Is there one good reason why there should be unions in the public sector?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Your Idol, Feb 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i would argue that its 6 to one half dozen to the other. the government has no profit margin but that's not to say certain companies and individuals don't benefit more than others from the various projects they fund. in the same line of thought, i could make the argument that funding government employees such as teachers/soldiers/cops etc does just as much to 'benefit' society as taking the necessary money to fix up a worn down highway or road. we want these jobs to be held in a high regard to create an incentive for qualified individuals to pursue a career in these fields, and serve for the betterment of society. secure workers rights and a livable wage are vital elements of that process.

    how effective this has been is certainly debatable, but once again that can also be applied to many other forms of government spending.
    test
  2. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    A sovereign nation protecting it's citizens and borders is the primary objective for any nation. You would be wrong if you argued fixing a road is as important as a standing army or police force.
    test
  3. Noncentz

    Noncentz Sieg Heil, M'fer!

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,043
    1. There is no need to 'secure' or 'protect' workers rights in the Public sector. Public sector employees should be held up to a higher standard than those of the private sector, by eliminating Union protections in the Public sector we will be promoting these high standards through the fear of lost employment.

    2. Again, there is no right to public unions in the U.S constitution and Unions/Workers are not elected by the public and therefore should have no right to demand any monies from the public purse. Domestic economics should be handled by those given the power, through the people, to create and execute laws.

    3. The idea of 'worker protection' means nothing for the public sector. Those that work in the public sector cannot be treated badly because the public sector is run by a bunch of Politicians all fighting one another for the number one spot; so, if workers were treated badly the Politician would be unelected or even impeached. ---You can't do that in private corps, the people don't run shit.
    test
  4. Noncentz

    Noncentz Sieg Heil, M'fer!

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,043
    Building a road and maintaining infrastructure is even more critical to a nation than both of the latter. Without roads you cannot create a proper economy to fund either, let alone maneuver forces properly.

    That's the whole reason why that when we go to war the first thing we attack is not the armies, or police forces -- We blow the shit out of the infrastructure. Without it, you're done for.
    test
  5. Noncentz

    Noncentz Sieg Heil, M'fer!

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,043
    Haha @ "citizen"

    If you are a citizen you don't really have rights. You have 'privileges.'

    There is a legal reason why the U.S constitution says "We the People" of the United States.

    Person/Individual and Citizen are very different legal terms.

    No corporation would ever incorporate under 'citizen' ... heh
    test
  6. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    now we're getting somewhere. i do see the legitimacy in the argument that public sector unions have led to some lackluster results and in some cases corruption. but i wonder if reforming the way certain aspects of how unions work and the rights they secure might be a fair compromise as opposed to eliminating the option of collective bargaining altogether. for instance in the case of teachers, the reason it is so hard to fire bad teachers is largely cause of the protected status they recieve along with 'tenure,' and the unions willing to back their legal cases. arizona had the right idea to stop funding firing appeals in u.s. courts after the issue has already been ruled on by the school comitee. we would also do well to reexamine the concept of 'tenure' status and consider whether it is a force which is ultimately counter productive in pursuing a better public education system.

    again, i hold a different point of view from you concerning rights. you seem to think the only rights people have are the ones explicitly given in the constitution. i happen to believe in human rights that transcend litigation, albiet they are a subjective ideal. i can at least say in the practical sense that the constitution merely outlines which rights the federal government can't legally infringe on, and it's not even entirely successful in securing those 'rights' even on the basic federal level, so i'd say the general question concerning what our 'rights' are is open to debate.

    i'm not convinced in this ideal. politicians will get away with what politicians can get away with. flagrant abuse will smear their image but that doesn't really stop them from underpaying employees, and in fact our politicians have learned to be quite effective in escaping even the most legitimatly damning stains in their record.

    overall, i can see why people have some issues with unions, and you both have listed some legitimate complaints about the unions in the public sector, but i'm really reluctant to lend any sort of support to these republican politicians who ultimately are anti-union in general and are basically attempting to gradually dismantle the political clout of middle class workers. i am personally convinced that this is a struggle that will not end in a compromise regarding teacher pensions or anything of the sort.
    test
  7. tequila togorgeous

    tequila togorgeous New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,133
    LOL@ Myke Sean rattling off some spiel about exclusion and marginalisation when Unions were set up to exclude and marginalize.

    Unions were established in an attempt to exclude people(usually 'undesirables' such as blacks, women, foreigners, jews and so on) from the labour markets so that their members might enjoy rising wages as the result of the artificially reduced supply of workers. This is not merely my personal, biased interpretation of events. The Webbs are probably the most influential advocates for trade unionism in world history and their famous work 'the history of trade unionism' sets out the means and objectives of unionisation very clearly.

    And while today the story the labour movement tells about itself has changed, and the economics of the process are veiled beneath rhetoric more appealing to modern ears, those economics are still the same. A union still only benefits its members to the extent that it can keep scabs from competing for jobs. A union is still premised on an erroneous class war view of economics, a view which has proven ruinous to whichever nation it has prevailed in and which is inimical to the mutually beneficial view of trade that enriches a nation as a whole.
    test
  8. tequila togorgeous

    tequila togorgeous New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,133
    Your idol, you may as well stop asking for a valid reason for the existence of public sector unions. None of the typical arguments given for unionisation apply to the public sphere and back when leftism referred to a set of ideas and not a cultural disease lefties didnt even used to advocate for them. They were aware of the self immolating contradiction in arguing that the state be empowered to act as a bulwark against corporate interests and making an argument that implies the state is no different from those corporate interests. Obviously no-one is going to take seriosuly someone that claims the state should be able to make all kinds of economic decisions on the part of third parties whilst also saying the state cannot be trusted to pay its own functionaries a decent wage.

    The only real argument for public sector unions is the one they will never say. It is that public sector unions act as a round about way for leftist political parties to fund themselves with public money.
    test
  9. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    That is something a standing army does not something that happens before one exists.
    test
  10. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    These are the rights we have. Public sector unions have privileges given by states. "Bargaining rights" are actually a misinterpretation as far as they're concerned. That's not to say public sector workers aren't protected by multiple laws governing the work environment.

    Saying you're disagreeing means you're wrong plain and simple. You're saying we should have these guarantees which disrupts our economy in measurable way (which is where we disagree).
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)