments. They are teachers, nurses, government secretaries, bureaucrats - often women.

Like in New Jersey, provincial public sector unions take about $1000 annually from each employee in union dues. (Employees have no choice in this deduction; it amounts to a tax.) The unions use this money to advance their own interests, not the interests of pupils or patients. As Christie says, this is a case of "raw power".

----

IME, individual nurses and teachers want to do good. Unfortunately, they are now part of a system that prevents them from achieving this. Provincial government budgets will soon break on health care and education. Public sector unions will be at the heart of this problem.

-----

Mike Harris, Jean Charest and Mario Dumont tried to take on these provincial public unions but they generally retreated. Chris Christie has the right approach.

[charter.rights]

For example,most fire dept's,police dept's,ambulance services,etc are unionized and have collective agreements in place.But they are declared an essential service so they do not have the right to strike.If the contract negotiations break down,and there is an impasse,the whole thing goes to binding arbitration.Both sides realize this,and realize that binding arb is a 50/50 crapshoot,so most agreements get hammered out without a problem.I think teachers should work under the same conditions...

If you ask any municipal politician, you will find how much they hate binding arbitration. In many cases police, firefighters and ambulance service workers get what they are asking for. They understand the game very well and only take very reasonable requests - like pay and benefit increases - to binding arbitration. The process usually paints municipalities as being unreasonable.

[Pliny]

...and all private sector unions should be abolished because they are a hinderance to the free market,right?

No. If Union members wish to save jobs for the next generation they have to think past their own pensions. Unions tend to be too short sighted in their views. Like most people they want the best now. They may not have a company to strike against if they keep making future demands on capital. The market is always changing. Companies with heavy financial obligations to Union members are not flexible enough to survive it. Public sector unions are not in competition, they are a monopoly. They will just continue to make demands until the economy can't afford them.

I have'nt got a problem with teachers unions so much as I have a problem with their right to strike.

For example,most fire dept's,police dept's,ambulance services,etc are unionized and have collective agreements in place.But they are declared an essential service so they do not have the right to strike.If the contract negotiations break down,and there is an impasse,the whole thing goes to binding arbitration.Both sides realize this,and realize that binding arb is a 50/50 crapshoot,so most agreements get hammered out without a problem.I think teachers should work under the same conditions...

Funny how the government grants unions special privileges in the private sector and doesn't in the public sector. I am talking about the right to strike of course. There is one rule for the private sector and a different rule for the public sector.

Governments found it too much of an inconvenience for their unionized public employees to strike so they declared them essential services instead of having to deal with them like the private sector has to. Of course who cares if GM is on strike. There is nothing essential about making cars.

Governments will step into a Union battle in the private sector if it is deemed to be in the public interest. Why do they even bother to give unions the power they have if they are just going to override it when they think it is necessary?

If people want to unionize, it is up to them. If they just want to be opposed to management and not concerned with company a company's ability to survive a market then they deserve to be out of a job.

DF Caper: No, the private sector is a more heartless entity than our society. I trust the government more than the private sector.

Is the private sector more heartless? It certainly won't carry a product that is of no value to society. They will be gone, and so will the companies and the jobs that were there to provide such a product. And if someone can provide a product better than anyone else, cheaper and better quality, the competition will have to improve it's position or go out of business. Is that what you mean by heartless? There should be no competition? Change is the enemy of the people? We all need to be secure in our jobs and our lives? Is that how the free market should work?

We are all entitled to a good life I suppose. Is that it? The private sector can't be trusted to give you a good life. Is that what you mean? Well, I agree it makes no promises. The government will at least make that promise to you even if it can't deliver or makes a slave of you in return. But at least it tries - right?

I really have to shake my head at how people think government promises them entitlement to the good life and there is a complete disconnect from the fact that building these entitlements up are a certain guarantee they will not be there for future generations. The cost comes out of the private sector which certainly doesn't make any promises to you but requires you to think and act and government promises of entitlement are only worth as much as the private sector can provide.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Public sector unions should not exist nor should public sector employees have a vote.

They arose in response to a challenge, and thereby posed a new challenge. The new challenge is how to manage an organized workforce for efficiency. That second challenge hasn't been met.

[Michael Hardner]

IME, individual nurses and teachers want to do good. Unfortunately, they are now part of a system that prevents them from achieving this. Provincial government budgets will soon break on health care and education. Public sector unions will be at the heart of this problem.

They are at the heart of the problem, but they are one of the players not THE player.

The public, when it bothers to wake up, has the final say. Proof of this is the recent wave of anger against TTC employees, that actually forced management and labour to work together.... to pretend to do something about it.

[madmax]

The Moderator should consider moving this thread to US Politics.

[dre]

Collective bargaining has worked fairly well for a long time and without it ALL workers even non-unionized private sector workers would be MUCH worse off.

The problems often arise when the employer doesnt fight hard enough during CBA negotiatiion and doesnt look far enough ahead into the future. A good example is General Motors... when they were making lots of profits a decade or more ago they didnt bargain hard... they signed deals with both unions and suppliers that were not sustainable if there was a decline in the business.

In any case collective bargaining is a fundamental human right in any society that allows freedom of association.

So before anyone reacts to any of these scenarios by simply blaming unions you need to look at the history of CBA negotiation in each case. The government of new jersey doesnt seem to like the deal they have, so the question would be "Why did they sign it?". Has the government bargained smart and hard in the past? What lead to the ratification of the current CBA? What did the books look like when that CBA was signed?

Blaming the unions without having all this information is nothing more than useless knee jerk reactionism.

[Wild Bill]

Collective bargaining has worked fairly well for a long time and without it ALL workers even non-unionized private sector workers would be MUCH worse off.

The problems often arise when the employer doesnt fight hard enough during CBA negotiatiion and doesnt look far enough ahead into the future. A good example is General Motors... when they were making lots of profits a decade or more ago they didnt bargain hard... they signed deals with both unions and suppliers that were not sustainable if there was a decline in the business.

In any case collective bargaining is a fundamental human right in any society that allows freedom of association.

So before anyone reacts to any of these scenarios by simply blaming unions you need to look at the history of CBA negotiation in each case. The government of new jersey doesnt seem to like the deal they have, so the question would be "Why did they sign it?". Has the government bargained smart and hard in the past? What lead to the ratification of the current CBA? What did the books look like when that CBA was signed?

Blaming the unions without having all this information is nothing more than useless knee jerk reactionism.

Your points don't apply equally in all case, Dr. Dre! Public and private sector unions are very different animals!

I don't believe that ANY public sector union should have the right to strike! The reason is that unlike a private sector union, public sector workers usually enjoy a monopoly on their product or service to the public.

If Ford is on strike one can always buy a GM. If the teachers go on strike your kid doesn't get taught! There is no market alternative for garbage pickup, police, firemen and so on.

Either take away their monopoly advantage OR their right to strike! It is totally unfair for a public sector union to enjoy both!

I do agree with you that there should be another option than arbitration. Since arbitration talks are rarely a big deal in the news media they tend to get ignored. Arbiters tend to favour the unions and politicians don't protest very loudly. Why should they? As long as it doesn't become a negative election factor to them they really couldn't care less about how much it added to the tax burden of us ordinary proles!

[dre]

In the case of education is there a monopoly? I know a few people who have gotten fed up with the public education and put their kids in private schools.

One worry I have is this...

Government obviously is very powerfull entity. They can write laws, and project their power in a whole host of other ways. Without some sort of unionization in the civil servants it seems to me like these workers would be completely at the mercy of the government. The government could change their pay, benefits, or working conditions with the stroke of a pen and would literally have the power of dictators in any contract negotiation.

So I favor SOME kind of balance of power between the two sides... maybe the balance we have isnt equitable and we need some changes. I admit binding arbitration makes me nervous because it puts so much power in the hands of a single entity.

[Pliny]

In the case of education is there a monopoly? I know a few people who have gotten fed up with the public education and put their kids in private schools.

One worry I have is this...

Government obviously is very powerfull entity. They can write laws, and project their power in a whole host of other ways. Without some sort of unionization in the civil servants it seems to me like these workers would be completely at the mercy of the government. The government could change their pay, benefits, or working conditions with the stroke of a pen and would literally have the power of dictators in any contract negotiation.

So I favor SOME kind of balance of power between the two sides... maybe the balance we have isnt equitable and we need some changes. I admit binding arbitration makes me nervous because it puts so much power in the hands of a single entity.

You are placing public employees in opposition with their employer - as Unions generally do. A co-operative and understanding posture is better than bullying the employer for what benefits and entitlements a union wants.

You don't trust government when it is dealing with a Union but you trust it to govern? You sadly think that your power to bargain with the government is sharing power and holding government to task. The news is that Unions care noting about employers. they care about what benefits and entitlements they can get from their employers. It is in no way a check on government power. Like you admittedly say, government can literally change things at the stroke of a pen - good bye Union. As an employee with your current pay and benefits you wouldn't say boo about it. The Union would take it's fight to the streets but without your Union deduction wouldn't be fighting very long. A crisis could bring that scenario into being. With little or no options in the private sector you will be happy to keep your job in the public sector and let the Union collapse.

Power lies with those who control the money supply and make the rules. If you really wanted to control the power of government you would separate them from the central bank and take away any fiscal powers to print money or create credit out of thin air. You will then be guaranteed that government will be of and for the people and not an authoritarian agency buying votes to gain power for the next several years.

Is there a monopoly in education? Of course. Even private schools have to follow the direction of the Ministry of Education and in order to control private schools it gives them a portion of government funding. Private schools may offer emphasis on certain subjects but basically they follow the same curriculum. The private school is however more answerable to their clientele and must produce a superior product or advantage to entice anyone away from the public system. It is becoming increasingly attractive to leave the public system as there is less accountability for quality and more attention given to the structure of education than education itself in a public education.

[Renegade]

In any case collective bargaining is a fundamental human right in any society that allows freedom of association.

If you hold that an indiviudal has the freedom of association and thus the right to collective barganing, do you also agree:

1. That a individual has the right to NOT engage in collective barganing if they choose? (ie they have the right to work and establish a personal contract with an employer independant of collective representation or a union).

2. That employers have a right to not engage in collective barganing if they choose and hire individuals who are will to create individual employment contracts.

[Argus]

They arose in response to a challenge, and thereby posed a new challenge. The new challenge is how to manage an organized workforce for efficiency. That second challenge hasn't been met.

Organized? We're HIGHLY organized. Efficient? It is to laugh. Efficiency has never been a watchword - or even a consideration - anywhere I've been.

[Argus]

You are placing public employees in opposition with their employer - as Unions generally do. A co-operative and understanding posture is better than bullying the employer for what benefits and entitlements a union wants.

Government is not much into that "cooperation" thing in its dealings with its employees.

The news is that Unions care noting about employers. they care about what benefits and entitlements they can get from their employers.

Simply untrue.

[Argus]

I don't believe that ANY public sector union should have the right to strike! The reason is that unlike a private sector union, public sector workers usually enjoy a monopoly on their product or service to the public.

Unfortunately, governments rarely behave towards their employees in a non-political fashion. Ie, a private sector corporation might decide that it can afford a 3% pay raise, that all things considered, the workers deserve it, and that this is a wise thing to do. The public sector employer might think exactly the same thing - but then it starts worrying about how that would look politically. The voters might not like it if they gave public service people a pay raise. Or, perhaps the voters would approve of taking a "tough stand" on those "lazy public servants". That could be worth some votes, eh!?

Generally speaking, the only thing which gets the government seriously discussing new contracts after the old ones expire are positive strike votes. Without the right to strike they would screw over their employees whenever they thought they could wring some political advantage out of it. And that goes for both Tories and Liberals.

[dre]

The news is that Unions care noting about employers. they care about what benefits and entitlements they can get from their employers.

Thats false. Unions primary represent the workers but they also dependant on the companies success. Notice the rather large concessions the Auto Workers made to bailout companies like GM after those companies managed themselves into the ground by building crap nobody wanted, and gas guzzlers when the price of oil was about to spike.

But yeah... both sides represent different interests. Thats why collective bargaining works.

[Michael Hardner]

Organized? We're HIGHLY organized. Efficient? It is to laugh. Efficiency has never been a watchword - or even a consideration - anywhere I've been.

Organization also means that the design of the organization has to make sense.

Efficiency .... we need to start caring about it... every chance you get, complain about how they handle things... spread the virus of discontent...