Public Sector Unions

[carlitos]

I was going to post this in the "republican union busting" thread, but it got kind of long. Maybe a more neutral start will help the discussion.

Stats are mostly from here.

Who are in unions, and what type of union?

• Public Sector employees are 5 or 6 times as likely to be unionized as private sector employees, according to the BLS.
• Unionized employees in total make about $200 more per week vs. their non-union counterparts.
• Most likely to be unionized are teachers, trainers and library workers, representing more than a third of all union members.
• Half of all union members live in 6 states - CA, IL, PA, NY, NJ, OH - even though these states only represent 1/3 of national earnings. Something like 70% of New York State's public employees are unionized.

My conclusions from the above:

• Public Sector unions collectively bargain for the workers they represent, resulting in higher wages and benefits to date.
• Union power continues to wane nationally (under 10% of national labor force), placing greater relative importance on new types of workers, vs. traditional "skilled trades" and blue collar.
• Unions are far over-represented in public sector (37% of all members).
• Teachers and educators wield inordinate power over public sector unions, since they represent the largest plurality of membership.
• This effect is amplified in states with large public sectors, concentrating the membership among a handful of key voting districts and 'swing' electoral states.
• Many municipalities and states with high public-sector union membership operate with some history of corruption, inefficiency and now looming bankruptcy. (not saying this is a causal relationship, just a correlation)
• This intensifies the level of "digging in" that we see today - unions are seeing their last big plurality being challenged by governments that were elected to balance the budget. A large portion of that budget is wages and pensions owed to public sector union employees.

Economic and Political Effects:

• Union members for low-skilled jobs make more than their private sector counterparts, including better benefits and pensions.
• Union members fight for Democratic candidates who then fight for unions.
• Union leadership funds Democratic elections based on their self interest. 92% of public sector union federal contributions were to Democratic candidates.
• Their private sector counterparts exhibit this same phenomenon, bring the Democratic party's average take for all union contributions to 93%**

So one on side, you can observe the better working conditions and pay of unionized public workers and say 'good for them; unions are good.' When looking at workers having a tough time in the private sector, one could posit that they 'should have unionized for their own good.'

On the other side, you can say that political donations and patronage have insulated public sector workers from the new realities of the post-recession economy. Something has to give, as their private-sector colleagues are feeling the pain of the job market, and in some cases voted by proxy to bring public unions into line with the new economic reality.

**yes, I could have posted an opposite relationship between Republicans and other PACs. This topic is about unions, so the tu quoques are not welcome, thanks.

 

[Thunder]

I see the right to collectively negotiate as part of the Freedom of Association, specified in the 1st Amendment. But ofcourse, that would also mean workers have the right to NOT associate, meaning not be forced to pay Union dues. I got no problem with that.

But if you don't pay Union dues you should not get any Union benefits, including negotiated raises, vacation time, sick leave, grievance rights, etc. You would have to negotiate your own individual contract with your employer.

....I wonder how many workers would be willing to give up ALL of their negotiated Union rights, just for a few extra bucks in their pay check.

 

[sarge]

I see the right to collectively negotiate as part of the Freedom of Association, specified in the 1st Amendment. But ofcourse, that would also mean workers have the right to NOT associate, meaning not be forced to pay Union dues. I got no problem with that.

But if you don't pay Union dues you should not get any Union benefits, including negotiated raises, vacation time, sick leave, grievance rights, etc. You would have to negotiate your own individual contract with your employer.

....I wonder how many workers would be willing to give up ALL of their negotiated Union rights, just for a few extra bucks in their pay check.

And of course you support non-union members being guaranteed freedom from harrasment by union goons when non-union workers faithfully report to work during strikes. In fairness, you also support management targeting unions for wage reductions and benefit curtailments while simultaniously rewarding faithful non-union employees with raises and increased benefits, correct?

 

[Thunder]

And of course you support non-union members being guaranteed freedom from harrasment by union goons when non-union workers faithfully report to work during strikes.

yelling at folks who come to work is freedom of speech. physical assaults are a crime, of course.

In fairness, you also support management targeting unions for wage reductions and benefit curtailments while simultaniously rewarding faithful non-union employees with raises and increased benefits, correct?

if managemant wants to demand wage reductions from Union members, yet offer wage increases to non-Union employees, that's their prerogative. the Union will obviously say "**** you" of course, as is their right.

 

[sarge]

yelling at folks who come to work is freedom of speech. physical assaults are a crime, of course.



if managemant wants to demand wage reductions from Union members, yet offer wage increases to non-Union employees, that's their prerogative. the Union will obviously say "**** you" of course, as is their right.

So "yes" is your answer then. Good.

 

[Spindrift]

My conclusions from the above:
[*]Unions are far over-represented in public sector (37% of all members).

Isn't that just your opinion? A union organizer might consider that under-represented.

[*]Teachers and educators wield inordinate power over public sector unions, since they represent the largest plurality of membership.

If they are the largest plurality then how is the power they wield 'inordinate'?

[*]Many municipalities and states with high public-sector union membership operate with some history of corruption, inefficiency and now looming bankruptcy. (not saying this is a causal relationship, just a correlation)

There is no correlation either.
Many municipalities and states (GA, LA, MS) without high public-sector union membership operate with some history of corruption, inefficiency and now looming bankruptcy.

[*]This intensifies the level of "digging in" that we see today - unions are seeing their last big plurality being challenged by governments that were elected to balance the budget. A large portion of that budget is wages and pensions owed to public sector union employees.
[/LIST]

Economic and Political Effects:

• Union members for low-skilled jobs make more than their private sector counterparts, including better benefits and pensions.
• Union members fight for Democratic candidates who then fight for unions.
• Union leadership funds Democratic elections based on their self interest. 92% of public sector union federal contributions were to Democratic candidates.
• Their private sector counterparts exhibit this same phenomenon, bring the Democratic party's average take for all union contributions to 93%**

Is there any reason unions shouldn't work for their own self-interest?

BTW: I'm not a union member and never have been.

 

[carlitos]

Isn't that just your opinion? A union organizer might consider that under-represented.

Vs. the private sector, it's 5 to 6 times over-represented. Vs. 100%, it's obviously under-represented. However, I'd add that the whole unionization of public sector workers can and has created a bit of a protected class of worker, who earn more than their counterparts. I'd hate to see the USA move towards the French model, where government workers are such a powerful class.

If they are the largest plurality then how is the power they wield 'inordinate'?

Hmm. Maybe disproportionate vs. more traditional union interests, like skilled labor?

There is no correlation either.
Many municipalities and states (GA, LA, MS) without high public-sector union membership operate with some history of corruption, inefficiency and now looming bankruptcy.

Fair point. In the case of the Southern states, they may have more flexibility to deal with their looming bankruptcy vs., say, what's happening in Wisconsin.

Is there any reason unions shouldn't work for their own self-interest?

No. The broader question is to what degree it benefits the citizenry as a whole to have the earnings of many of their government workers outpace their own earnings. It seems especially relevant to discuss this after seeing a pretty significant paradigm shift in the private economy over the past 2 years, to which public workers are more immune to the effects.

 

[Tony]

I'm not totally against them, but I think private sector unions need to be dramatically expanded if public sector unions are to remain.

 

[WildCat]

I'm not totally against them, but I think private sector unions need to be dramatically expanded if public sector unions are to remain.

I had a management professor in college whose mantra was "bad management creates labor unions".

I think in private industry management is greatly improved, and many of the practices that encouraged formation of labor unions are illegal now. Thus, it's no surprise that union membership in the private sector has declined.

But as Carlitos has pointed out, a whole different dynamic is at play in the public sector.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't like the idea that the number and nature of workers' rights depends on who signs their paychecks.

 

[Tony]

I had a management professor in college whose mantra was "bad management creates labor unions".

I think in private industry management is greatly improved, and many of the practices that encouraged formation of labor unions are illegal now. Thus, it's no surprise that union membership in the private sector has declined.

But as Carlitos has pointed out, a whole different dynamic is at play in the public sector.

Until they make it illegal for bosses to be bullies, insulting, and abusive and able to fire you at a whim, I think there will still be a need for unions.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Until they make it illegal for bosses to be bullies, insulting, and abusive and able to fire you at a whim, I think there will still be a need for unions.

How about stinky? My boss reeks like a rotting whale carcass stuffed with older, more-rotten whale carcasses. If I had a union, they might require her to be hosed down with Lysol every morning, thereby creating a pine-forest-fresh nonhostile workplace. Or possibly kill her via suffocation. Either way, a triumph for the proletariat!

 

[Thunder]

i think its fair to suggest that if workers feel that they are treated fairly and appropriately, they will not feel the need to join a union.

 

[geni]

i think its fair to suggest that if workers feel that they are treated fairly and appropriately, they will not feel the need to join a union.

However that hasn't stopped say wal-mart engaging in some very agressive anti-union tactics.

 

[geni]

I don't like the idea that the number and nature of workers' rights depends on who signs their paychecks.

However the millitry would beg to differ.

There are certian occupations where going on strike risks causing such a high level of chaos that union rights need to be limited. Millitry and police being the main ones.

 

[tyr_13]

However that hasn't stopped say wal-mart engaging in some very agressive anti-union tactics.

That's predicated on Wal-Mart employees feeling fairly treated.

(Full discloser: I'm an employee of Wal-Mart Associates INC. I would say more but I really, really need to keep my job.)

 

[sarge]

That's predicated on Wal-Mart employees feeling fairly treated.

(Full discloser: I'm an employee of Wal-Mart Associates INC. I would say more but I really, really need to keep my job.)

Small world.

When I retired from the Army, I still needed a paycheck. At the time, I had sincere concerns about my usefulness to any potential employer. I made four applications:

Apprentice Golf Pro at a local public course. I was accepted, but declined when I learned the salary.

Contract security specialist for a then-unknown company providing personal security services in Iraq and Afghanistan. I tentatively accepted a lucrative job offer, but before FedEx delivered the contract, I was offered a job as an Army Civilian, which I accepted

and

a manager at the local WalMart Distribution Center. I interviewed well, and would have been offered the job had I not accepted the DA position. I got the interview because I've been friends for 3 decades with someone that would have been my peer . We've stayed in touch, and I often tease him because he is personally quite liberal, but is a manager for a company that is, by his own admission, rabidly anti-union.

 

[Spindrift]

However the millitry would beg to differ.

There are certian occupations where going on strike risks causing such a high level of chaos that union rights need to be limited. Millitry and police being the main ones.

You can't compare the military to a civilian job. If I don't show up at work, they can not pay me or fire me, they can't throw me in the brig.

Besides the right to strike what other rights would need to be limited?

 

[GodMark2]

However the millitry would beg to differ.

There are certian occupations where going on strike risks causing such a high level of chaos that union rights need to be limited. Millitry and police being the main ones.

Interestingly enough, that is the reason many public sector unions exist: the public can't afford to let some people go on strike. So they form a union, granting the union workers benefits (Health care, days off, etc), but require a clause in the contract forbidding a strike (actually allowing arrest and jailing in some cases). That's how police unions, fire unions, teacher unions, and at least one hospital union work in my neck of the woods.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

But if you don't pay Union dues you should not get any Union benefits, including negotiated raises, vacation time, sick leave, grievance rights, etc. You would have to negotiate your own individual contract with your employer.

What if you pay union dues, just not the part that goes to political activism? With the California Teachers Association if you want to be such a "nonmember fee-payer" you can elect not to pay for politics but you lose MUCH MUCH more than what you're opting out of paying for.

http://www.mantecateachers.com/MEMBERSHIP_RIGHTS_&_PRIVILEGES.pdf

Some "choice".. Far from getting a free ride, everyone else gets a free ride from you if you disagree with the state-mandated union's politics. The lone fact that political disagreement with one's union is so heavily penalized sends up red flags in my world.