Hacker News Reader

Comment by hirundo | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1937 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445

View on HN

Unfortunately, we haven't figured out how to make teaching career-worthy without collective bargaining. Perhaps the best case study for non-union teaching is the workforce of adjunct teachers at universities. Talk to some adjuncts about their "careers." Disclosure: I was an adjunct for one semester at a big ten university, many years ago.

>adjunct teachers at universities

There is a glut of adjunct candidates with a PhD and a postdoc who can't get TT but there are relatively few with teaching degrees. The oversupply of adjuncts happens because they are the unsuccessful seekers of a much better job -- tenured professor -- but there is no similar situation for teachers. The economic analogy therefore won't fit, because the supply of teachers will respond to price signals more than the supply of adjuncts.

Indeed, but the requirement for a teaching degree is actively defended by the union, and is on a tenuous footing. It's not required for private K-12 schools, where pay and benefits are in fact drastically lower. The government of my state (Wisconsin) has moved to relax teacher licensing requirements for public schools.

When I was an adjunct, I had no interest in getting onto the tenure track, or in teaching as a career. I was simply new in town and needed a job.

I don’t think unions are necesssry, the less attractive teaching is because of the (false) promise of pensions, the fewer people will be willing to enter the profession - forcing wages to rise.

On second thought, what will probably happen is that they will flee to private schools, the more affluent will lobby for “private school tax deductions” and leave only the worse teachers in public schools and only the less affluent will go to public school.

So logically thinking your conclusion through, why are unions not necessary then?

are the unions really helping now? The unions are forcing the government to make unrealistic promises. The government is kicking the can down the road and the taxpayers aren’t willing to pay more in taxes now to either fully fund the pensions or pay the teachers more to make the profession more attractive without the promise of pensions later.

Everyone is complicit - the union, the politicians, and the taxpayers. If the unions were honest and told the teachers that the pensions they bargained for were illusory, the teachers would demand more pay now.

I get this wistful feeling every time I read a nuanced observation from an ex-president.

Maybe we can sum this up in 140 characters?

Government employees negotiating with government employees over the compensation of government employees is not a formula for fiscal prudence.

Take the money and run...

While this quote makes a good point that the Government is not like other employers, I am not sure what exactly is implied about the role collective bargaining for government employees. The government can't serve as neutral party to moderate negotiations with public sector employees because they are themselves are the employer. Does this imply that public sector employees should be allowed to organize and negotiate for their interests? I think not.

We see this in California. The public employees unions are highly politically active and of course support candidates who will do their bidding.

It's like if private sector unions got to choose the board and executives at their company. While that would doubtless be good for union employees (or at least leaders), it would be quite deleterious to the interests of shareholders.

I agree that public sector unions becoming politically active is problematic, but it's problematic is same way that wealthy individuals throwing money into politics is. Wouldn't this better handled through campaign finance law rather than an outright crippling of public sector unions? Teachers shouldn't be allowed to buy politicians, but they I do think they should allowed organize and petition to better their working conditions. If you deprive labor of a voice then only money speaks.

It's observably true that public policy in the USA is for sale to the highest bidder[1]. A corollary is that campaign finance law is absolutely ineffective, because if it were then the current state of affairs would not hold. Furthermore the system is robust to political interference, since it absolutely controls the political process.

Public employee union dues are especially odious since the government is effectively collecting a payroll tax to bribe itself by way of a colluding intermediary. This is morally even worse than politicians being bribed by some private sector party.

Fun aside: given the empirical proof that only money speaks already given, the statement "If you deprive labor of a voice then only money speaks" is always true, regardless of whether or not labor has a voice.

[1]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

I think this gets to public sector unions saying (or implying) "we won't vote for you unless you approve a certain amount of $ for X". The politicians then approve the $ as they'll be gone when the money runs out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com