DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

**Vomephems** · 02-17-2011, 09:48 PM

Not if you are an "essential" worker (see my earlier post). Binding arbitration if an agreement can't be reached. No strike.

And by alternatives what do you mean? You can homeschool, just as easily as a teacher can "find another job" if they don't like it.

No, the vast majority of citizens that work for a living cannot home school their children. I would propose school vouchers to allow more choice and remove the monopoly. The unions don't like that one either.

I gather from the first line of your post you would disagree with this?

I would deem them essential (or change the system).

Garbage workers would be high on my list. They don't need to be public employees in the first place and should be privatized.

Keep in mind, this argument varies by jurisdiction depending on what your particular government does/employs.

Full Disclosure: I am the son of a unionized teacher and unionized autoworker. I myself have belonged to two separate unions in my life and currently perform a job whereby I could cross the aisle and become a public servant without too much effort in short order. I don't see a problem with changing the definitions of essential worker to provide for arbitration as a the de facto alternative to strikes.

And it's easy to see why unions don't like certain actions. They're seeking to maximize their benefit just as much as any other party in the economy. I think vouchers are a fine idea.

As for other unions in the public sector, the police unions and prison unions are by far the worst when it comes to protecting their members in the face of obvious wrong doing, and promoting expansion of their services solely for their benefit. It's hard to argue that mandates to educate children are there solely for the benefit of teachers and their union even if legislation to ensure that is funded by the union. It's not hard to argue that funding and lobbying for legislation that keeps pot illegal, mandatory minimums etc etc are mostly for the benefit of prisons and law enforcement.

The one thing that does bother me though is this idea that it is inherently cheaper to subcontract out public services to private contractors, despite that being ambiguous at best and obviously wrong at worst. Collusion between public sector administrators and private sector contractors needs to be looked at.

02-17-2011, 09:48 PM	#10
Vomephems Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 727 Senior Member	Not if you are an "essential" worker (see my earlier post). Binding arbitration if an agreement can't be reached. No strike. And by alternatives what do you mean? You can homeschool, just as easily as a teacher can "find another job" if they don't like it. No, the vast majority of citizens that work for a living cannot home school their children. I would propose school vouchers to allow more choice and remove the monopoly. The unions don't like that one either. I gather from the first line of your post you would disagree with this? I would deem them essential (or change the system). Garbage workers would be high on my list. They don't need to be public employees in the first place and should be privatized. Keep in mind, this argument varies by jurisdiction depending on what your particular government does/employs. Full Disclosure: I am the son of a unionized teacher and unionized autoworker. I myself have belonged to two separate unions in my life and currently perform a job whereby I could cross the aisle and become a public servant without too much effort in short order. I don't see a problem with changing the definitions of essential worker to provide for arbitration as a the de facto alternative to strikes. And it's easy to see why unions don't like certain actions. They're seeking to maximize their benefit just as much as any other party in the economy. I think vouchers are a fine idea. As for other unions in the public sector, the police unions and prison unions are by far the worst when it comes to protecting their members in the face of obvious wrong doing, and promoting expansion of their services solely for their benefit. It's hard to argue that mandates to educate children are there solely for the benefit of teachers and their union even if legislation to ensure that is funded by the union. It's not hard to argue that funding and lobbying for legislation that keeps pot illegal, mandatory minimums etc etc are mostly for the benefit of prisons and law enforcement. The one thing that does bother me though is this idea that it is inherently cheaper to subcontract out public services to private contractors, despite that being ambiguous at best and obviously wrong at worst. Collusion between public sector administrators and private sector contractors needs to be looked at.
	Quote