I agree. Collective bargaining for public workers is overall absurd, IMHO. It injects a layer (the union) between the voters/citizens and the public employees. We don't get to elect/control the union or see their dealings? BS!
I don't understand this: All unions elect their own leaders, as far as I know. Public sector unions do not elect the heads of the departments where they work, if that's what you mean; the FOP doesn't choose the police chief.
If you mean that union members also have votes in general elections, along with the rest of the public, that's true but their influence is limited (there are many other voters), the 'bosses' are a few steps over their heads (the mayor is elected, not the police chief), and finally, that's the point of democracy: Everyone should have influence, from union members to managers to even Repulicans and Democrats.
Unless I've been missing the police captain races on my local ballot?
So yes, a police officer's direct boss wouldn't be elected, but in terms of negotiation both a police captain and the rank and file would be aligned in wanting higher pay, making it harder to be fired, etc. In small jurisdictions there would be few layers between a sheriff's deputy and the actual elected sheriff.
Also, some of the leadership has a conflict of interest. The prosecutor, one of the ultimate police bosses, cannot work against the police interests without also jeopardizing his own career as the police can stop working with him and get him voted out. This is one of the many reasons why prosecutors tend to treat police brutality cases very differently than if the suspect were an ordinary citizen. Likewise a sheriff might face similar issues since he is elected but his staff is not.
Unlike a private sector union, a public sector union can essentially never bankrupt the government, so there is no natural check against their power. Bankrupt your company with absurd work rules? You'll be on the street eventually.
I'd just say that 80% of the US population lives in urban areas (from the census information I found), which are likely to be served by larger public service departments with more unelected middle management. They may choose to side with the lowest ranks of police, but it's not as bad as a simple "my direct boss didn't pay me enough, let's all vote him or her out."
That said, the prosecutor-capture (especially since that's a route for aspiring politicians) and state-supported-zombie points are well made.
But as a somewhat pro-union point, remember that public employees aren't bonused anywhere near private sector employees. At least for teachers, which I'm most familiar with. The idea that one could be in the Top 10% of performers for your job and be making less than others simply because of seniority is... strange.
Except for the absolute largest cities, like NYC, many urban police departments are going to be a lot smaller and less hierarchical than you'd think.
Also, many areas considered urban still elect their sheriffs. For instance, Arlington, VA (home of the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetery) has 10-20 story buildings and elects its sheriff, as does neighboring Alexandria, VA (a colonial city that predates DC). I believe all cities and counties in VA elect sheriffs.
>They may choose to side with the lowest ranks of police, but it's not as bad as a simple "my direct boss didn't pay me enough, let's all vote him or her out."
In a place with elected leadership and limitless funds, so long as your union has enough critical mass, it's in the best interests of all members of the police force to push for higher wages, more stringent work rules, etc.
Why wouldn't they do this? There are no consequences for failure and lots to gain. It's not like a company where middle management wants to keep costs down; in the government your importance has to do with the size of your budget and number of reports and there's no negative feedback. In fact, because of how budgeting works in America, every dollar must be spent, and any savings will end up with a smaller budget next year. If anything, middle management is aligned with these demands.
The exceptions are agencies like WMATA or the MTA, where a significant portion of revenue comes from fares or advertisements. These are more likely to fight unions, but they are still state (or multi-state and Federal in the case of WMATA) agencies that at the end of the day answer to politicians and can still get government bailouts.
>But as a somewhat pro-union point, remember that public employees aren't bonused anywhere near private sector employees
Many public sector employees have absolutely sweet benefits, though. Good healthcare, good pensions or retirement funds, unions to go to bat for them, extreme job security, limited hours, etc. For certain classes of work government employees do make more than their private sector counterparts, but this is mostly related to low end work.
At the high end the government absolutely pays worse, you're right. The max salary in the normal Federal general schedule is roughly $160K.
I think this is part of the reason for demanding absurd rules and benefits, since salaries are set by law, not on the market, and the electorate doesn't want to hear about (or pay for) top talent making big bucks. Politicians respond to these incentives and cap salaries.
If state budgets are badly managed we have only ourselves to blame - we elect the legislators who control them.
Otherwise, they play the same games that their public sector counterparts do - spend everything they're given, always ask for YOY growth, resist efforts to automate themselves out of a job.
There is no private vs public sector magic wand that somehow makes the former more efficient then the latter. If there was, IBM would be out of business.
When you're the boss (which you are when it comes to public workers), that's exactly what you want. Do you wish your cops were something other than "obedient little servants?" Doesn't it seem like the whole problem with cops in the U.S. is that they don't think they work for you?
I do not want them protected when they've violated the law, or are grossly negligent in their duties.
Can't unions negotiate for fair wages while also throwing the bad apples to the wolves?
No, not really. Its the nature of the beast that unions need to protect all their member. A noble goal with a noble origin, but it gets pretty perverted in the extreme its been taken to. For example, school union members that are no longer allowed to teach students but cannot be fired (search on cases in both LA and NYC). You would think rationality would prevail but then you run into the other problem.
Union membership totals determine power. More members, more money to lobby, which gives you more influence. There is a reason the California Correctional Peace Officers Association continues to advocate for laws that will put more people in jail.
At this point, for government workers, we as a country would be much better off without government worker's unions.
Maybe there's a smoking gun I've missed. In TX at least, I think police salaries actually are public information. Check it out: http://salaries.texastribune.org/dallas/
Those salaries look, on the whole, pretty modest overall compared to the private sector. The "CEO" of Dallas makes maybe twice what a good programmer in SF might. The median police salary is under $60K. That's a decent living, but it's far from extravagant.
That takes into account Police and Firefighter raises were suspended for a few years: http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/proposed-3-year-c...
All while the unions and collective bargaining was in place.
Which makes me think that talking about busting unions is a political sideshow to the original complaint.
If you have extreme situations like this, something is badly wrong, but removing all unions isn't the solution. Instead, add more: convince people to join a more moderate union.
But for a significant change in working conditions (which introducing cameras seems to be), then I'd expect the more moderate union to argue this too — if that's what the members want. It might take a lot of negotiation.
Usually a judge has to hear the criminal complaint first and determine if it has merit first. If there is no evidence of the complaint, the judge might decide it has no merit. If it is a false complaint there would be no evidence.
I don't think a union has the power to change how the court system works. They can protect the officer from getting fired, but the officer still has to be tried in court just like anyone else. Although grand juries are not as strict on officers as they are on other people.
I mentioned corporations not once, and this is about transparency in government.
> If you have extreme situations like this, something is badly wrong, but removing all unions isn't the solution. Instead, add more: convince people to join a more moderate union.
I would contend that there is no such thing as a moderate union in this situation. I would be curious if you had any history of "convince people to join a more moderate union"? I am inclined to think rayiner is correct and no incentive exists.
Beyond this, we are there employers and the people who pay their wages. An organization interfering with transparency and accountability does not serve the public good.
Anyway.
At my previous job, in the British public sector, there were three unions who represented the staff, and I joined the one the others in my office had joined. Initially, this was because I appreciated the support a union had given someone in my family against a bad manager. Later, I stayed in the union in support of those with much less skill than me — the union was campaigning against "zero hours" contracts¹.
A year or two ago, the government imposed significant cuts. (Contrary to a lot of posts in this thread, government budget for salaries isn't unlimited.) I found out that my union seemed to be prolonging the negotiations unnecessarily, by being needlessly difficult — submitting 1000-page documents in the last hour of a 3-month consultation, for example, which had no more content than a 5 page document on the first day. Most staff I spoke to were more interested in knowing whether their job was ending, rather than hanging on for an extra month's pay during negotiations. (We already had 1-3 month notice periods.) I left the union, and didn't join another. Several colleagues left, and joined the more reasonable union.
For another example, the RMT is the more extreme union representing London Underground employees, ASLEF is more moderate (there are others, these are the two biggest, and not all staff are in a union).
Quoting from [2], just as an example, "The RMT has attacked a fellow Tube union for failing to call strike action as part of the ongoing Night Tube dispute. The RMT accused ASLEF of being "happy" with alleged assurances that London Underground (LU) would put forward new work rosters for drivers." And just look at the language in the RMT newsletter "only resolute determination will prevail...".
RMT goes on strike much more often, and make a lot of noise about it, but most of the staff in that union are less essential (ticket checking, platform staff, etc) and the trains keep on running. The train drivers generally belong to ASLEF, which is still a powerful union, but rarely tries to defend drunk drivers or similar.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-hour_contract#United_King...
[2] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tube-strikes-rmt-attacks-train-driv...
But why would they do that? What incentive exists for them to expose themselves to possible additional legal problems if they screw up?
Isn't it the local and state governing body's responsibility to represent citizen interests.
Yes.
The idea of a small army of men with guns being obedient servants of local elected officials is absolutely terrifying. I'd much prefer a system with checks and balances.
They can choose to work in the private sector. Nobody is forcing them to work for the public sector.
> How has that worked out in the past? Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressures to ensure the rights of workers and to avoid the inherent issues involved in political control of a large group of government workers?
The alternative is that public sector unions funnel money to career politicians. The latter are signing checks using other people's money (i.e. the tax payers) and it's in their (the politicans') interest to give in to union demands as they get a voting block come election season.
When they're public servants, yes.
Do we feel that the civil service is sufficiently isolated from rapidly changing political pressures to ensure the rights of workers and to avoid the inherent issues involved in political control of a large group of government workers?
Why is that the goal? A shift in public attitude should result in a change in public servant staffing and behavior.
> Why is that the goal?
The reason it became the goal is that there was a time when it wasn't, and people saw what that became once the people in power realized what it enabled them to do, and said, "Hey, that sucks, we should stop that."
When someone is working for the public the considerations are entirely different and I am much less sure about the ethics or wisdom of allowing collective bargaining. I feel the same way about government procurement/contracting, treating the public interest as just another market participant often seems to result in moral hazard and other unwanted outcomes. I don't have a good theoretical answer for this but I think we badly need to revisit the issue.
How so? People don't work in the public sector because the are doing everyone a favor. They are working there because they are being compensated in some way. I think that they should be able to negotiate for what the market will bear.
Do you work for the private sector but think that people who work in the public sector should do you some sort of favor? That's pretty rude isn't it?
I don't think highly of police unions, but I do think they have the right to get the benefits and income that the market will bear.
I do think that the better thing to do would be to pass laws that require external investigations, mandatory prosecution for wrong doing and mandatory auditing.
If you want police offices wearing cameras with sound 80% of the time, pass an law/ordinance that has auditing requirements and a budget.
gov extracts taxes with threats of prison -> civil "servants" paid with tax money -> unions tax civil "servant" salaries via automatic payroll deduction -> unions use money to "lobby" (bribe) politicians with campaign donations -> politicians set government policy for taxation and civil service
There ARE some rights being violated here, but it is not the civil "servant"'s rights
However, I think the answer is through workplace safety laws (OSHA), fair labor standards act provisions for minimum wage and overtime, ERISA (which sets minimum standards for retirement and health plans), Civil Rights Act provisions, ACA, the Federal Employment Compensation Act, and others.
Unions originated in an era where you could find children working 14 hours in a sweatshop for a starving wage, with locked doors that prevented escape in case of fire, around dangerous machinery that would take off limbs in a blink with victims never compensated and unable to work again.
The case for unions in that era is different than the case for unions today. Worker concerns today, serious as they may be, are categorically different from the concerns of that time. The case for unions today also has to grapple with concerns about rent seeking, keeping dangerous/unfit employees on the job, and reducing job availability or promotion for capable newcomers.
But note that the alternative to unifying workers trade-by-trade or workplace-by-workplace is to just unify enough of the electorate to fix obviously broken labor practices through legislation. It sounds much harder, but we've done it repeatedly, and it doesn't have the same down-sides.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
That is to say, the place to protect public servants is through ballot, not collective bargaining.
EDIT: Source http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445
Public-sector unions are an excellent way to ensure they're not.
Without unions, it's a setup that would almost guarantee abuse. Unions are certainly not ideal, but they are necessary for that kind of industry.
The governments have little incentive to pay a given individual; they have a lot of incentive to pay blocks of voters, and the especially have a lot of incentive to do so with money from the future, a point I note none of the replies cared to engage with, which I find is a big tell. Since a huge element of the problem with public unions was the enormous pension giveaways, which are now coming due and crushing the ability of the "blue model" to keep the rest of its promises. While everyone here is fiddling, the cities are burning.
You can't write about these issues as if we're debating creating public unions for the first time and seeing what happened. We created them. They are, present tense, in the process of crushing city finances, in the most concretely real, dollar-based, actually happening way possible. This is a present fact that must be accounted for, not a hypothetical bad thing that may happen in the future. Unfortunately, yelling "Oh, those wacky libertarians! Well, that concludes that debate." doesn't add a single dollar to the tax base.
Oh my goodness, look up from your Economist occasionally and read some history. New York didn't go broke in the 70s because of lazy union members, but because Wall Street hung it out to dry. California didn't bankrupt it's schools and parks in the 70s because of unions but because of prop 13. Unions didn't kill Detroit.
In general, cities bend over to grant ludicrous tax breaks to corporations that then soak up city services and resources, and then bitch and moan when teachers or MTA workers want more than a 3% raise. Union-hostile city managers are everywhere, bringing Flint Michigan-water scandals your way.
By your line of argument, having public transportation, or a decent homeless shelter system, or funding public schools "crushes finances" "in a concretely real, dollar-based" way -- i.e. the same zero-sum, deficit-baiting neoliberalist ideology.
That sounds like what's happened/happening in many European governments with austerity policies.
The current UK Government is trying to "save every penny". This isn't unique to the UK. Surely some US states face financial hardship or have ideological motivations to cut spending.
And public sector employees are often the first target of any politician elected on a promise of "getting rid of waste".
So are Fortune 500s. It's in the nature of large bureaucracies, not governments specifically.
There are very few government employees and elected officials actively looking to screw over taxpayers. Almost every single public employee I've spoken to has expressed how much they care about the job they do and how constrained they are by bureaucracy and lack of resources. And elected officials are overwhelmingly concerned citizens who want to do everything they can to help their constituents.
The fact that they often fail to do so has much more to do with maladaptive systems and perverse incentives than it does with the motivations of the people involved. It's tragically comic that the people on this site, who should be hyper aware of the effects of bad architecture on an system's output, are so quick to write it off as a cause and instead resort to facile ad hominems about the people in question.
You don't blame the silicon when your app becomes unresponsive. It's weird that we do so for countries.
That explains why the public sector pays better than the private sector.
Oh wait...
Public sector employees often vote for or against their current bosses directly.
That's a very weak bargaining position: Give us what we want or our members, a small minority of the electorate, won't vote for you in two years. Why should they be weaker than other unions?
The power imbalance is, if anything, much worse here.
EDIT: Comment below is hysterical and political. This book is a good read. Chuck Reed, former mayor of San Jose, says this about it: "Daniel DiSalvo has laid bare the harsh political realities facing mayors across the country who want to improve the quality of life in their cities. In the annual battles over cutting services, raising taxes or controlling costs to balance the budget, public employee unions usually have the upper hand. In many jurisdictions, costs are skyrocketing, taxes are up and services are deteriorating, yet fiscal reform seems impossible. This book explains how and why the narrow interests of unions in improving pay and benefits frequently overwhelm the broader interests of the people in improving services."
Destroying public sector unions is one of the major bullet points on the right wing agenda.
Posting a book funded by the Manhattan Institute (i.e. Richard Mellon Scaife, Bill Kristol, etc) should have exactly zero power to convince anyone not interested in being a part of that agenda.
EDIT: Wait it gets better, the comment I am responding to was actually posted by someone who has themselves been supported by the Manhattan Institute: http://malchow.com/about/
I guess that's how this all works isn't it.
EDIT 2: The above commented was edited to read "EDIT: Comment below is hysterical and political. This book is a good read. Chuck Reed, former mayor of San Jose, says this about it..."
And 30 second Google search reveals:
"San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, in his quest to put a state pension reform measure on next year’s ballot, appears to be buddying up with the Manhattan Institute and possibly its chairman Paul Singer."
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2013/10/24/10_24_13_mayor_reed_...
I bow to the above poster for illuminating better than I possibly could how the wealthy benefactors of the right wing movement operate on a day to day basis to influence public opinion against labor, right down to comments on HN.
The argument for public unions (aside from all of the private sector arguments that also apply to public unions) is as follows:
- Government is often subject to swings in power, political party, budget crises, etc. that are much less common in private sector jobs. There's a value in giving people job stability here - case in point, a new school board is elected and decides they want to purge anyone from the science department district-wide who doesn't believe in creationism. The union acts to protect those people.
- Politics, by its nature, has been bedeviled by cronyism and favoritism. Unions are one of many ways that situation can be helped, but helping to insure continuity across administrations or preventing punitive actions towards people of a different political party, for example, has real value.
I'm not thrilled with the behavior of a lot of unions in the US, but I disagree with the premise that "public unions are clearly bad".
There are arguments for public unions, but protecting employees from political machinations is not one of them--especially since unions themselves are usually politically active, attempting to influence elections and legislation.
Which serves as a useful counterbalance to corporations doing the exact same thing.
...especially when this entire conversation thread is all about requiring disclosure from other people.
It's their freaking day job to face off against unions, they are management.
What's absurd is that there is some special category of speech called "collective bargaining" and that we treat labor/union/striking speech as somehow different than other speech.
I have no idea what collective bargaining is - it just looks like speech to me. I have no idea what a strike is - it just looks like free assembly to me.
Why should these be protected or restricted ?
The intention of this rule is to prevent "free riders"--employees who benefit from the union-negotiated agreement, but don't contribute anything to ensure its success.
Voluntary unions (no forced contributions) are legal basically everywhere, as you think they would be. But they are obviously less powerful because they have fewer resources, and can't claim that they represent all the workers.
There is no need for the government to massively interfere unless there is a real physical danger to citizens.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the Fraternal Order of Police. We used to support them financially but they were extremely rude and harassed us when we had to step down our donations a bit. There were many people who called us who certainly did not have service to the public as their priority. I don't know much of the context of the dump nor have I viewed it myself, but I'm inclined to be suspicious of them.
Edit: Downvotes for making a minor vocabulary correction? Imagine what would happen if I had pointed out that tomato is botanically a fruit, even if it is the state vegetable of New Jersey. (And yes, this topic made it to the Supreme Court in Nix v. Hedden.)
Generally, I'd agree with you. Individuals should be allowed to associate with whoever they wish.
Unfortunately, when it comes to unions, they're most often awarded special privileges by government. At the very least, they make large-scale organized strikes more likely to happen. And those strikes are protected, giving the unions power to wield over business, and to "convince" people to join.