More union busting in Wisconsin

[Guest Raids]

So, sorry for the long OP.

I think everyone who's been following the thread knows this by now, but just to get it out there, the major issue (IMHO) is that the Governor is pushing a bill that would strip nearly all state employees of the right to engage on collective bargaining on absolutely every issue with the sole exception of base pay. So, no bargaining over vacation, classroom conditions, class size, benefits, raises, etc. Nothing.

He also wants to take away compulsory union membership, which would make Wisconsin state employees what we've come to call "right-to-work" in other states, meaning hiring can't be restricted to members of the union, meaning union membership cannot be compulsory. Basically, on the ground, that means that all employees have to join the union and pay dues voluntarily. Normally the problem with that is that employees get to free ride on the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement, but obviously that's not really as much of an issue here where there won't really be one.

Last I heard, 3 additional (Republican) votes were needed to pass the bill. Several Democratic Senators have fled to state in order to stall the vote, and refuse to come back until negotiations take place. The Governer has 100% refused to negotiate on any point.

Other states have similar measures pending that they may or may not take action on depending on how this goes.

A little background for our friends from overseas: there is an important distinction between public and private unions in the United States. Private unions have rights as outlined under the National Labor Relations Act. However, these rights are not explictily "constitutional" and it would be difficult to argue that they are implied in the Constitution as strikes were often found to be illegal before the passage of the NLRA. It is generally illegal for many public workers (including me) to strike - they do not enjoy the same rights. Descriptively speaking.

On the other hand, I think many of us feel that there is a natural law right to organize and strike, and, therefore, maybe we might as well say that it is a right since we're prepared - apparently - to go to the mattresses to defend it. Perhaps it is not a very wise politician who decides to treat the right of public workers to organize and strike as a government-granted privilege that can be removed at any time, even if, speaking from a positive law perspective, it clearly is.

As far as I can tell, public opinion appears to be split. Has anyone actually seen any data?

I think a lot of people (like my parents, for instance) are not on the side of the strikers because they feel that public employees have been soaking the states for too many benefits for too long.

And that may very well be true. But, IMHO, that is totally beside the point when we are talking about a government that refuses to negotiate that point in the face of the willingness of the union to do precisely that.

[Ormond]

As far as I can tell, public opinion appears to be split. Has anyone actually seen any data?

I think a lot of people (like my parents, for instance) are not on the side of the strikers because they feel that public employees have been soaking the states for too many benefits for too long.

And that may very well be true. But, IMHO, that is totally beside the point when we are talking about a government that refuses to negotiate that point in the face of the willingness of the union to do precisely that.

Here is a link to "fivethirtyeight", where the flaws of the one national poll on this subject are discussed:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Near the bottom of this article there is a link to the only Wisconsin-only poll on the issue that seems to have been released. It does seem to show a "split" public, as majorities Wisconsinites seem to both "disapprove" of the governor's plan but also to think the Democratic state senators are wrong to stay away from a vote on it. I think there are some problems with "automated polls" in general so this may not be the best possible data on the subject, though:

http://weaskamerica.com/2011/02/18/weirdness-in-wisconsin/

[Jon Sprunk]

I just want to apologize to FLoW for calling him stupid in the last thread on this topic. I meant to say that he'd "said" something stupid, not that he himself is.

Sorry.

Carry on.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So, sorry for the long OP.

And that may very well be true. But, IMHO, that is totally beside the point when we are talking about a government that refuses to negotiate that point in the face of the willingness of the union to do precisely that.

I just want to address this one point so folks understand the context of the government's position a bit better. Because of various byzantine administrative rules and court cases, contract negotiations are far more complex, and take far more time, than what it seems like they should take. Weird legal incentives can arise on the part of either party to stall intentionally. An employer may bargain in bad faith because it wants there to be an impasse, while a union might bargain in bad faith simply to delay the employer's right to implement any cuts. It can often take a year or more to negotiate a contract. If agreement cannot be reached, the employer has the right to implement its last, best offer if an impasse is reached, but that implementation is then subject to legal challenge on the grounds that the employer did not negotiate "in good faith", so a true "impasse" was not reached. That's very often a hotly disputed issue.

Anyway, the real problem for governmental units isn't the mere fact of negotiation, but how those rules make it almost impossible to make changes without going through an incredibly long process that itself hurts those governmental units by delaying action. The issue arises when external forces, either a poor economy or perhaps cuts in payments from federal or state (in the cases of county and city governments) governments, mean that a government is running short. When that happens, the government is allowed to negotiate concessions. But since the union obviously doesn't want to make any unless it is forced, the union's incentive is to drag it out as long as possible, which obviously means members get to receive the same payments until an impasse is reached.

So there really are two things at issue here. The first is cuts for the current year, and the second is the flexibility to make timely future cuts in either current contractual benefits or in negotiating a new contract if economic needs dictate without going through the laborious process of bargaining to impasse. It's the latter that is probably the primary reason for the proposed changes to collective bargaining law in Wisconsin. It's less the fact of bargaining than the time it takes to do it because of the bizarre dance that is what contract negotiations have become.

Oh, and one major difference between public/private employers when it comes to negotiations is that the private negotiators have a direct pipeline to an ownership/management that has the authority to control the purse strings, both in the present year and in future contract years. Because of elections, and the right of politicians to change their minds, the same unity of purpose isn't presenting public negotiations, which can make them much, much harder because they may shift as political winds shift.

ETA:

I just want to apologize to FLoW for calling him stupid in the last thread on this topic. I meant to say that he'd "said" something stupid, not that he himself is.

Sorry.

Carry on.

No problemo.

[sologdin]

they feel that public employees have been soaking the states for too many benefits for too long.

the implication of this position is that everyone should be reduced to absolute immiseration, just like private-sector employees. w00t!

it's similar to the position that prisoners should not receive health care because, you know, hard-working tax-paying, terrorist-hating 'murikans don't have health care--so we should reduce everyone to that least common denomintator, rather than raise the standard for everyone.

it is at root a form of gradualist nihilism, and its proponents might as well just admit that they're hostis humani generis.

[Altherion]

So there really are two things at issue here. The first is cuts for the current year, and the second is the flexibility to make timely future cuts if economic needs dictate without going through the laborious process of bargaining to impasse. It's the latter that is the reason for the changes to collective bargaining law. It's less the fact of bargaining that the time it takes to do it.

But then wouldn't it be better to change the laws that make it difficult to bargain in a timely manner rather than trying to effectively get rid of bargaining altogether?

[Guest Raids]

Just to recap what that was about, I don't really get how FLOW can have an understanding of the complex nature of positively created employer and employee rights and obligations under the NLRA that I am in 100% agreement with, and then say something like "employers should be able to fire people who don't show up for work."

The only way I can resolve that is to say that while he understands the nature of organized labor rights in this country, he is totally not in favor of them.

For instance, I can see how, for instance, teachers, should, in some cases be able to be legally fired for striking - this keeps the balance of bargaining power somewhat even in the face of extreme employer reluctance to axe a professional workforce, but I can see why other jobs that have an unskilled labor pool would have other protections.

Something we have not talked about is the theoretical basis for unions.

At the time we decided to support unions in the United States, it was looked at as an alternative to having greater employment law protections - the state doesn't need to be there for you, you can bargain for it yourselves. Clearly this is different in other countries, which seem to have threw out the notion of at-will employment and embraced unions.

I think it's also worth thinking about the stereotypical link between unions and inefficiency. I get how the argument works, but, for instance, weakening a teacher union is not at all associated with increased educational performance. Interesting bit in Slate about that that I linked in the last thread, as well as this blurb from an articlearticle on a different (interesting) subject:

But I have my doubts that weakening teacher's unions, whatever the merits of doing so, will do much to increase educational performance in the U.S. My skepticism rests on two observations:

*Teacher's unions, under siege for three decades, have yielded again and again (not always willingly) to reforms such as merit-based pay and increased benchmarking of students through standardized testing. These reforms have produced strikingly little in the way of improved educational outcomes.

*The degree to which other nations leave the U.S. well behind in educational achievement bears no apparent relation to how much teachers in those nations get pampered by labor-friendly government policies. In 2003 American 15-year-olds were ranked in the middle third of member countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, most of whose members are advanced industrial democracies, and in 2006 American 15-year-olds were ranked in the bottom fourth of the OECD. If harrassing unions is the answer, why are more labor-friendly nations like Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, and Austria kicking our asses in math? (I'd be tempted to argue that labor-friendly policies improve educational outcomes if it weren't also true that China, Russia, the Czech Republic and assorted former Soviet republics are similarly besting U.S. performance in math.)

These are not facts that are acknowledged or accepted in the public conscience.

[Guest Raids]

they feel that public employees have been soaking the states for too many benefits for too long.

the implication of this position is that everyone should be reduced to absolute immiseration, just like private-sector employees. w00t!

Indeed. It is, however, a prevailing sentiment, as covered by the NY Times.

But then wouldn't it be better to change the laws that make it difficult to bargain in a timely manner rather than trying to effectively get rid of bargaining altogether?

I'm not even convinced that the rules FLOW laid out apply to negotiations with public unions.

[Galactus]

I think it's also worth thinking about the stereotypical link between unions and inefficiency. I get how the argument works

Specifically: It doesen't. Sometiems unions are an impdeiment of course, but on the whole unions provide a (relativey small) benefit to employers.

Why? Because collective bargaining keeps the costs of bargaining down, and unions makes workers slightly less likely to leave for greener pastures. (which is, short-term, a negative for any corporation, since there's an acclimatizaition period for any new workers)

It's also been mentioned that lack of unions don't actually stop combative labor actions (I'm not sure if this is the right term) These show up anyway (heck, strikes, sabotage, slow downs, etc. have historical examples of happening among *slaves*, usually brutally put down of course, but the point remains) a union however is liable to keep up it's end of an agreement: In an anarchic labour-market there is nothing that binds laborers (or employers) from employing combative actiions no matter the situation.

And combative actions are, in general, *in no ones' interest* if it can be solved by negotition instead.

It can often take a year or more to negotiate a contract.

Err... Wouldn't everyone know this, and thus start negotiations before the expiration of the terms of the previous contracts?

[TrackerNeil]

But then wouldn't it be better to change the laws that make it difficult to bargain in a timely manner rather than trying to effectively get rid of bargaining altogether?

Wait...a middle-of-the-road approach that doesn't alienate hordes of people or put state employees at a huge disadvantage? Altherion, get out of this thread! ;)

[alguien]

Wait...a middle-of-the-road approach that doesn't alienate hordes of people or put state employees at a huge disadvantage? Altherion, get out of this thread! ;)

Thank you, TN, for providing me with my LOL moment of the morning. :thumbsup:

[Sariel]

Hmm.. I don't think I fully understand how the union system in the US works.

I'm part of a union. I guess the closest translation is The Lawyer Union, though it falls a little short. My union works to better the working conditions etc etc for lawyers be they employed in a private or public capacity. However, I could easily have chosen several other, less specialized unions, or chosen not to be a part of one at all.

Now, I took a gap year from my thesis to work in the government as a legal advisor (fancy title, not at all fancy work). My minimum starting sallary as a lawyer was set as a result of negotiations between my union and the government. They are free to offer higher sallaries, but not less. The same would've been true if I had not been part of the union. See, I pay my union to work for the interests of my profession, those who are members and those who are not.

Furthermore, if I feel I've been fired illegaly or otherwise been mistreated in my work capacity, my union will help me out. If I'm called out to strike my union will cover most of my pay for the duration.

Is that different from how it works in the US?

[The Iceman of the North]

Is Advokatforeningen a union though? Or is it some other organization you're member of?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But then wouldn't it be better to change the laws that make it difficult to bargain in a timely manner rather than trying to effectively get rid of bargaining altogether?

The root cause of the problem is the legal requirement to bargain in good faith. Everything else flows from that. If you eliminate that requirement, and made it so that employees were permitted to bargain with the government but that the government was not required to bargain with the union, you would eliminate the problem for the most part. But that would end up in about the same place as what they're proposing.

I'm shorthanding a lot of these explanations because it would take way too much effort to go into the whole thing in sufficient detail. But ultimately, the reason the governor is trying to do this is to give counties and cities the flexibility moving forward to deal with tough budget issues. Obviously, people disagree on whether or not that is the right thing to do, but I just wanted to lay our the argument so that folks could see the real rationale for the actions being taken, right or wrong.

[Sariel]

Is Advokatforeningen a union though? Or is it some other organization you're member of?

Juristforbundet. They're under the umbrella of Akademikerne.

[Sariel]

The root cause of the problem is the legal requirement to bargain in good faith. Everything else flows from that. If you eliminate that requirement, and made it so that employees were permitted to bargain with the government but that the government was not required to bargain with the union, you would eliminate the problem for the most part. But that would end up in about the same place as what they're proposing.

I'm shorthanding a lot of these explanations because it would take way too much effort to go into the whole thing in sufficient detail. But ultimately, the reason the governor is trying to do this is to give counties and cities the flexibility moving forward to deal with tough budget issues. Obviously, people disagree on whether or not that is the right thing to do, but I just wanted to lay our the argument so that folks could see the real rationale for the actions being taken, right or wrong.

Removing a legal requirement to bargain in good faith is to you a good thing?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

they feel that public employees have been soaking the states for too many benefits for too long.

the implication of this position is that everyone should be reduced to absolute immiseration, just like private-sector employees. w00t!

sologdin, to whom should the duties/obligations of government officials flow? Public employees, or the citizenry as a whole? That's ultimately the dispute here.

I completely understand the argument that this is unfair to public employees. I don't really agree with it, but I acknowledge that the argument is at least reasonable.

But in terms of public policy, it may make sense for the government to provide services/payments as efficiently as possible. Which means the most bang for the buck. If the money saved via those cuts does not result in a diminution of government services that outweighs the value of the cuts, then there is at least a reasonable argument that is the course those government officials should pursue. Public employees are bitching like hell about this, but unless a significant number of them quit and cannot be replaced, it may be the right economic/budgetary decision, because the rest of the citizenry has a government that is using their tax dollars more efficiently, because you're getting about the same level of service/performance more cheaply.

What is "fair" to public employees may ultimately not be "fair" to taxpayers as a whole.

[Guest Raids]

I'm part of a union. I guess the closest translation is The Lawyer Union, though it falls a little short. My union works to better the working conditions etc etc for lawyers be they employed in a private or public capacity. However, I could easily have chosen several other, less specialized unions, or chosen not to be a part of one at all.

Yeah, it's different. Or not. Depending. At most private companies with unionized work forces, you cannot choose to not be part of a union. You get a vote, like everyone else, but majority rules. This is not true in "right-to-work" states, or for federal employees.

I don't believe there is any union that represents public and private workers. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

There is, to my knowledge, no union whatsoever in the U.S. that represents private attorneys.

Now, I took a gap year from my thesis to work in the government as a legal advisor (fancy title, not at all fancy work). My minimum starting sallary as a lawyer was set as a result of negotiations between my union and the government. They are free to offer higher sallaries, but not less. The same would've been true if I had not been part of the union. See, I pay my union to work for the interests of my profession, those who are members and those who are not.

My employer, as a result of our collective bargaining agreement, cannot offer higher or lower salaries, although they can give me a discretionary bonus. The same would be true if I were not part of the union. Unlike you, I'm not really happy about picking up the tab for free-riders who directly benefit from the agreement without paying dues, but whatever.

Furthermore, if I feel I've been fired illegaly or otherwise been mistreated in my work capacity, my union will help me out. If I'm called out to strike my union will cover most of my pay for the duration.

Same, except, as mentioned, as a federal employee I am not allowed to strike. The contract I signed with the union explicitly states that I will not strike, and that it would be illegal to do so.

As FLOW, says, it would take to long to really get into all the differences. Labor law was a 3 credit course for me, and we just brushed the surface. When I actually did some work in the area, I had to look up everything because none of it was covered in the course. There is just too much to go into. The NLRA, which governs all of this, is a book, no joke, and there are different rules, even, for public unions.

Which again, is why I keep wondering why FLOW is applying private employee rules to this public employee issue...aren't the rules for state public employees set by state statute?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Removing a legal requirement to bargain in good faith is to you a good thing?

That's beside the point I was making. Someone asked about shortening the negotiation process, and that's really the only way to do it, whether people like it or not.

Personally, I would remove it because I think it is almost impossible to compel absent rules that do more harm than good. All the "good faith bargaining" rule does is amount to employment opportunities for lawyers. A good management/union lawyer generally can comply with the good faith requirement and still deliberately not reach an agreement. All the requirement does is massively draw out the process beyond all sanity. I mean, consider how difficult it is in real life to make two people agree if one person has decided ahead of time that they don't want to. And quite often, the two sides are legitimately so far apart that a good faith agreement can't be reached, so you go through this pointless year-long dance and then have the strike/lockout.

I'd eliminate the requirement. Parties that really want to reach an agreement would still try to do so. Parties that don't would just go right to the strike/lockout without all the draining bullshit in the middle.

[awesome possum]

Obviously, people disagree on whether or not that is the right thing to do, but I just wanted to lay our the argument so that folks could see the real rationale for the actions being taken, right or wrong.

I don't think you believe that is the "real rationale" for the actions being taken.