The Almighty Unions

[.Morticia.]

An equitable amount reflecting the value of their work and agreed upon by the workers and the public

How much would that be? As much as they ask for? Because we all know that any resistance to any union demand is equivalent to wanting children to work in coal mines.

you do like to exaggerate

and where have I said that the unions will mediate ?

I said "workers"

[Coito ergo sum]

An equitable amount reflecting the value of their work and agreed upon by the workers and the public

How much would that be? As much as they ask for? Because we all know that any resistance to any union demand is equivalent to wanting children to work in coal mines.

you do like to exaggerate

and where have I said that the unions will mediate ?

I said "workers"

I like to exaggerate? Look at the rhetoric some of you have used when faced with anyone who opposes what unions want in a given situation. It's all hyperbole about how any resistance to the union demands will send us back to child labor coal mines and dangerous working conditions. We can't even rationally oppose public sector strikes without being struck with exaggerated nonsense.

Do you even read what you type? The unions represent the workers. Who are the "workers?" You mean ever employee gets a vote or something? Negotiations aren't going to be done by representatives? Are you for real?

[Seth]

If these workers and the service they do is so vital to our society and economy then why aren't they paid more and given better conditions?

They already are. Average is about 40 percent more than a worker in private industry, sometimes it's as high as 100 percent more.

Why should society pay more than the going rate for such labor? Why should the public be bound by union agreements rather than being able to hire and fire at will in order to get the lowest-cost workers who are willing to do the work?

[.Morticia.]

An equitable amount reflecting the value of their work and agreed upon by the workers and the public

How much would that be? As much as they ask for? Because we all know that any resistance to any union demand is equivalent to wanting children to work in coal mines.

you do like to exaggerate

and where have I said that the unions will mediate ?

I said "workers"

I like to exaggerate? Look at the rhetoric some of you have used when faced with anyone who opposes what unions want in a given situation. It's all hyperbole about how any resistance to the union demands will send us back to child labor coal mines and dangerous working conditions. We can't even rationally oppose public sector strikes without being struck with exaggerated nonsense.

Do you even read what you type? The unions represent the workers. Who are the "workers?" You mean ever employee gets a vote or something? Negotiations aren't going to be done by representatives? Are you for real?

Workers can have workplace based organisations with representatives elected by themselves.

[Coito ergo sum]

An equitable amount reflecting the value of their work and agreed upon by the workers and the public

How much would that be? As much as they ask for? Because we all know that any resistance to any union demand is equivalent to wanting children to work in coal mines.

you do like to exaggerate

and where have I said that the unions will mediate ?

I said "workers"

I like to exaggerate? Look at the rhetoric some of you have used when faced with anyone who opposes what unions want in a given situation. It's all hyperbole about how any resistance to the union demands will send us back to child labor coal mines and dangerous working conditions. We can't even rationally oppose public sector strikes without being struck with exaggerated nonsense.

Do you even read what you type? The unions represent the workers. Who are the "workers?" You mean ever employee gets a vote or something? Negotiations aren't going to be done by representatives? Are you for real?

Workers can have workplace based organisations with representatives elected by themselves.

You do realize that a workplace based organization which is elected by workers is called a "union," don't you?

[.Morticia.]

Unions are NOT workplace based. They are trade based.

[Seth]

Unions are NOT workplace based. They are trade based.

Not necessarily. They can be both, or either.

[.Morticia.]

I'm not talking about what can be, I'm talking about what is.

Employee unions are trade based.

Just as employer unions are trade based.

[Coito ergo sum]

Unions are NOT workplace based. They are trade based.

Do you live on a different planet?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not talking about what can be, I'm talking about what is.

You aren't talking about what is. There isn't such a thing as some non-union worker group that votes on things.

Employee unions are trade based.

Bargaining unit based, actually.

Just as employer unions are trade based.

Any rational bargaining unit can be formed and can unionize, and that can be at one workplace or several, and can be a large trade union, or not.

Moreover, you appear to be completely oblivious to industrial unions, like the UAW and USW which don't just represent a trade, but rather an entire industry, and all workers in that industry. The UAW has office personnel in the union and not just traditional "auto workers" or tradesmen. They also represent many engineers, designers and draftsmen, as well as technical, office and professional workers at manufacturing companies and in the public sector, health care, schools and universities, telecommunications and in the news media.

Criminy, Morticia....

[Seth]

I'm not talking about what can be, I'm talking about what is.

Employee unions are trade based.

Just as employer unions are trade based.

No you're not. You're talking about some fiction that exists in your mind. "Trade based" is a meaningless term because unions may represent workers in a particular industry, but they represent the workers in a particular FACTORY or COMPANY. Not all coal companies are unionized. Not all auto manufacturers are unionized. Not all police departments or fire departments are unionized. Not all school teachers are unionized. Not all textile workers are unionized. Not all farm laborers are unionized.

If things were as you seem to think they are, then ALL laborers in any particular "trade" or industry would be unionized.

This is not the case. Ergo, you are mistaken.

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:
So....the unions are limited in their right to strike....they will have to accede to what some government arbiter says is the economic reality of what can be afforded?

Certainly,

Good, then we're all agreed that public sector unions aren't to be permitted the same collective bargaining rights as private sector unions.

although they will have a chance to put their version of "economic reality" to an umpire before a ruling. I am a strong advocate for unions in all sectors, public or private, but will be the first to admit their claims can be excessive at times. What is needed is a good, independent arbitration system, backed up with laws. Our stronger unions may chafe under restrictions at times, and you can still have strikes and pickets occurring, but at least there is a path to an arbitrated settlement. (The arbitration system needs some independence from government - it's not a politician making the decisions...)

Things like "air traffic control" ought not be subject to strikes, don't you think? They can strike, of course, but given the national harm they would be causing, perhaps we ought to bring in replacement air traffic controllers....

I agree that there are some occupations where strike action is very much against the public interest. Even the unions involved see that point, and tend to take industrial action in other forms, such as:

* refusing to work overtime (which they have a right to do) In some cases this may restrict the activity at an airport, but will not shut it down
* refusing to do any bureaucratic component to their work, like filling in reports, answering emails or attending staff meetings

The same is often true of industrial action in similarly vital areas.

The key point is, even in vital public sector occupations, it is not necessary to forbid unionisation. In extreme cases, it may be necessary to ban strike action, but unions have many other roles (eg. collective bargaining and monitoring the rights of workers) other than simply organising strikes.

[egbert]

[egbert]

An equitable amount reflecting the value of their work and agreed upon by the workers and the public

How much would that be? As much as they ask for? Because we all know that any resistance to any union demand is equivalent to wanting children to work in coal mines.

you do like to exaggerate

and where have I said that the unions will mediate ?

I said "workers"

I like to exaggerate? Look at the rhetoric some of you have used when faced with anyone who opposes what unions want in a given situation. It's all hyperbole about how any resistance to the union demands will send us back to child labor coal mines and dangerous working conditions. We can't even rationally oppose public sector strikes without being struck with exaggerated nonsense.

Do you even read what you type? The unions represent the workers. Who are the "workers?" You mean ever employee gets a vote or something? Negotiations aren't going to be done by representatives? Are you for real?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqAdEqDz ... re=related[/youtube]

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.myfoxal.com/story/15273318/l ... =printable