Long indepth article on how California went from the model prison system in the country with the lowest recidivism rate to the highest. I've pulled out the relevant parts, and then b/c is probably too much for most WFers, highlighted key points: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426 The Army has survived a couple hundred years just fine without a Union, why would other government services be any different? From teachers unions to the correctional union highlighted here, time and again it is shown that that what is good for a government union is almost always VERY BAD for the taxpayer/citizen. It's even like these poor workers are having to fight against some evil capitalist, they are fighting against WE THE PEOPLE.
I'd like to see public employees unions abolished, but if we're going to keep them, they ought to be FORBIDDEN to participate in politics (no donations, no endorsements, nada). It makes an ugly feedback loop: the public employees unions endorse candidates that grow the government, making the unions more powerful...
Yep, I already knew that the Educators Union was the biggest obstacle to improving our schools, now it appears that the corrections union could be the biggest obstacle in improving our drug laws. Makes sense though. Why do we allow this? Their rep straight up admitted their only concern is for their employees, which means that their agenda (enlarging prison populations) is diametrically opposed to both public will and the public good. The same could said of the AEA.
Well, there certainly is a poor image when you have a prison guard's union advocating for stricter legislation, thereby increasing the general number of prisoners. I think its just the law of averages really, if you make enough shit illegal a larger number of the general population will break the laws provided that the enforcement of those laws is essentially uniform. Although, I think I'd have to be given a more credible example, I mean, we're talking about prisons here. People are going to break the law, no one in the entire world has more job security than anyone that operates within the penal system. Seriously? Can anyone here envisage the day when no one ever breaks the law anymore? Bullshit, theres no lobbying necessary. I think what we may have in this instance is simply guilt by association. Now thats not to say that I'm generally a proponent of Unions, I'm neither a proponent nor an opponent, I feel they have their uses but they cant be applied liberally. In answer to the OP's question, no, I dont believe that Government Employees should be unionized, I say that only because the union was created to prevent employers from taking advantage of employees and to establish fair working conditions. On that note, I dont think I've ever come across a government position where I, or anyone else for that matter, would deem the conditions as unfair. Thats not to say they should be illegal, but rather, I look upon them as unnecessary.
Which is all ANY union is concerned about, and that's what makes them so pernicious. The idea that the number of prisoners held by this state is more a function of the prison guard's union desire for job security than by the demands of justice is sickening.
What I don't like about unions is the sense of complacency and laziness that they often breed. Why perform well when I'm going to get paid just as much as the guy who does a shitty job? The "union cameraman" is one of the most pervasive stereotypes in my business mainly because it's true. And, in my business, unions don't even do a very good job of protecting their members' jobs. In union markets, camera guys are having to do more and more work (just like the rest of us) when their unions said they'd "protect" them. But those saps are still paying their union dues. My experience with government employee unions is mainly with the people who used to work at the C-5 maintenance depot at the old Kelly AFB here. I say "used to" because the base was closed in large part because the union was so inefficient. During the lead-up to the 1995 BRAC hearings, there was a big march and rally in front of the Alamo to "SAVE KELLY!" At one point, the guy who was the union president at the time spoke got on the microphone and started extolling the virtues of the union and all the good work they did. "It's no longer an 'eight hour loaf!'" he said. Guess what, numbnuts? Mebbe if you people would've had your shit together all along people wouldn't have made the truthful joke about you and your buddies loafing around all day, wasting taxpayer money? The base closed but the city is doing better now than then. Boeing took over the old facilities and there are more Air Force planes parked on their tarmac than there ever were when it was just a C-5 maintenance center. I'm sure many of the former union people are working there, but I don't know whether they have a union or not. Some of the union members were able to move north to Tinker AFB (that's why you see so many Spurs fans at OKC Thunder games), which survived the closings. I don't know what the status of their union is, good or bad. [?=Oh, and a local racist/bigoted joke from those days. ] After they withstood the first couple of attacks by the Mexican Army at the Alamo, Davy Crockett turned to Travis and said, "Hey! We're holdin' 'em! Maybe we can win this thing!" "No chance", Travis said. "Third shift at Kelly lets out in twenty minutes. [/?]
Should government employee unions be abolished? No. Little thing called freedom of association. But public employee unions are responsible for creating (and aggravating) a lot of messes. The laws that give them -- and all other unions, for that matter -- ridiculous amounts of power and influence desperately need to be reformed.
Nonsense. 1) You can associate without forming a union. I am not a member of any union, but I am free to associate with whom I will. 2) It is entirely legal and normal to put into a contract limitations on what you can and cannot do. If all government employees are hired with the condition that they will not form or join a union, that is a stipulation that a person either accepts or not. If not, there is always other employment.
The Army (and other armed law enforcement) are special types of government employees. I can see an argument why it would be a bad idea for them in particular to unionize (or to limit the extent to which they can unionize) because it would be a bad idea for the public if those groups couldwield the ultimate weapon of a union, a strike. I don't think that's necessarily true. The union is always going to put its membership first, true. But in doing so, sometimes the taxpayer/citizen will benefit. In this specific case of the California prison population, presumably locking all those people up for as long as they have been has impacted the crime rate for the better. Is it worth the cost that California's paying in increased salaries (and more of them), the need for additional prisons, and so forth? I'd expect that's a debatable question. We the People still have in place managers who can be arbitrary, abusive, vengeful, shortsighted, etc. I would rather see the campaign finance system be reformed. It seems wrong to have a system of essentially legalized bribery and limit only specific groups from participating. As for endorsements, it seems like they would be harmless enough and something that government can't affect under the Constitution. Honestly, if every corrections officer union were retroactively eliminated, I doubt our drug laws would be much different. I don't think enlarging prison populations is opposed to the public will. I think the public is concerned about crime, and most tough-on-crime measures poll well. Three strikes was certainly popular and would have been popular regardless of union support for it. The public just doesn't think about the cost until much later. But it's not. Everyone who has been locked up has committed a crime and been duly convicted. Most of the people who have been convicted aren't people who have been accused of new crimes. No one snuck this stuff in like thieves in the night. The public had every opportunity to make their voices heard on things like Three Strikes and by and large I believe the public supported them. If California's like much of the nation, justice as it is currently constituted demands more police, prosecutors and prison guards than the prison guards could ever hope for. That freedom to associate does not require joining a union has no bearing on whether preventing unions from existing would impinge on freedom of association. And some of those limitations would be entirely legal and normal. Other potential limitations would be illegal. And others would just be politically unpalatable. I'm under the assumption that at present there is law that applies to the government requiring it to permit unions. Assuming that it is (or would be after appropriate legislation/amendments were enacted/repealed) legal for the government to abolish its own unions, politicians might not want to do it for fear of being punished by private union members.
I agree with you that they shouldn't be involved in tangential politics. However, a union should be concerned with it's members - within a pragmatic understanding of the wider economy. Management can be concerned about the company/organisation and then they meet in the middle. You have a problem where a union becomes corrupt or run by idiots who can't appreciate the wider context that the organisation is working in.
And what about those times when an employers decides you should really do something additional but not be paid for it? Or they want to demote you in a restructure for no good reason? Or someone take personal issue with you for no good reason? In the vast majority of cases your contract will be woolly enought to let them and even if it isn't you might not be able to afford to legally pursue it without union assistance.
California voters played their part as well, seems we always forget about that part. Anyway, sounds like any other PAC lobbying for legislation that best serves their own interests. Supporting (funding) legislation that benefits you is how our political system works. Unless contribution to a political cause is mandatory for members of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association I don't see the problem.
Both legitimate points, but I still wouldn't want to see them banned. I mean, as hard as it is to believe sometimes, unions can occasionally serve purposes other than sucking money, impeding progress, making ridiculous demands and protecting the lazy and incompetent. In the abstract, a group of employees having an organization that exists to speak for their interests can be a good thing. We need to reform the laws that give them too much power, not outlaw them for certain classes of employment.
Thing is, they also tend to have a monopoly on whatever product/service they are delivering... Often essential ones. They go out on strike like the city employees here in Toronto, the public at large is who suffers. Adding insult to injury, many of the striking workers were able to make substantial OVERTIME cleaning up the mess tehy'd allowed to build up (garbage pickup was gone for several weeks) once city hall caved to ALL of their demands. So no, public service employees, be they teachers or trash collectors, shouldn't be allowed to strike.
I don't see how you can justify surrendering fundamental rights just because someone is a public employee. You don't have to indulge a striking union. Just fucking replace them if they refuse to work.
Private sector employees are up against an industry that decides what to concede based on profits, Public sector employees are up against elected officials (in constituencies the former live in) who make concessions from the tax base. I can't deny the right to organize and collectively bargain, however the monopolistic nature of public services should preclude the right to strike.
The government has the monopoly and the option to reject union offers and replace union workers. Plenty of folk would work in a prison for $100,000 a year, heck plenty of folk would work in a prison for half that.
Employees can do whatever they want, but the government sure as hell can and should be prohibited from entering into collective bargaining agreements. The government's conflicting interests make it incapable of negotiating such agreements in good faith. Furthermore, the state has an obligation to taxpayers, and the economic deadweight of unions is a well-established fact. Period.
Government unions are the devil. Part of the reason why our government is so bloated and inefficient is because it is loaded with do-nothing fucks at the lower levels who cannot be fired despite HORRIBLE performance. If you have ever worked in proximity to these people, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. You will never find a bigger bunch of don't-give-a-fucks in your life.
You have to work long and hard to get $100,000 a year. It's either a whole hell of a lot of overtime or it's seniority or its rank. (or a combo of all three) Now as a Corrections Officer I do belong to the PBA but we are highly restricted in what we can and can not do. It is illegal for us to go on strike. But we can make our voices heard. I can tell all of you right now there would be a lot less police and corrections officers in this country if there were no PBA/Union organizations. As many times the various government entities wheter the higher ups in the force or the elected officals throw or attempt to throw officers under the bus no one wants that headache. Then throw in all the attempts to cut salaries and training and yet expect the force to maintain morale and skills while at the same time the public and these officials expect "perfection" is a headache many wouldn't go for it there was no bargaining unit. Then throw in how IA often goes after officers hard. We got a officers bill of rights passed in Florida to help protect officers rights from IA agents. (note I'm not saying all IA people are bad or that all officers are innocent when they go in front of IA) Here is the law for Florida if anyone wants to read it: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0112/SEC532.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0112->Section%20532#0112.532 As for California.... Well the people are the ones who voted for that three strikes law. Not to mention all the other crap they voted for. It's also the governments fault that they let the prison union run so out of control. People want to complain about the prison system in California but the people in California are the ones who created the mess and they are the only ones who can clean it up.
