Thread: Mandatory Collective Bargaining

hi all,

The reintroduction of Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which mandates all the state to grant public employees the minimum collective bargaining rights, makes me ask :

Why shouldn't the state grant public workers the right to bargain on wage, working hours?

I feel some of the arguments a bit confusing.

For instance, people say public workers is earning taxpayers money. One of the possible repercussion would be public workers demanding of higher wages which directly results in higher tax, an extra burden for the taxpayers.

However, could it be the reasonable to waive the right all over? If you agree with the above statement, what do you think is the alternative to ensure the public workers right? Or should they be give the right at all?

What makes the Act controversial??

I don't think government work is driven by the same market forces as work in the private sector. In the private sector, every business has an owner or owners who would like to pocket as much of the final sale price of their goods as they can. The only reason they pay workers anything is because they are forced to, either because nobody would work for them without a wage, or because it is required by law.

Unions allow workers to get past the "desperation wage", which is what most of them would make if nothing prevented it. That's the wage at which a person can't afford to leave because they wouldn't have enough money saved up to make it to their next job.

Now: Imagine if soldiers in the military had the right to unionize.

My point is, government workers don't need a market force behind them (such as would be provided by unionization) because there are no market forces working against them.

The government's decisions are driven 100% by popularity, not profit. It would never be in their own best interest to appear to be stingy to their own workers.

" don't think government work is driven by the same market forces as work in the private sector. In the private sector, every business has an owner or owners who would like to pocket as much of the final sale price of their goods as they can. The only reason they pay workers anything is because they are forced to, either because nobody would work for them without a wage, or because it is required by law. "

Actually, the market force doesn't matter too much..

Because essentially, all you have explained is that we give the private workers the bargaining right because there exist a probable case the employers will set unjustified wages or working hours.

Yet, you can't allege such case won't exist in any government orgs, simply because they aren't private business entities driven by profit making.

The government's decisions are driven 100% by popularity, not profit.

That's....a bit radical. I could given you tons of examples that shows government policies is not only not 100% popular, but the least popular ones that the public trying to avoid....

The government's decisions are driven 100% by popularity, not profit. It would never be in their own best interest to appear to be stingy to their own workers.

Again, it's the same thing you are trying to imply there is a probable harmful case, which doesn't necessarily sufficient to overturn a human right (if you think it is.) It's like saying some people will die by gunfires from a robber isn't enough to ban the firearms all over.

Originally Posted by ArezList

Yet, you can't allege such case won't exist in any government orgs, simply because they aren't private business entities driven by profit making.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm alleging. Congress will rarely, if ever, vote to give government workers a salary that isn't somewhat generous compared to what they'd be making elsewhere.

All it takes is a bunch of workers complaining to a newspaper that they are getting paid a less-than-fair wage for their labor, and heads will roll in city hall/the state capital/washington. The fear of unpopularity is what drives this, though, not market forces.

The government's decisions are driven 100% by popularity, not profit.

That's....a bit radical. I could given you tons of examples that shows government policies is not only not 100% popular, but the least popular ones that the public trying to avoid....

"Driven by popularity" doesn't mean they are always popular. That would be like pointing out that some private businesses fail to make a profit, and arguing therefore that private businesses must not have a profit motive. A democratic government never fails to be popular if it can help it.

Again, it's the same thing you are trying to imply there is a probable harmful case, which doesn't necessarily sufficient to overturn a human right (if you think it is.) It's like saying some people will die by gunfires from a robber isn't enough to ban the firearms all over.

I don't think it's a human right. The right to be treated fairly is a human right. If it were necessary for government workers to have a union in order to assert themselves, then I would be all for it. But, it's not. They're fine how they are already.

Look: You can't insert market forces into a system that is designed to ignore/defy the market. It won't work. It's like mixing business and pleasure.