I may be dense this morning. Managers in public service administration are appointed professionals responsible for overseeing the daily operations of government entities. They bridge the gap between elected officials and government staff. Like managers in business, some can go off the rails and a union can help protect workers from them.
In public service, it's the politicians. In business, it's the board of directors. If the politicians screw up, they can be removed by the voters. If the board of directors screw up, they can be removed by the stockholders. The accountability is there but it's not expected that either the politicians or directors will be involved in the day to day activities of the employees. That's the role of management. I can see value in unions to limit the capriciousness of management.
Voting is the only way we have of changing political leaders through non-violent methods. Ditto for the board of directors who represent the stockholders.
I don't know whether you are genuinely missing the distinction or trying to dodge it. Politicians are not owners. They are not counterweights to workers. They are as much in service to public workers as they are to taxpayers. Since they are in service to public workers, they are not antagonists, and are perfectly able to perform the role that union bosses would in protecting workers.
Who is the counterweight to a public union? The politician that serves both the worker and the taxpayer?
The Board of Directors need not be owners either. There's no requirement that they be stockholders. They represent the interests of stockholders in appointing the upper management for a company just as politicians are to represent the interests of voters when they appoint the main managers for the functions of public government.
The air traffic controllers fired by Reagan would question your comment that politicians are not counterweights to workers. Granted, though, that it happens all too rarely. And, those who lost their jobs under Trump for doing the jobs assigned to them under the previous administration would not agree that the politicians protect workers.
The counterweight to a public union is supposed to be the politicians elected by the voters just as the Board of Directors is to a company's employees and unions. That it doesn't necessarily work out in practice in either government or business is a reflection upon leadership and the stockholders/voters who tolerate that.
Right on, Peter. Public unions have NOTHING to do with improving quality or making operations more efficient. Nope, nope, and nope. They're all about milking the system for every dime they can - and they usually accomplish that goal spectacularly. Can't say it enough: they should be abolished.
It is just another type of fraud in our system imho.
One of the benefits of unions is to protect workers from capricious managements. Would that not be a benefit of having public sector unions?
Please re-read the post and ponder your question in the context of the weight-counterweight framework.
Who is the "management" of public sector unions?
I may be dense this morning. Managers in public service administration are appointed professionals responsible for overseeing the daily operations of government entities. They bridge the gap between elected officials and government staff. Like managers in business, some can go off the rails and a union can help protect workers from them.
Who is at the top of the food chain? To whom do those at the top answer?
In public service, it's the politicians. In business, it's the board of directors. If the politicians screw up, they can be removed by the voters. If the board of directors screw up, they can be removed by the stockholders. The accountability is there but it's not expected that either the politicians or directors will be involved in the day to day activities of the employees. That's the role of management. I can see value in unions to limit the capriciousness of management.
Mr. Graf, I addressed that very question is this essay: https://afterthoughtcommentary.substack.com/p/voting-is-not-purchasing
Voting is the only way we have of changing political leaders through non-violent methods. Ditto for the board of directors who represent the stockholders.
I don't know whether you are genuinely missing the distinction or trying to dodge it. Politicians are not owners. They are not counterweights to workers. They are as much in service to public workers as they are to taxpayers. Since they are in service to public workers, they are not antagonists, and are perfectly able to perform the role that union bosses would in protecting workers.
Who is the counterweight to a public union? The politician that serves both the worker and the taxpayer?
The Board of Directors need not be owners either. There's no requirement that they be stockholders. They represent the interests of stockholders in appointing the upper management for a company just as politicians are to represent the interests of voters when they appoint the main managers for the functions of public government.
The air traffic controllers fired by Reagan would question your comment that politicians are not counterweights to workers. Granted, though, that it happens all too rarely. And, those who lost their jobs under Trump for doing the jobs assigned to them under the previous administration would not agree that the politicians protect workers.
The counterweight to a public union is supposed to be the politicians elected by the voters just as the Board of Directors is to a company's employees and unions. That it doesn't necessarily work out in practice in either government or business is a reflection upon leadership and the stockholders/voters who tolerate that.
Right on, Peter. Public unions have NOTHING to do with improving quality or making operations more efficient. Nope, nope, and nope. They're all about milking the system for every dime they can - and they usually accomplish that goal spectacularly. Can't say it enough: they should be abolished.
Absolutely correct public sector unions should not exist. Wish I could see some possibility of them going away.