Another win for the little guy!

[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!