Another win for the little guy!

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 12:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have no problem with disallowing free riders. They are on their own. You may even people not so quick to opt out.

The problem with the idea of disallowing free-riders in public sector unions is the matter of equity. In the private sector, this doesn't matter so much. However, in public administration we (are supposed to) concern ourselves with equitable treatment. By saying that person A receives better pay and benefits because of membership in an organization that person B does not belong to, maybe because they aren't financially sound enough or whatever, then that creates a situation that is not equitable.

Our salaries and benefits are the result of legislative action. In Virginia, for instance, my specific agency cannot give us pay raises. If staff in one agency receive pay raises, ALL staff in the Commonwealth must receive pay raises. Merit raises on an individual basis are nearly non-existent. So all of this means that collective bargaining cannot be done in the public sector where only members will be granted the benefits. The free-rider problem is much harder to overcome in the public sector.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 12:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem with the idea of disallowing free-riders in public sector unions is the matter of equity. In the private sector, this doesn't matter so much. However, in public administration we (are supposed to) concern ourselves with equitable treatment. By saying that person A receives better pay and benefits because of membership in an organization that person B does not belong to, maybe because they aren't financially sound enough or whatever, then that creates a situation that is not equitable.

Our salaries and benefits are the result of legislative action. In Virginia, for instance, my specific agency cannot give us pay raises. If staff in one agency receive pay raises, ALL staff in the Commonwealth must receive pay raises. Merit raises on an individual basis are nearly non-existent. So all of this means that collective bargaining cannot be done in the public sector where only members will be granted the benefits. The free-rider problem is much harder to overcome in the public sector.

Well they need to change that.  If you voluntarily opt out, and your counterparts end up with better pay, that's on you.  

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 12:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You say they don’t get that job as if unions are the ones hiring them.

Nope.  I'm saying if you want to work in radio but don't want to belong to a union you have to find a radio job with no union or not work in radio.

At least until today...

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 01:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well they need to change that.  If you voluntarily opt out, and your counterparts end up with better pay, that's on you.  

Yeah, no legislature will pass those laws to change that because it would also result in them losing the control they have over the issue. By allowing that difference, it opens the door for an agency to receive more autonomy in this regard. They don't like to give that up very easily (though we are currently fighting for it in a different way).

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 01:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, no legislature will pass those laws to change that because it would also result in them losing the control they have over the issue. By allowing that difference, it opens the door for an agency to receive more autonomy in this regard. They don't like to give that up very easily (though we are currently fighting for it in a different way).

Could you explain that a little more?  

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 01:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Could you explain that a little more?  

Public sector salaries are set during the state budget process, which means that any raises for staff must be decided by elected officials during their session. The same would be true even if a union were involved. Unions work on behalf of the employees and lobby legislators during the budget process. Currently in Virginia, and likely in other states, if raises are provided for staff they are provided across the spectrum with exceptions made for high turnover role codes or certain high cost-of-living areas. They do not allow, via statute, for agencies to do anything with raises on their own with the reasoning that staff raises should be handled in as equitable a manner as possible.

If you allow for a union or any other organization to lobby on behalf of only their membership, then agencies will be doing the same and there will be little justification in saying no. Now you have created a situation in which different agencies are dealing with different pay rates and, on top of that, outside organizational membership. Special interests, which includes these agencies, will have more of a role in the decision of salaries and thus the legislature loses some of that authority. Eventually, because this would become a mess. What the logical step would become would be for the legislature to give agencies more autonomy to handle salaries on their own because of the administrative headache and cost handling this in a central way.

Not that I have had discussions with people about how to actually end up with the final result or anything. I would never want to let decisions on salaries be made in a more decentralized way that would better benefit the employees.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 02:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Public sector salaries are set during the state budget process, which means that any raises for staff must be decided by elected officials during their session. The same would be true even if a union were involved. Unions work on behalf of the employees and lobby legislators during the budget process. Currently in Virginia, and likely in other states, if raises are provided for staff they are provided across the spectrum with exceptions made for high turnover role codes or certain high cost-of-living areas. They do not allow, via statute, for agencies to do anything with raises on their own with the reasoning that staff raises should be handled in as equitable a manner as possible.

If you allow for a union or any other organization to lobby on behalf of only their membership, then agencies will be doing the same and there will be little justification in saying no. Now you have created a situation in which different agencies are dealing with different pay rates and, on top of that, outside organizational membership. Special interests, which includes these agencies, will have more of a role in the decision of salaries and thus the legislature loses some of that authority. Eventually, because this would become a mess. What the logical step would become would be for the legislature to give agencies more autonomy to handle salaries on their own because of the administrative headache and cost handling this in a central way.

Not that I have had discussions with people about how to actually end up with the final result or anything. I would never want to let decisions on salaries be made in a more decentralized way that would better benefit the employees.

OK and that's what they don't want to do.

[Bengalzona]

(06-27-2018, 12:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem with the idea of disallowing free-riders in public sector unions is the matter of equity. In the private sector, this doesn't matter so much. However, in public administration we (are supposed to) concern ourselves with equitable treatment. By saying that person A receives better pay and benefits because of membership in an organization that person B does not belong to, maybe because they aren't financially sound enough or whatever, then that creates a situation that is not equitable.

Our salaries and benefits are the result of legislative action. In Virginia, for instance, my specific agency cannot give us pay raises. If staff in one agency receive pay raises, ALL staff in the Commonwealth must receive pay raises. Merit raises on an individual basis are nearly non-existent. So all of this means that collective bargaining cannot be done in the public sector where only members will be granted the benefits. The free-rider problem is much harder to overcome in the public sector.

(06-27-2018, 01:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, no legislature will pass those laws to change that because it would also result in them losing the control they have over the issue. By allowing that difference, it opens the door for an agency to receive more autonomy in this regard. They don't like to give that up very easily (though we are currently fighting for it in a different way).

(06-27-2018, 02:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Public sector salaries are set during the state budget process, which means that any raises for staff must be decided by elected officials during their session. The same would be true even if a union were involved. Unions work on behalf of the employees and lobby legislators during the budget process. Currently in Virginia, and likely in other states, if raises are provided for staff they are provided across the spectrum with exceptions made for high turnover role codes or certain high cost-of-living areas. They do not allow, via statute, for agencies to do anything with raises on their own with the reasoning that staff raises should be handled in as equitable a manner as possible.

If you allow for a union or any other organization to lobby on behalf of only their membership, then agencies will be doing the same and there will be little justification in saying no. Now you have created a situation in which different agencies are dealing with different pay rates and, on top of that, outside organizational membership. Special interests, which includes these agencies, will have more of a role in the decision of salaries and thus the legislature loses some of that authority. Eventually, because this would become a mess. What the logical step would become would be for the legislature to give agencies more autonomy to handle salaries on their own because of the administrative headache and cost handling this in a central way.

Not that I have had discussions with people about how to actually end up with the final result or anything. I would never want to let decisions on salaries be made in a more decentralized way that would better benefit the employees.

Well said!

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 02:51 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Well said!

Way to chime in.  Uhhh I agree with the guy who wrote the most.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 03:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Way to chime in.  Uhhh I agree with the guy who wrote the most.

Baffle them with bullshit. That's my game.

I mean, this is actually something I know about, but I get wordy when talking policy. Also, I am very bored right now. I'm going back and forth between the forum and reading How Democracies Die while I am at work. We can't do anything because of the fiscal year end shutdown.

[Bengalzona]

(06-27-2018, 03:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Way to chime in.  Uhhh I agree with the guy who wrote the most.

We guys who sometimes write "walls of words" have to stand up for each other, y'know.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 03:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Baffle them with bullshit. That's my game.

I mean, this is actually something I know about, but I get wordy when talking policy. Also, I am very bored right now. I'm going back and forth between the forum and reading How Democracies Die while I am at work. We can't do anything because of the fiscal year end shutdown.

In fairness I asked you to get wordy on the last one.  

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 12:18 PM)Beaker Wrote: is supposed to be because I receive the benefit of collective bargaining.

There is no "supposed'.  You do receive those benefits.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: And the Union will still stand up for the workers while some employees can say they don't want to financially support the group getting them better wages and protecting their jobs.

The union does not have as much power if they do not represent the entire work force.  Scabs will come in for lower wages and the employers will just resist the union.

The working man loses.  The only power he had was banding together in unions.  Now that is slipping away.

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 04:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no "supposed'.  You do receive those benefits.

I dont consider getting paid the same as someone who doesnt do their job as well as I do a benefit.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 08:01 PM)Beaker Wrote: I dont consider getting paid the same as someone who doesnt do their job as well as I do a benefit.

So you would rather be paid less with less benefits?

Do some research on working conditions before unions existed.

[*PhilHos*]

Question: if a lobbyist improves a group of peoples lives in some way, should all those people be forced to pay the lobbyist?

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 01:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Question: if a lobbyist improves a group of peoples lives in some way, should all those people be forced to pay the lobbyist?

They usually do; they just don't know it.

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 01:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Question: if a lobbyist improves a group of peoples lives in some way, should all those people be forced to pay the lobbyist?

You mean why pay when you can be a freeloader?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-28-2018, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean why pay when you can be a freeloader?

I'll take that as a 'yes'.