What might Janus v. AFSCME mean for public sector unions?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There seems to be this mentality that because "muh taxes" pay govt workers salaries, that they should work for minimum wage with no benefits, and if they don't like it, then they can get a job in the private sector.
Now me, I want the police and fire fighters who protect us to be well paid, what they do is hard work, and don't want them searching for a new job while on a crime in progress or at a fire
Amen. Public sector employees, which includes firefighters and policeman, as you say, don't generally make as much money as they could in the private sector. The only reason to entice them to work for the government is usually through offering them benefits or a decent retirement. If you want the best, you need to entice them with something other than telling them it will make them feel good to serve their community.
And yes, "we" need to pay them with "our" tax money, if "we" want them to come and put out a fire at "our" house.
Amen. Public sector employees, which includes firefighters and policeman, as you say, don't generally make as much money as they could in the private sector. The only reason to entice them to work for the government is usually through offering them benefits or a decent retirement. If you want the best, you need to entice them with something other than telling them it will make them feel good to serve their community.
And yes, "we" need to pay them with "our" tax money, if "we" want them to come and put out a fire at "our" house.
The last statement is interesting because where we live there are a lot of rural fire districts that have a fire service fee to cover the cost of having a fire department. There are many people who refuse to pay the fee, but expect the fire department to come out anyway when needed. Been several stores in the news and the fire fighters take heck from the media and public for not fighting the fire.
The general public wants every public service they can get -- fire, police, transportation, roads, parks, you name it. They just want it for free.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,457,371 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
The last statement is interesting because where we live there are a lot of rural fire districts that have a fire service fee to cover the cost of having a fire department. There are many people who refuse to pay the fee, but expect the fire department to come out anyway when needed. Been several stores in the news and the fire fighters take heck from the media and public for not fighting the fire.
The general public wants every public service they can get -- fire, police, transportation, roads, parks, you name it. They just want it for free.
They don't necessarily want it free, but the commons should be covered by taxes, so that a private police or fire department don't ask for a freaking credit card before they'll do their job
I am delighted soon gov't employees will have Freedom of Association-with choose where to work and whether to join a union independent decisions, without them having to pay extortion to either.
They don't necessarily want it free, but the commons should be covered by taxes, so that a private police or fire department don't ask for a freaking credit card before they'll do their job
How did you get that out of anything I said? These are folks who live in a rural area who don't pay city tax yet want the city services when they need them.
Public service jobs are jobs like your DMV workers or community college secretaries, or nurses at the county hospital, or the janitor at the school, etc. They deserve to have a union just as the private sectors do. My issue with all of this, is saying they don't deserve representation because they work for a government. I very much disagree with that.
I disagree that when the parties are at the negotiating table that there are politicos on one side and the union on the other. The union would be at the table across from the employer, who would be the city or county or state administrator - the equal position that you'd find in the private sector. Not the local congressman or mayor or governor or senator. So, I don't understand where you were coming from on that, OP.
Unions can be corrupt, for sure. But, I think only people who are too young to remember life before unions could find total disregard for their benefits.
Public sector union negotiations are exactly as I said--the union on one side of the table, and the reps of politicos on the other side. After all, it is undeniably the politicos who are in charge of gov't agencies. That is undeniably how these negotiations work.
Why else do public sector unions spend so much time and money on politics? It's not out of the goodness of their hearts. In WA the WEA (teachers' union) is often named as the single most powerful political player in the state. https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pub...lection-season
This is also how we end up with contract provisions such as 'administrative leave' whereby teachers caught in inappropriate texting/touching of students get a paid vacation until the case is resolved (often months or even years). In my private sector union contract, we don't have any 'administrative leave' provision. We have unpaid suspension. Kickback schemes inevitably strip away accountability.
I'm not saying no unions for public sector employees, but major reform is clearly needed.
There seems to be this mentality that because "muh taxes" pay govt workers salaries, that they should work for minimum wage with no benefits, and if they don't like it, then they can get a job in the private sector.
Now me, I want the police and fire fighters who protect us to be well paid, what they do is hard work, and don't want them searching for a new job while on a crime in progress or at a fire
Quote me from my post where I said anything about 'muh taxes.' It's so easy to debate when you can cite the imaginary thoughts of the other side. Your post also completely misses the point of post #1.
Exactly. Go look at the map someone posted above. Those states are anti-choice. One is automatically enrolled in the public union and the state forced to collect the union dues for the d@mn unions. Yeah, they call it agency dues, but it is extortion, pure and simple.
Dems are so anti-choice, it is pathetic.
sadly accurate
Janus will correct that. Choice will reign supreme.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.