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.
It seems like a lot of private sector people are jealous of public sector employees who have unions. I can only speak to my experience, but my public sector union was not allowed to use dues for political activity, and they could not negotiate their own pay or strike. So it actually had less power. Some of you are directing your anger to the wrong source, but of course it's always easier to pick on the little guy than to risk your job by upsetting those with real power.
We really need to make it so that unions don't represent everyone in a company, but rather only actually represent the employees who pay into joining. That way everyone's happy. No one gets a free ride, and if you want representation, you can choose to buy into a union.
Unions would never let that happen though, because so few people would willingly join a union given how little most people get in return from them.
Historically, the bargain that public sector employees had were greater benefits but less pay than their private sector counterparts. Public sector bargaining increased public employee salaries beyond their private sector counterparts and also made it almost impossible to be fired. That's a situation that is clearly out of balance and can't be sustained. It only exists because the relationship between public unions and their government employers is completely corrupt. Hopefully this court case is a good first step at setting things right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
It seems like a lot of private sector people are jealous of public sector employees who have unions. I can only speak to my experience, but my public sector union was not allowed to use dues for political activity, and they could not negotiate their own pay or strike. So it actually had less power. Some of you are directing your anger to the wrong source, but of course it's always easier to pick on the little guy than to risk your job by upsetting those with real power.
People in the private sector should negotiate for better pay and benefits if they don't like their packages. And own your own companies if you want to absolutely guarantee that you won't be fired. Of course, both those options come with risk. But I think private sector employees are up to it. They can obviously do a better job than those horrible unions, judging by the criticisms. So let's see what you're made of.
Historically, the bargain that public sector employees had were greater benefits but less pay than their private sector counterparts. Public sector bargaining increased public employee salaries beyond their private sector counterparts and also made it almost impossible to be fired. That's a situation that is clearly out of balance and can't be sustained. It only exists because the relationship between public unions and their government employers is completely corrupt. Hopefully this court case is a good first step at setting things right.
The 'impossible to get fired' is one of the biggest drawbacks of a union. Without competition, people always get complacent.
Is that how banks got too big to fail because I thought those were private sector entities...
Good one. For some reason, Low level public sector employees are the only ones who screw up and shouldn't be allowed to keep their jobs after doing so.
We really need to make it so that unions don't represent everyone in a company, but rather only actually represent the employees who pay into joining. That way everyone's happy. No one gets a free ride, and if you want representation, you can choose to buy into a union.
Unions would never let that happen though, because so few people would willingly join a union given how little most people get in return from them.
Union would not let it occur, as giving up exclusive bargaining rights at a local is required for them to not represent all at a site.
Give up exclusivity = other unions free to raid the members.
Union would not let it occur, as giving up exclusive bargaining rights at a local is required for them to not represent all at a site.
Give up exclusivity = other unions free to raid the members.
If the union is actually providing what's best for the worker, why would they be afraid of that? Workers would always pick the union that used to have exclusive rights because that's where they get what's best for them
If the union is actually providing what's best for the worker, why would they be afraid of that? Workers would always pick the union that used to have exclusive rights because that's where they get what's best for them
They fear competition
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.
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.
