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

[The_Squid]

Lets say you are desperate for work,, but can not join the union based on morals and your own principals.

Then you're an idiot.

[Fletch 27]

Then you're an idiot.

Endenchured servants to the Union dues.... I have self respect...

[Wayward Son]

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"....

To work as a medical doctor in Ontario... you must go to medical school.... Or no work... Forcing people to be medical school grads or "no work"...

Not being able to work in the job/career and location of your choice is not a denial of someone's rights.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Wayward Son

[The_Squid]

Endenchured servants to the Union dues.... I have self respect...

I didn't realize that this hypothetical desperate person was you! You should have self-respect enough to learn to spell.

"The only job I can get in town is at a union wage with benefits! Oh, woe is me!"

LOL

[Bonam]

To work as a medical doctor in Ontario... you must go to medical school.... Or no work... Forcing people to be medical school grads or "no work"...

Not being able to work in the job/career and location of your choice is not a denial of someone's rights.

One is a matter of having the necessary skills and qualifications, the other is not. Not a valid analogy.

[Wayward Son]

Lets say you lived in Campbellville, Where the only real employer is Mohawk Race-track.

So....you are saying that there are other employers...but not real employers....So there are non-unionized jobs but apparently they suck. The only job good enough to be a "real" one is the unionized one. Wonder why?

Lets say you are desperate for work,, but can not join the union based on morals and your own principals.

Then take one of those non "real" jobs and work to improve the conditions there. Or you could....move to Michigan.

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?

You are not forced to join the union. You are forced to pay union dues (which you can have donated elsewhere) and you receive the benefits that the union acheives. If I don't wish to pay the municipal taxes where I live I am free to go elsewhere. If you don't wish to receive the benefits or pay (donate) the fees you are free to find employment elsewhere. I worked in a location where a union was voted in 4 years after I began employment (I voted against it). I quickly felt the union (not unions in general, this specific one) was unethical. I never joined, or signed a card, and I had my dues donated. I worked for change, but did not succeed. After a couple years I left. But no one forced me work there, or stay there, nor is not working there a violation of my rights.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Wayward Son

[Argus]

I've never understood this concept.

How does that work?

When the union negotiates a raise, those who don't belong to the union (ie, didn't help pay the negotiators) don't get the raise?

Yes. The idea is to destroy the unions by having the employees opt out so they don't have to contribute any union dues and don't have to take part in any sort of job action. This leaves the union both starved of cash, and unable to organize any kind of coherent job action against the employer.

This sort of thing has been quite successful in the US in so-called "right to work" states. It's managed to lower wages (union and non-union) right across the board. Which, of course, is what it's designed to do. Which, of course, is why big business are big proponents and pay so much money to the Republicans who bring such laws in.

[Argus]

Who says the union was required to negotiate the pay raise?

If you have a skill which is not easily replaceable, then you can negotiate your own raise. Very few people have such a skill, and if you go to your boss and ask for a raise he'll laugh at you and tell you to get back to work or find another job.

[Argus]

That's correct. Individuals that are not members of the union negotiate their own salaries, on an individual basis. Just like a non-unionized worker would.

That's not true. In almost every large employer, public or private, where a union is present, the non-union workers get exactly the same wages and benefits.

[Argus]

Every unionized shop has managers who are not in the union. They always negotiate their own pay. Why would non-union workers be any different?

Rich people pay for their own health care. Why can't everyone else do the same?

[Argus]

It would work the same as any non union shop, many separate contracts.

Suuuure it would. And the employer would give the non-union people less, right? He'd give the union people 3% and the non-union people only 2% or nothing? Which, of course, would immediately cause all the non-union employees to join the union. Which is why employers make sure the compensation is the same.

[Argus]

Of course you can negotiate. In most private sector jobs, that's absolutely the case. Everyone at my work negotiated their own salaries when they were hired -- there is NO set wage at any position.

Then you work in a small place or have a unique job. All large to medium organizations have a set wage structure for employees.

[Argus]

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

For the same reason I have to pay taxes to the city for things I have no use for. Do I have a 'free choice' to not pay municipal taxes and thus make no use of municipal resources? No, I don't. You can't run a government that way, and you can't run a union where employees can opt out and still get the same benefits.

[Argus]

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.

Why should I be compelled to pay taxes? Why can't I just pay for whatever I want as I want it? If government adds so little value that I have to be forced to join in and contribute then perhaps they have outlived their usefulness.

[Argus]

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

I think they are responding to the millions in donations from the corporate sector which wants to destroy unions and lower wages and benefits.

[TimG]

For the same reason I have to pay taxes to the city for things I have no use for.

Except a union is not a public service. It is a private organization.

No, I don't. You can't run a government that way, and you can't run a union where employees can opt out and still get the same benefits.

Who says they get the same benefits? That really depends on whatever the individuals negotiate.

[Argus]

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

Speaking of facts. You don't have to join a union. You DO have to contribute dues, however, in recognition that the union is negotiating wages and benefits. Look up the Rand formula.

[Argus]

Except a union is not a public service. It is a private organization.

That's irrelevent. It is omnipresent at that location. If you're there, you pay dues, just as a resident of a local area pays taxes.

Who says they get the same benefits? That really depends on whatever the individuals negotiate.

No it doesn't. They get the same benefits. If they got more the union would disappear. If they got less, everyone would join the union. Right?

[TimG]

That's irrelevent. It is omnipresent at that location. If you're there, you pay dues, just as a resident of a local area pays taxes.

Except if you are a 'manager' or a 'third party contractor'. The workers covered under union contracts are arbitrary subsets of the people working at a location. Do mid-level managers get the same benefits as union members? Why would people who don't join unions be any different.

In any case, it is moot. In Canada, the Rand formula laid out by the SCC says people who don't join a union in a union shop must pay an amount equal to the union dues to a charity agreeable to the union and the employee. It is unlikely that any attempt to make union membership optional would change that provision so the freeloader argument would not apply. If people choose not to join a union it would only be because they did not want to fund an organization that they disagree with.

Edited December 11, 2012 by TimG

[Argus]

Except if you are a 'manager' or a 'third party contractor'. The workers covered under union contracts are arbitrary subsets of the people working at a location. Do mid-level managers get the same benefits as union members? Why would people who don't join unions be any different.

Managers are management. The workers covered under union contracts are all employees of that company other than management.

If people choose not to join a union it would only be because they did not want to fund an organization that they disagree with.

If they disagree with the organization they should go vote for new representatives. The reason why so many union leaders have views so different from the people they represent, at least on political beliefs, is so very few people ever go and vote for their representatives. Our local had its annual general meeting a few months back and about 200 people showed up ... out of over 3,000. And that was considered an unusually good response.

[August1991]

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.

JM, you make a key distinction that is not obvious in the other posts above.

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.

Talk about a non-sequitur!

JM, you are asking for a check on the power of the State. We in Canada have a federal State, and now a Charter of Rights. We have an independent Supreme Court. Provincial sovereignty provides perhaps the best check on State power.

Do you think that public sector unions are an effective check on State power or - to use modern language - are they simply "enablers" of further State monopoly power?

Edited December 12, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

When you work for someone else, you work by their rules.

Jacee, I fundamentally disagree.

They hire me according to my rules. In Canada, we are individuals free to choose as we wish. We have a Charter that protects our individual rights against the power of the State.

Moreover, when I buy a coffee at Tim Horton's, it's not according to their rules. If I don't like the coffee, I can go elsewhere.

Markets work when both buyers and sellers have plentiful and accurate information.

PeterF, thank you for that cfee.org link (and quote). I had never heard of this organisation before.

There is no doubt that labour markets suffer from "inaccurate" information. Here's the problem however: do unions solve this problem of information or merely exploit it?

-----

IMHO, the better question is to ask why unions are now concentrated in the public sector. Private sector unions are moribund.

Edited December 12, 2012 by August1991

[Bryan]

All large to medium organizations have a set wage structure for employees.

Union sympathizers like to trot that myth out a lot, but it's simply not true. Most private companies negotiate your salary when you're hired. The bigger the company, the more room you have to negotiate.

[August1991]

The idea is to destroy the unions by having the employees opt out so they don't have to contribute any union dues and don't have to take part in any sort of job action. This leaves the union both starved of cash, and unable to organize any kind of coherent job action against the employer.

This sort of thing has been quite successful in the US in so-called "right to work" states. It's managed to lower wages (union and non-union) right across the board. Which, of course, is what it's designed to do. Which, of course, is why big business are big proponents and pay so much money to the Republicans who bring such laws in.

Except Argus, Big Business no longer employs unionised labour.

Unions largely exist in the public sector - this is true in America and Canada. Your argument makes no sense. The old 1850s or 1930s Marxist image of Labour vs. Capital no longer exists.

Nowadays, the rich, capitalist Republicans employ non-unionised workers. They are all tired of paying taxes to unionized public sector employees.

Then you work in a small place or have a unique job. All large to medium organizations have a set wage structure for employees.

What a quote.

Argus, how do you define "set"? Or, how do you define "unique job"? I reckon that you're clueless about the modern Canadian labour market.

Edited December 12, 2012 by August1991

[dre]

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.

Collective bargaining is important because unions have more power to negotiate for good working conditions and wages than individuals. This has radically changed our society for the better, and bought about things like the 40 hour work week, weekends, sick pay, safe working conditions, proper safety equipment and so on.