(03-11-2018 10:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 02:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 10:28 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, unions have done a lot of good in society. But, particularly in the public sector, they have been a negative influence, because the "bargaining" isn't balanced. The union has a strident interest in benefiting its members (as it should) but on the other side, unlike in the private sector, the public officials don't have the same incentive to bargain hard as well, because they are playing with other people's (taxpayer) money and they don't face the market pressure to make a profit.

The result, particularly up north, has been overly-generous pay and especially retirement packages for public workers that are out of touch with what is happening in the private sector. E.g., the economy tanks, and private sector works face pay cuts and layoffs, but public sector workers roll right along. This is why so many states across the country face huge public pension liabilities that are squeezing the state budgets.

And as UConn is about to experience with Ollie, it is often very hard to get rid of bad public employees. Merely being an unproductive worker isn't enough, there are layers of "due process" protections that have been negotiated that make firing a bad public worker onerous, time consuming and expensive, so the path of least resistance is to just not do it. Again, this is because public organizations don't face the same market profit-imperative that private firms do.

That's the reason Franklin Roosevelt opposed unions in the public sector. He basically said that since governments represent the people, a public employees union would be bargaining against the interests of "the people", and he was right.

Ironic, because these days, public sector unions like AFSCME and the NEA are arguably the staunchest backers of liberal democrat politicians. It's a very cozy relationship: Democrat politicians vote for cushy pay and benefits for public workers, and public unions donate big money to Democrat politician campaigns, and the taxpayer loses.

Yeah look at all those public school teachers living high on the hog. Go walk through a public school teachers parking lot and tell me all those public union people are being paid well.

You know why they need a union? Because they need stability. You can't have your salary being changed every time someone new comes into office.

Dude, in the private sector, that happens all the time. It's normal - a new manager takes over and some people are booted out, demoted, reassigned, etc. Only in the public sector is that regarded as abnormal.

And you don't have situations like this there either, teachers getting paid by taxpayers not to work:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31494936/ns/us...qVkYujwZM0

That's the power that public unions have thanks to cozy relations with Democrat politicians up north.

All that said, I agree I hope Ollie wins his case, because, well ... it will be fun to see how UConn fans react, LOL.

No it doesn't! They might rearrange some personal, but they don't change your salary at a union job without a negotiation. What sector does a new boss (which would happen every four years no matter what) mean your salary is changing?

What planet do you hail from?

To people in the private sector, a change in personnel (layoffs) job title, promotion or demotion, are all highly possible if a new manager takes over an office.

Public sector union workers up north live in a cozy cocoon made for them by D-rat politicians. Did you even read the link i posted for you?