The idea that governmetn jobs should not be allowed to unionize pro or con?

I am pro

 

Why would you want to hinder employee freedom? It is an ugly idea that is also inconsistent with economic rationality (given unionisation is found to generate positive productivity effects, from 'voice effects' to the positive effects from improving employer-employee interaction)

 

I am not sure. On the one hand, it theoretically should not make sense to have labor unions for government workers. After all, it is the government, elected by the voters, that decides how much government workers should get paid. But on the other hand, the unions of government employed workers (inlcuding teachers) are basically the last labor unions of any significant influence left in the USA. Trade agreements and immigration were used as weapons to crush the unions in the private sector. If a company had trouble from a labor union, they just outsourced (or threated to outsource) to Mexico or Canada. And labor unions are not really allowed in China, so all the factory owners went there so they do not have to pay decent wages or worry about working conditions.

 

Drivel again, as shown by the countries with strong central bargaining and high trade as % of GDP

 

That is only because countries with better wages and worker protections tend to be wealtheir, and can afford to import more.
And I can think of numerous examples of countries with both high levels of trade and exploited workers: China and Saudi Arabia for example.

 

Honestly, I'd prefer a worker union, instead of having various fragmented unions each fighting for their own rights. Don't see that happening though, so I'm con with the stipulation that certain essential groups not be allowed to strike because of the far reaching negative impact it'd have, PATCO would be an example of an organization that shouldn't be able to hold the entire airline industry hostage because of a disagreement with their employers. In instances such as these unbiased third party mediation could be used to resolve issues.

 

I am promoting empolyee freedom, right. Where did you get the idea I was not? Oh I get it its a deliberate misreading.

no no

read what I said

 

exactly

the tax payer is not represented

just ban unions for gov jobs

most gov should should be eliminated anyhow or even better privatized

government produces inefficeintly

great example is roads

govent spending 10-20x as much as it needs, all stolen from business, then claims its road made the busness success lol

laughable commy bs

 

Again you reply with nonsense. We know that trade has increased wages in China. The important point, however, is that your view is again inconsistent with reality. Countries where trade is more important than the likes of the US and the UK also have much more active union movements.

 

Most of China's trade has been with the USA. Wages in the USA have been decreasing.

or is it your view that is inconsistent with reality?

Correlation does not imply causation. There is no direct connection. The reason for what you describe, which should be obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense, is that these countries have higher standards of living. Higher standards of living are typically associated with more labor rights. And countries with higher standards of living often import more.

 

I've always thought federal employees unionizing was strange. Their bosses who can't be trusted to do the right thing so they need a union... work for us, the taxpayer. Who's protecting US from them????

 

Complete and total dishonesty that you cannot support with BLS data. Why lie?

 

Why would worker freedom be deemed strange?

 

What are you babbling about. Of course open unregulated trade is good. Anything in the way of that reduces wealth. The usa and uk would be far far richer from top to bottom without unions. History shows how small governmetn measn much greater wealth for the common man. your babbling and taking thsi off topic is drivel. Get some common sense man and watch some tom woosd and peter schiff on youtube until your iq improves.

 

unions are against worker fredom, coreect, and they are multi stae multi national corps who hurt workers productivity and progress

reiver is uneducated and need to youtube tom wood and pter sciff and lsiten to few dozen hours to get up to speed

of course governmetn jobs should not be allowed to unionize

 

Why do you think making blindingly silly comments will be an effective strategy?

 

The UK, compared to its competitors, has a weak union movement and also has one of the highest working poverty rates. Obviously you are typing 'without knowledge', as shown by your obsession with low brow youtube offerings posted to manipulate the gullible. For example, the union movement in Britain has a recent past of conservatism. The adoption of the 'New Unionism in the Workplace', an off-shoot of the influence of Thatcher-loving Blairism, focuses on partnership and co-operation. In terms of public sector involvement, it is focused on developing non-pecuniary compensation compatible with higher performance workplaces.

 

Public sector unions only make sense using the same formula that the Federal Government uses.

They allow unions to bargain for working conditions and employee protection but do not allow:

Collective bargaining for wages - Since that is a legislative function determined by the vote of the people using their money, when public sector unions are allowed to bargain for wages it takes the voter out of the loop.

Strikes - This makes sense since government provides services to the people that pay for it.

Forced Union Dues - This just makes sense since no one should be subject to illegal force.

 

Stopping basic labour rights is the stuff of fascism.

 

BS, these are government workers working for the people. The people pay them. The people vote for their government. When unions step in they take the voters out of the picture and basically give us taxation without representation. Government unions that can collective bargain for wages is a crime against taxpayers.

 

Its a factual comment: the attack on union rights is consistent with fascism. You can dress it up however you want, but we both know that you support the exact same policies required in fascism. It is abhorrent, but at least we see the right wing being honest for a change

 

The long time agreement working for government is that you work for less pay but have much greater security than the private sector. Unions have turned that on it's head and now they get greater pay and benefits and more security than the private sector. Cities and States that do not handle their budgets properly should not penalize taxpayers. The Federal government should not be sending money to the States for what the States are supposed to be running in the first place.

Look what is happening in Chicago now. The teachers are on strike, they make the highest pay in the country and want more and because of the unions, they do not care about the students that are supposed to be taken care of with taxpayer money. Again, taxpayers are getting screwed because of unions.

 

More BS. In other words, f__k the taxpayer.

 

Nope. You're just using the tax payer as an excuse to introduce fascist policy whereby those in the public sector (often providing public goods) can be dictated to by the government. I find that abhorrent. It will also encourage inefficient government policy such as the use of incomes policy that harms public secotr productivity

 

Company based unions are limited in what they can extract - too much and the company fails. A natural check and balance.

What limits what the public sector union can extract? Those unions negotiate with politicians, who get much of their campaign contributions from the same unions. Unlike in the private sector, the politician wins when the union wins - conflict of interest. Why do you think the public unions are doing so well? Because,

like most government spending, distributed costs (taxes) provide concentrated benefits (union pay & benefits). Therefore, it requires significant abuse before the voter gets mad enough to provide an offsetting incentive to the politicians.