Public sector unions for non-businesses - should they exist?

[TimG]

The point is that the more people that do this, the less bargaining power the union would have.

Why is the bargaining power of the union more important than the free choice of individuals to join a union or not? The union is a business. It has to provide value to its dues paying members. If people are forced to join the union the union has no incentive to provide value for the money it demands.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is the bargaining power of the union more important than the free choice of individuals to join a union or not?

It's more important to the union. If they have that right now, then they wouldn't give it up.

It seems to me you're really asking why unions should be allowed, in effect. That's a broad topic, so I invite you to look at history as to why they came about.

The union is a business. It has to provide value to its dues paying members. If people are forced to join the union the union has no incentive to provide value for the money it demands.

The union leadership is elected. If they don't provide value, they'll be voted out.

[jacee]

The point is that the more people that do this, the less bargaining power the union would have. There are such open shops, but the number of non-represented workers has controlled. Otherwise, it would make no sense.

Explain "controlled" please?

[TimG]

It's more important to the union. If they have that right now, then they wouldn't give it up.

Who is asking the union's permission?

It seems to me you're really asking why unions should be allowed, in effect.

No I am not. I am saying people should not be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. If unions add so little value that they require that people be forced to join then unions have outlived their usefulness.

The union leadership is elected. If they don't provide value, they'll be voted out.

Why should 50% of the workers for a company be entitled to confiscate the earnings of the other 50%? The constitution guarantees freedom of association - this includes the freedom to not be compelled to join an association.

[login]

I'm firmly against legal recognition of unions, and labour law itself. I think rights should be held at the personal level, although likewise I wouldn't bar unions as an assembly of willing individuals or associating from existing. I object to collectivization by force though, that is forcing individuals to unionize even if they don't wish to, I think it violates individuals rights which should be held higher.

Government shouldn't legislate on private business matters and private contracts. Contracts are legally binding however. For a labour control to be legal it should be an individual contract between private persons. Organizational contracts only effect those organizations.

The govenrment (public sector) should be able to manage its own workforce, and is little different than a private business, except that essential services are a public interest and need to be protected thus they fundamentally trump labour law.

Edited December 11, 2012 by login

[The_Squid]

Employers could have a union/non-union shop. What is stopping them, other than the fact that the "closed shop" is part of the contract?

Now, if they want the union on strike and a lot of labour strife as well as conflict between employees, this is the path they will take.

If they want labour peace and good relations with their workers, then they the union will be the representation for the workers.

As for the question in the OP, of course unions should be allowed. Very few workers should have their right to organize taken away, and certainly not just because of the arbitrary criteria of their work not creating some sort of profits, which in itself is arguable.

[Fletch 27]

Unions were put in place in part to share the profits of the employer.. YEARS ago, workers were making squat and the owners were reaping the rewards in profits on the backs of the worker.

Public Servants work for the Taxpayer... They are paid in TAXES... The demands as of late are simply mindblowing considering the shape of the government of Ontario. 1.4 Billion in Unpaid Sick-days?

If they want democracy i say open tis up to an Ontario wide vote.. it democracys after-all.. The Vote should be simple:

1) "Abolish Public Service Unions" ( ) Check here

2) "Keep Public Service Unions" ( ) Check Here.

If Ontario votes to keep them, so be it.. BUT,, If Ontarion votes to kill the unions.... They need to respect the Democratic process and the right to vote.... After all, snt this thier biggest issue? Or is it just the Unions rights who matter now?

[The_Squid]

Would never stand up in court. Public servants shouldn't have less rights than those in other sectors. That's just silly.

[Fletch 27]

Would never stand up in court. Public servants shouldn't have less rights than those in other sectors. That's just silly.

Equal rights dictated by a democratic process.. Rosa Parks was ok with the process but there were many against it as well..

[The_Squid]

Equal rights dictated by a democratic process.. Rosa Parks was ok with the process but there were many against it as well..

makes perfect sense....

[Fletch 27]

For instance: Please see the latest developments in the "RIght to work" battle.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1300449--michigan-braces-for-right-to-work-fight-on-traditional-union-turf

Here,, (In the link), In a democratic process, and continuing the rights and freedoms of others, the Union was defeated through democracy and is now binding law.

This should be held in Canada.. A fair, democratic vote on the viability/need/want for a Public Sector Union..

In the link, the Union lost in a democratic process.. exactly what they are fighting for in Canada. We should put this to a vote! They cant argue with that can they?

[Michael Hardner]

Explain "controlled" please?

What`s the point of a union if 0% of the workers are outside the agreement ? There's some provision, if I remember, for a number of non-union positions.

[Michael Hardner]

Who is asking the union's permission?

The employer, I presume.

No I am not. I am saying people should not be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. If unions add so little value that they require that people be forced to join then unions have outlived their usefulness.

You're assuming that people always act in their own interest.

Why should 50% of the workers for a company be entitled to confiscate the earnings of the other 50%? The constitution guarantees freedom of association - this includes the freedom to not be compelled to join an association.

Why should you vote for a tax increase for me ? Same argument. The courts already opined on it, though.

[Michael Hardner]

Equal rights dictated by a democratic process..

We've already talked about over-simplification on here before.

It's outside the democratic process, that is all. There are many other things that are, as well. You'll need to inform yourself to have a purposeful discussion here.

[Just Me]

Been reading for a while, but just decided to join so I could post.

There is a natural balance between companies and unions in the private sector - if unions ask for too much - eventually the company goes bankrupt. If the companies offer too little, employee's will move to other companies. Assumeing the goverenment doesn't interfere, for the most part the unions and companies will act rationally and negotiate a settlement that is somewhere between these two points.

In the public sector, the difficulty is that the is no balance agains the union asking for too much, as it is very easy for the government to simply accomodate the "demands" of the union via increasing it's debt. Addtionally when a private company is on strike / locked out, the public typically doesn't feel a lot of pain as there are usually alternative service providers. However this is not the case for government services and thus there is a lot of pressure on public entities to settle, no matter the cost. Actually, there is an eventual balance, when the government goes banckrupt (see Greece) but the feedback loop is so long, that it is completely ineffective at provideing a balance in the (typically) 3-5 year cycles for labour negotiations.

That being said, public employees deserve to be allowed to unionize, and negotiate their salaries and benefits. I think we just need to find a mechanism the approximates the balance that exists naturally in the private sector.

I've put a fair amount of though into this, and haven't come up with any workable ideas? Maybe somewhere out there has some?

[Michael Hardner]

I've put a fair amount of though into this, and haven't come up with any workable ideas? Maybe somewhere out there has some?

Thanks, JM. In fact, it looks that the general publics weariness over these issues may be pushing both sides to new tactics. The Ontario situation with teachers, for example, seems to be unfolding differently - fewer disruptions, more battles happen in the press than in the classroom etc. Also the union has made more concessions.

[Wayward Son]

In the public sector, the difficulty is that the is no balance agains the union asking for too much, as it is very easy for the government to simply accomodate the "demands" of the union via increasing it's debt. Addtionally when a private company is on strike / locked out, the public typically doesn't feel a lot of pain as there are usually alternative service providers. However this is not the case for government services and thus there is a lot of pressure on public entities to settle, no matter the cost. Actually, there is an eventual balance, when the government goes banckrupt (see Greece)

There were many factors that led to the situation in Greece so your claim is beyond an over simplification. Public sector wages were (and are) not negotiated by unions in Greece by the way, and are set by law using cost of living and budget considerations to determine them. The government and the voting public have the means to keep public sector worker wages in line, if they choose not to do so then they are shirking their responsibility. At the same time blaming public sector workers for economic woes, as many people on this forum do, instead of assessing where the responsibility lies and apportioning the proper amount of blame to the correct reasons, is harmful. There were many things going back several decades that the citizens of Greece could have demanded their government do. Things like battling corruption, cracking down on tax evasion (which was estimated at 49% in 2005), eliminating deficits and reducing debt when the economy was strong, and yes, reducing, or at minimum clamping down on, the size the public sector. Instead Greece chose to not accept reality which has consequences.

[Topaz]

Speaking of union and non-unions jobs, today in Michigan, the Governor passed the law to do just that allow workers a choice of being a union memeber or not. There were thousands there to protest it and the Tea Party was there for it. Now in Canada , lately, Pierre Poilievre has been standing up for the past month or so, and protesting himself about this and that it has passed in Michigan, will the Tories try to change the labour las here too? http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/5-things-to-know-about-right-to-work-legislation-moving-through-Michigan-Legislature/-/1719418/17728830/-/oskqdo/-/index.html

[login]

Speaking of union and non-unions jobs, today in Michigan, the Governor passed the law to do just that allow workers a choice of being a union memeber or not. There were thousands there to protest it and the Tea Party was there for it. Now in Canada , lately, Pierre Poilievre has been standing up for the past month or so, and protesting himself about this and that it has passed in Michigan, will the Tories try to change the labour las here too? http://www.clickonde...do/-/index.html

It is good to hear they are being sensible with recognizing individuals right to freedom of association.

[Just Me]

There were many factors that led to the situation in Greece so your claim is beyond an over simplification.

Without a doubt you are right (and you sound like you know a lot more about Greece than I do), however I think my point stands that the mechanisms that the public sector lacks the mechanisms that exist in the private sector to effectively provide balance to the demands of public sector unions.

You are also correct that the voters and goverment are at fault as well. However given that governments are unlikely to start putting long term econmic goals ahead of getting back into office, and the public is just as unlikely to put the effort into understanding the long term effects of government agreements with union (assuming they have the ability and necessary information to do so), I think we need mechanisms to ensure public sector benefits remain inline with the economy's ability to support them and inline with the benefits of similar posistions within the private sector.

The question is how to do this both effectively and fairly (to those in the public sector). Arbitration? Using the private sector as a benchmark, and then allowing the unions to negotiate as long as the final result in roughly in line with the benchmark? Having the public sector employer and union each submit a single offer, one of which is then chosen as being the most reasonable by an independent panel?

There's got to be a better way then we have today!

[jacee]

I'm firmly against legal recognition of unions, and labour law itself. I think rights should be held at the personal level, although likewise I wouldn't bar unions as an assembly of willing individuals or associating from existing. I object to collectivization by force though, that is forcing individuals to unionize even if they don't wish to, I think it violates individuals rights which should be held higher.

Nobody is forcing anybody to unionize, any more than Canadians are 'forced' to put up with Harper because other people voted for him. Democracy works that way.

When you work for someone else, you work by their rules. Do you consider that a violation of your individual rights?

Do you consider it your right to get raises and benefits that are negotiated by a union you haven't contributed to?

[Fletch 27]

Nobody is forcing anybody to unionize, any more than Canadians are 'forced' to put up with Harper because other people voted for him. Democracy works that way.

When you work for someone else, you work by their rules. Do you consider that a violation of your individual rights?

Do you consider it your right to get raises and benefits that are negotiated by a union you haven't contributed to?

Incorrect.. See the link and whats shaken out today in Michigan.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1300449--michigan-braces-for-right-to-work-fight-on-traditional-union-turf#comments

EG: To work at a Horse-race track in Ontario.. you MUST join the OJC... Or no work... Forcing people to be unionized or "no work"....

Get your facts straight

[The_Squid]

Incorrect.. See the link and whats shaken out today in Michigan.

http://www.thestar.c...n-turf#comments

EG: To work at a Horse-race track in Ontario.. you MUST join the OJC... Or no work... Forcing people to be unionized or "no work"....

Get your facts straight

Canada is not Michigan.

If someone wants to work in a union workplace, then they join the union. It is part of the collective agreement. They could always work to have a VOTE to de-certify in their workplace.

In BC there is anti-scab legislation. There has been less labour strife since the 1993 legislation than in any other time. It has worked so well that not even the current gov't, which is "business friendly", has rescinded it in their decade + of being in power.

[Fletch 27]

Canada is not Michigan.

If someone wants to work in a union workplace, then they join the union. It is part of the collective agreement. They could always work to have a VOTE to de-certify in their workplace.

In BC there is anti-scab legislation. There has been less labour strife since the 1993 legislation than in any other time. It has worked so well that not even the current gov't, which is "business friendly", has rescinded it in their decade + of being in power.

Lets say you lived in Campbellville, Where the only real employer is Mohawk Race-track. Lets say you are desperate for work,, but can not join the union based on morals and your own principals. Is it fair for a Union to force you to join,,, or remain un-employed? What about a choice to remian out of the union and still work?

To "de-certify" a union,, dont you need to belong to one?

[Wayward Son]

The question is how to do this both effectively and fairly (to those in the public sector). Arbitration? Using the private sector as a benchmark, and then allowing the unions to negotiate as long as the final result in roughly in line with the benchmark? Having the public sector employer and union each submit a single offer, one of which is then chosen as being the most reasonable by an independent panel?

There's got to be a better way then we have today!

I have no doubt that there are better ways then what we currently have. I also have no doubt that the best system today is unlikely to still be the best system 25 years from now (or 25 years ago). I like to quote Thomas Sowell for such questions: "Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs." There will likely never be a best solution. Even a "better" solution is hard to determine because it must be made with incomplete information as to the pros and cons. Therefore any step forward requires both transparency (something that is sorely lacking from both my provincial government in Ontario, and the federal government); long-term vigilance from both government and taxpayers; and an acceptance that the complex problems are almost never solved with simple solutions. Too many people hold a very simplistic worldview (I am not referring to you, JM).