Outlaw public employee unions, the root of many of the state’s evils. It would fix the educational system, too.
26 thoughts on “Save California”
Comments are closed.
Outlaw public employee unions, the root of many of the state’s evils. It would fix the educational system, too.
Comments are closed.
Outlawing public employee unions would probably solve many of the problems in the formerly great state of california. Forbidding unions of any variety from extorting membership or “representation fee” would also help by starving the beast.
There is an argument that government is a monopoly and so government employees need their own monopoly to defend them against the only employer in town. It is interesting to note that government employees make up a fifth the workforce and yet more than half of Union members.
Given the above, outlawing Unions would proportionately make the government less appealing to work for than the private sector – which might help constrain the size of government.
Antitrust law, whose job it is to prevent anti competitive behavior (to break up monopolies), might be broadened and strengthened to cover Government Institutions and Unions, in addition to the private sector. Perhaps this might be a publicly and politically feasible approach for bounding the excesses of Unions.
Simply banning public unions via ballot initiatives would be blocked by a judge at some level, everywhere. Political power does not go gently into that good night.
Used to be that the major reason for having a union was to protect workers from abusive management. That’s because there are very few businesses where the union can vote the current management out of office and replace them with better people. The Gov’t Unions have taken that one step further (especially the school unions) and replaced the “watchdogs” with their own bought and paid for trained poodles.
As for judges overturning legislation and propositions they don’t like, we are reaching the point where we need to limit judges to adjudicating disputes between parties and to determining if a criminal law has been violated while taking away their power to “super-legislate” and to second guess. At a minimum, invest those powers to overturn only in a supreme court where there are ways to remove those who’ve fallen in love with “legislating from the bench.” (As Rose Bird about that one…)
I think public employee unions are a good thing. Workers need reperesetation to management to help counter the inherent politics in the system. I am a Republica, a Public Employee and a Union Member.
However, the problem is not Unions per-se, it is collective barganing that basically allows the union to hold a gun to the head of the state.
Being in a union is a first amendment right of assocaition. I, however, am against public employees having the right to strike.
Should unionsm in general constitute racketeering, or some other restraint-of-trade offense?
Should unionsm in general constitute racketeering, or some other restraint-of-trade offense?
If they entail the abuse of a monopoly position then yes, this is what antitrust laws are for – extend their scope to cover unions. This would not outlaw unions, just bound them to within appropriate limits – price fixing is illegal.
If they entail the abuse of a monopoly position then yes, this is what antitrust laws are for – extend their scope to cover unions. This would not outlaw unions, just bound them to within appropriate limits – price fixing is illegal.
Preventing public employees from being unionized is a far cry from outlawing unions.
Preventing public employees from being unionized is a far cry from outlawing unions.
The majority of union members are public employees even though public employees only make up ~20% of the workforce. This is not an accident.
With government being the only employer of public employees government is very much in a monopoly position. Public employees can not practically decide to go work for another government down the road, hence their resort to unionism. Public employees need unions more than private employees due to this imbalance of monopolistic power.
To argue that public unions should be effectively outlawed but that private unions should not be (I am not sure if this is what you are inferring), seems particularly abusive to the private sector. If public sector unionism should be prevented then private sector unions should most definitely be prevented (the need for private sector unions being far less). To do otherwise would be for the government to expect the private sector to obey a set of labor laws that the government itself was not willing to obey – a rather unjust two tier system of laws.
Unfortunately there are still too many companies where management seems to go out of their way to make working conditions miserable, and only the presence of a strong union mitigates some of the unpleasantness. I’ve worked for a few clients where the in house engineering staff is fully unionized, and I can see why, given the way that contract workers such as myself are treated, since the shops don’t care as long as they get billable hours.
One place I worked, all contractors worked in an area with leaking drums of toxic waste stored in 55 gallon rusting drums, weird crystals growing on the drum.
IMHO, there has to be a balance. As to how to achieve it, I don’t know. Human nature can really be a nasty thing.
With government being the only employer of public employees government is very much in a monopoly position.
No offense, but that’s a terrible argument just in that sentence alone. Let’s start with the obvious rebuttal:
With the fast food sector being the only employer of fast food employees the fast food sector is very much in a monopoly position.
This is just as true as the previous statement. There are thousands of governments in the US, just as there are thousands of fast food businesses. If you really have a hankering to be employed by a government (rather than picking up one of the numerous private sector jobs out there), you have plenty of choices to choose from. No monopoly position to rationalize the existence of public unions.
Public employees can not practically decide to go work for another government down the road, hence their resort to unionism. Public employees need unions more than private employees due to this imbalance of monopolistic power.
Actually, yes, they can chose to work for another government down the road. And I don’t think that a public employee has the right to address any power imbalances via collective bargaining.
To argue that public unions should be effectively outlawed but that private unions should not be (I am not sure if this is what you are inferring), seems particularly abusive to the private sector.
Not really. Government shouldn’t compete with the private sector. Hence, the unionization differential would be irrelevant.
To do otherwise would be for the government to expect the private sector to obey a set of labor laws that the government itself was not willing to obey – a rather unjust two tier system of laws.
Welcome to the real world. Maybe you ought to see what other rules government isn’t beholden to (environmental, safety, fiduciary responsibility for future obligations, etc), before you continue to rail about the unfairness of government employers.
If we’re going to keep our current, “rather unjust” two-tier system of laws, it’s only reasonable that we neuter the parties, such as public unions, who helped bring hat system about.
“Public employees can not practically decide to go work for another government down the road, hence their resort to unionism.”
I would add to Karl’s rebuttal, as a practical matter, citizens don’t have another national government bureaucracy from which to choose if they are not satisfied with the services received. In the private market, this leads to anti-trust litigation. Oh the irony.
Speaking of public unions, did you see their rally?
Reagan had and implemented the solution to unions… he fired them.
Outlaw public employee Union’s. Make California a ‘Right to Work” state. Return property tax revenue to the control of local government. Allow the state senate to be elected by county, regardless of population, to counter the political dominance of the urban centers. These steps would go a long way to restoring some sort of sanity to California government.
Should be ‘unions’.
“With government being the only employer of public employees government is very much in a monopoly position.”
No offense, but that’s a terrible argument just in that sentence alone. Let’s start with the obvious rebuttal:
With the fast food sector being the only employer of fast food employees the fast food sector is very much in a monopoly position.
Are you really suggesting that the government sector labor market is as employer diverse and openly competitive as that of the fast food sector? Do you really think there would be little difference between a fast food sector run by the private sector and one run by government? A rather impressively comical dining experience my father had in East Germany just after the wall came down comes to my mind…
With regard to public sector unions – one monopoly (government) leads to another (public sector unions), crudely outlawing one of them does not fix the fundamental problem.
Antitrust laws seem an appropriate and fundamental way of curtailing unions that abuse monopoly positions – just as they are used to ensure open competition in the private sector. In time it would perhaps be possible to further extend them to cover anticompetitive behavior of government departments. Broadening antitrust laws to cover unions and governments (creating a serious and specific legal tool for limiting the power of the state) would I think enable many of the necessary reforms and do so in a long term sustainable manner that might even gain popular support enough to get through. Antitrust laws are a possible means to effectively limit power abuse by vested interests and to halt entitlement cultures in the public sector.
Are you really suggesting that the government sector labor market is as employer diverse and openly competitive as that of the fast food sector?
Sure, I’m just puzzled why you think otherwise.
With regard to public sector unions – one monopoly (government) leads to another (public sector unions), crudely outlawing one of them does not fix the fundamental problem.
Of course not. There are other ways to rent-seek than to set up a public union. But as I see it, the US isn’t going to go to competitive government at the appropriate scales. The California government, for example, will maintain its government monopoly in California. What we can control is the presence of other rent-seeking monopolies such as public unions.
Antitrust laws seem an appropriate and fundamental way of curtailing unions that abuse monopoly positions – just as they are used to ensure open competition in the private sector.
They haven’t been used yet, which indicates to me that they are inadequate to control public unions. Having said that, it’s better than the current absence of a solution now. If I had to compromise, an anti-trust law with teeth that applies to public unions is much better than nothing.
The California government, for example, will maintain its government monopoly in California. What we can control is the presence of other rent-seeking monopolies such as public unions.
One monopoly begets another – like gangs. These other rent seeking monopolies can not be controlled because an overly monopolistic government has a vested interest in promoting them and thereby itself. Eliminate one monopoly and it will just pop up somewhere else. Eliminating one player will not change the game.
Worked for Texas Instruments – non-union. When TI does well, so do all employees. When times are tight, everyone cinches their belt.
Worked for Boeing – union. Management hates the union, union hates management.
Both seem to work, but one is a lot more pleasant.
Thought about private-sector unions…let’s say I start up an auto plant in Texas. UAW wants to unionize. The majority of my stockholders don’t want one. If the concept of property rights is intact, the UAW can’t do a damn thing to set up a union shop at Henderson Motors. Any law that allows someone other than a majority of stockholders to decide whether the firm goes union is legalized racketeering.
One monopoly begets another – like gangs. These other rent seeking monopolies can not be controlled because an overly monopolistic government has a vested interest in promoting them and thereby itself. Eliminate one monopoly and it will just pop up somewhere else. Eliminating one player will not change the game.
So let me get this right, you’re claiming that complete “monopolization” of human culture is inevitable. Ok, then. Put me on top of it all and I’ll stop complaining about it.
OTOH, I don’t see the inevitable nature of government power. Take power away from it and it is less of a monopoly. Similarly, eliminate or at the least substantially curb the power of public unions and we can ignore these as a source of trouble. My take is that with some vigilance, no new player will step up to take the place of public unions simply because no player will be able to.
Thought about private-sector unions…let’s say I start up an auto plant in Texas. UAW wants to unionize. The majority of my stockholders don’t want one. If the concept of property rights is intact, the UAW can’t do a damn thing to set up a union shop at Henderson Motors. Any law that allows someone other than a majority of stockholders to decide whether the firm goes union is legalized racketeering.
Stockholders may own the business, but they don’t own the employees or their labor. That and the fact that the interests of stockholders and employees typically don’t coincide, creates the grounds for labor unions.
That and the fact that the interests of stockholders and employees typically don’t coincide
Mule muffins. (/shermantpotter) The common interest is PROFITABILITY, the source of both parties’ income, and the latter’s upward mobility.
Unions are leeches that seek to monopolize representation over labor markets, use that monopoly to impose monetary and production-related inefficiencies of scale.
Is there one industry whose going-concern status have actually improved under unions?
Mule muffins. (/shermantpotter) The common interest is PROFITABILITY, the source of both parties’ income, and the latter’s upward mobility.
And how much of that share of profit goes to labor is the common conflict of interest.
Profitability is necessary for both the stockholders’ and workers’ chief interest. (And the company’s, of course.) One would think that it’s also necessary for the interest of labor representation (unions are not labor, they represent labor), but historically that is not the case.
Private-sector unions invariably get too greedy and eventually suck more of the company’s lifeblood than the company can afford. When that happens and Civil War movies are being made in non-union Eastern Europe while Japanese automakers proliferate in the Deep South, the company’s blood gets thin and unions seek some kind of taxpayer supplement. Or some kind of protectionist law to ameliorate Americans’ ability to do business with non-union shops.
There is currently little mechanism to disincentive unions’ greed.