"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost"
Barry Ritholz shines a light on an alternative to the current meme on public sector unions:
In a Labor Day address in 1980, Ronald Reagan said:
“These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland … They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
Reagan as above, in video.
(Hat tip Goldilocksisableachblonde at Economistsview)
Interesting how he went against his own view on the unions, I wonder what he would say of todays actions? How would what is taking place in the America he spoke of in that speech, effect him today?
Nobody is talking about ‘banning’ collective bargaining — collective bargaining isn’t banned in right-to-work states either. The only thing that right-to-work states have is that a member of the workforce can choose to opt out of a union and still be employed.
What happens in ‘union states’ is that the employer is FORCED to negotiate with a union if the majority of the workforce agrees to collective bargaining.
In a truly free system, unions would have the right to execute wild-cat strikes if they wished (which are illegal under current labor law), while employers would be free to choose not to negotiate with a union if they wanted to.
Reagan was supporting the right to free association, which covers the right to form a union.
Additionally, there is a huge difference between private sector unions and public sector unions. Have any of you guys on the left read FDR’s comments on public sector unions, or George Meany? Private sector unions are constrained by market forces, so a ‘fair contract’ is reached between the two sides. In the public sector, unions are negotiating with themselves. A couple years back, John Corzine was loggying on behalf of unions during a strike while representing the “employer” at the negotiating table.
Rdan,
I second what Nick said. You do understand the huge differences between private and public unions don’t you? To obscure this basic difference is not very truthful. Reagan and FDR both understood that difference.
Islam will change
Thank you. There is also no such thing as a “right” to collective bargaining. There is a right to free association under the US constitution, but the NRLB forces employers to recognize a union and to associate with it — which makes the NRLB ipso facto unconstitutional — forces accociation. NRLB restrictions on unions should also be lifted.
What does ‘Islam will change’ mean? I see it in your tagline.
Buff,
Run the entire FDR quote about public unions.
What was the contaxt?
Then put up something about the pendalton act and 5 United States Code on merit systems, the general counsel at one place I worked made sure all us managers had a pocket card to remind us how to treat workers. And there are Fed Unions..
Indivisible benefits.
The prerogative to opt out of union where one is protecting the worker, is as sensible as the healthy opting out of health insurance, so that the covered and the government cover the opt outer.
Buff,
Run the entire FDR quote about public unions.
What was the contaxt?
Then put up something about the pendalton act and 5 United States Code on merit systems, the general counsel at one place I worked made sure all us managers had a pocket card to remind us how to treat federal workers. And there are Fed Unions.
Check the OPM retirement part of the 2011 budget, employees contributed less than $4B bucks the system paid out nearly $100B and the trust fund rose by $40B. No motive for anyone to squirrel with that kind of access to the taxpayers’ wallets.
The only better retirement system is the military one. No employ contribution, and the $49B outlays and the fund keeps going up and up.
ilsm will not change.
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Islm,
the military pension you speak about is a perfect example of teachers unions.
I spend 8 years on Active duty and separated from the Air Force about 8 years ago. The military pension system is the most back-loaded system on the face of the earth. If you serve 20 years, you get 50% of your base pay (excludes your monthly housing stipend) and free Tricare medical for life. If you serve 19.5 years, you get nothing.
This creates a system where a large fraction of the workforce doesn’t really want to be there, but they’re running down the clock to retirement.
The officer corps has a lot of “up or out” rules that prevent this behavior (intil they make Major), but not on the enlisted side. If you get through your first 4 years on good behavior and re-enlist, you can stay in to your 20-year point as long as your meet minimum standards (weight, exercise, and showing up to work) and you don’t get a serious criminal charge (anything like a DUI or worse).
Teachers unions work like this and it cannot be good for forming quality human capital.
a Union ‘protecting’ a worker is highly subjective, especially for younger workers. If there’s a work stoppage, the young worker with a family to take care of is the first to be thrown out on the street, even if he is a better worker than a more senior person.
If that’s your definition of protection, you can keep it.
ah nick.
no doubt after the American Revolution those colonists who didn’t want to be part of the Union should have been allowed to pay their taxes to King George..
I don’t know what Corzine was up to, but I don’t think public employee unions are “bargaining with themselves.” The workers need someone to represent their interests at the bargaining table. God knows the “taxpayers” have someone representing theirs.
As for that “young worker”… if there is a strike you can be sure that everyone is out on the street, taking a hit because they think the situation requires it. No one goes on strike for the fun of it.
And if he is a “better worker” than the more senior position, he should get a job where his youth and strength count for more than his ignorance.
one reason people have unions is to keep the boss from playing the “better” workers against the older or slower workers who still need to eat and feed their families.
your dog eat dog, young dog eat old dog, world has been tried. it’s ugly. stop feeling sorry for yourself. you have advantages, and your turn will come.
bluff
no, i don’t understand the HUGE difference. can you explain it?
qualty human capital.
sure didn’t work in your case. i suppose the twenty year rule is there because the army WANTS to encourage folks to complete the twenty years. they need the men. and the men with experience.
sure you can run the mile faster than the old guy. but when getting shot at, you might be glad the old guy knows which way to run.
teachers do a better job, on average, of “forming quality human capital” than your average sweat shop…. which is where your … ah, inexperience… would lead you. sorry you didn’t get along better with your father.
“ipso facto”?
boy you have an idiot’s understanding of “constitutional.”
There were colonies that didn’t want to be part of the union — it’s called Canada. Vermont also didn’t join right away either. And your analogy is severely flawed because the colonies weren’t collectively bargaining — they became self-employed.
Under most union contracts, downsizing affects those who have the least seniority — last in first out (LIFO).
And if that worker truly is better and he is a tradesman like a carpenter, he has no choice in the matter unless he is a right-to-work state.
You mentioned slower workers — the slower worker should keep his job over the better younger worker?
I don’t feel sorry for myself — I am not in a unionized trade…I’m just calling it like I see it.
What do you mean “didn’t work in my case” — is that some kind of a put-down?I believe so, now seeing your final comments about my father. I get along great with my dad.
The 20-year rule wasn’t designed per se, it just ‘happened’ after we went away from a draft system. Before the draft went away, you had career NCOs and officers — and a lot of enlistees that only served a couple years. There wasn’t a mid-career track.
Running doesn’t mean anything — I wasn’t in the Army either — I was in the Air Force and I was an intelligence analyst.
I used the term “human capital formation” for lack of a better term. The education system needs to meet the needs of today’s economy, and I don’t believe it is.
Nick,
Its a very long story, for years now. Basically its my contention that Islam, as practiced today in the Islamic world, is incompatible with western liberal democracy. Nothing has changed to make me believe that is not true, on the contrary Islam has continued to prove itself even less compatible with western liberal democracy as the years go by. The tag line is the affirmation that Islam will change to become compatible.
Islam will change
Yes – forced association or coercively preventing association is an act, by itself, of violating the freedom of association protected by the first ammendment. The Freedom of Association is also enshrined in te UN Declaration of Human Rights — and the international labor movement has rallied behind the banner of freedom of association for almost 200 years.
I find you quite crude — must you call anyone who disagrees with you an idiot?
I understand your points — but Islam and the arab culture it was built upon are intertwined. Islam itself is more compatible with the West than Arab culture. You only need to look to portions of the globe where non-Arabs practice Islam — I’m specifically looking at Southeast Asia.
but since Arab culture is the dominant trend within Islam, that’s what people focus on.
“The education system needs to meet the needs of today’s economy, and I don’t believe it is.”
An educational system has to meet the needs of the students. Informed and knowledgeable adults coming out of an educational system is all any economic system can hope for. And guess what that requires, adequate funding of the schools for equipment, texts, physical plant and teachers. Good education isn’t magic and only dedication. It requires well educated and trained personnel. It requires accurate and understandable texts. It requires a decent and safe physical environment.
“Teachers unions work like this and it cannot be good for forming quality human capital.”
Nick, that one sentence lends evidence to the failure of your schooling to have succeeded.
You’re comparing 20 year enlisted military personnel with professional teachers. You know nothing. Educational requirements are vastly different. What does an enlisted man need? A high school diploma. A teacher in NY needs a masters degree or the equivalent. A teacher wonlt reach full salary potential without an additional thirty graduate credits. A teacher is observed and evaluated at least twice each year. A teacher is under constant observation, supervision, and assessment.
Try to make sure to engage your brain before putting your mouth in gear.
You are correct – an educational system has to meet the needs of the students. But what are the needs of the student? To be successful in today’s economic environment — and my point is that I don’t believe that the school system is meeting those needs.
If you need to go to college today to get a good job with high pay in an industry with low unemployment (the unemployment rate for college grads is much, much lower than for others) — then the K-12 system needs to equip children for college.
First off, I am comparing the pension structures of the military to teachers, since it was brought up by another poster. And they are similar — benefits are very back-loaded. Back-loaded benefits are a barrier to entry in any industry — huge defined pensions also cause labor rigidities.
If teachers and the enlisted force have such different needs, why the same career structure? A more optimal structure would be for a smaller cadre of tenure-track teachers and a larger force of adjuncts.
In New York, what is the result of these ‘evaluations’? The really bad teachers get to hang out in a rubber room continuing to get paid?
Nick,
In a rare instance both Jefferson and Madison agreed that standing armies are threats to liberty. Jefferson included banks with armies.
The teachers’ union pension is self fund, military retirement creates part of the federal deficits.
I am 30 years’ reserve officer pulling down the annuity, 10 years active.
Bradly
you don’t see too good.
by what leap of logic do you go from individual rights to colony rights. if a person as the right to opt out of a union that protects the rights of workers, why can’t he opt out of the Union that protects his rights against the (former) KIng? Of course, you theory is that he has that right: he should be allowed to stop paying taxes because taxes are coercive. IT’s not so much that you have a primitive mind as that you have a selective logic system. IT’s called rationalization, and while it’s a form of thinking, it is not a respectable form of thinking.
young workers become old workers faster than you might believe. if you are such a hot young worker, and you don’t like the union, start your own business. if you weren’t so ignorant you would know that all of this has been tried and talked over and bled over for several hundred years.
but there is always some ignorant young pup that the man in the suit can look at and say, “You look like a smart young fella… Why don’t you become a traitor to your family and friends and YOU can become rich just like me.”
NO, only a select few.
TEll me about the Air Force. How often did the sargeant ask you “Please, Nick, would you voluntarily do this for me?”
NIck
yes, it was some kind of put down. Glad you were able to recognize it. You show evidence of a mental rigidity that keeps you recognizing “army” as a generic that includes “air force.” might explain some of your other difficulties.
as for your dad… i would have no way of knowing. But your inability to understand the social arrangements by which older people are given privileges not available to younger suggests you didn’t learn much from your dad.
IT’s an old story by the way. You could look it up. Try under Oedipus the King.
Nick,
The 20 year retirement goes back to the small regular army, when an enlisted man was worn out by 20 years.
Where comes the idea that it started with the all volunteer force?
What happened in 1984 the pay scales rose so much that anyone coming in after 86 had only 40% at 20, called redux for short.
I came in a long time before 1986!
Yes Nick
you have identified one of the bad results of a flawed system. So you overgeneralize to a remedy: destroy the system.
And still, your idea is to let the brilliant young shine forth while their second rater elders get forced out to beg for a living. But there is no evidence your first rater self is willing or able to go out and make his own living without profiting from the fruits of the labor of others. the organized labor of older others.
Nick
You’re proving your ignorance with each new comment. The rubber room, as it is called, defines the failure of the NYC Dept of Education to precede with charges against a teacher that has been accused of an offense on the job. That NYC can’t seem to get its act together to adddress those various cases before an impertial arbitrator is not evidence of the accused’s incompetence. It is only evidence of the city’s inability to manage itself. Maybe that’s the result of Mayor Bloomberg’s “business” approach to running NYC. Some would suggest that he’s running the city into the ground.
Buff
BTW, I’ve been curious to ask, which religion iin its more extreme/devout/orthodox form is compatible with western liberal democracy? And while we’re addressing devotion to an ideology, which political party in the US is compatible with western liberal democracy? And how is it that you would describe/define western liberal democracy? Is ours that kind of democracy in which extreme religious convictions are said to trump laws governing the freedom to follow one’s preferred sexual orientation or obtain legal medical services pertaining to family planning or pregnancy termination?
All extreme religious practioners step on the toes of those who do not follow their dogmatic ideologies. If we live in a western liberal democracy its about time that those who love their god put that god back in their hearts. I’m a bit tired of seeing their god worn on their shirt sleeves.
Buff
BTW, I’ve been curious to ask, which religion in its more extreme/devout/orthodox form is compatible with western liberal democracy? And while we’re addressing devotion to an ideology, which political party in the US is compatible with western liberal democracy? And how is it that you would describe/define western liberal democracy? Is ours that kind of democracy in which extreme religious convictions are said to trump laws governing the freedom to follow one’s preferred sexual orientation or obtain legal medical services pertaining to family planning or pregnancy termination?
All extreme religious practioners step on the toes of those who do not follow their dogmatic ideologies. If we live in a western liberal democracy its about time that those who love their god put that god back in their hearts. I’m a bit tired of seeing their god worn on their shirt sleeves.
btw
“idiot” is almost a technical term.
it comes from the Greek word meaning “a man alone,” which is your political philosophy.
thing is , you can always take a bright, but unintelligent, young man and tell him how smart he is, teach him a few tricks and a catechism that makes sense to a simple minded person with no experience of the real world and you can turn him into a jesuit, or a young communist, or a libertarian, or an economist. there is no difference.
NIck
they try. what has resulted is the dumbing down of college. try to remember that half of all americans have iq’s less than 100. but that doesn’t make them worthless. it doesn’t even make them unintelligent.
and the human spirit is hard to kill. lots of kids are literally revolted by the idea of being trained for life in a cubicle.
nick
you are showing your stupidity with each new comment. i know about the rubber room. i was agreeing with you that it was a failure of the system. then i went on and said that didn’t add up to a good reason to destroy the ENTIRE system.
coberly:
I am smiling.
Idiot is also an outdated term used to classify intelligence/IQ. Idiot would be below 20. Imbecile and moron would come before an idiot. Bradley appears to have a command of the English lanquage. Maybe a reclassification?
Nick:
Many of us have been quoted FDR by the Badger GOP enough times we could slab it with cheddar and make a meal of it. Here is what FDR really said:
“The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/948033/-Wisconsin:GOP-Lying-About-FDR-Again
Let me add this quote from one of the Republican Presidents:
*”Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and they are stupid.”—Republican President Dwight Eisenhower
Limiting the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively is wrong. Whether they work for the state or some other organization. If public sector workers rights are eliminated or marginalized mine aren’t safe.
Solidarity!
A lot of people are ‘older workers’ by the time they hit 35. That is often when there are the peak years for financial obligations as well – family, house, elderly parents…
Now it’s true in the case of say autoworkers the unions seem quite happy to sell the younger workers down the river so the retirees and soon-to-be-retired can keep some pretty gold-plated pensions but that doesn’t mean it’s either a permanent situation or that that’s the case for every union. One could even argue it’s not the problem of unions so much as demographics…
Also, younger workers essentially subsidize the older ones in the non-union private sector too – just look at the pay disparity between entry level and managerial salaries (and the amount of work that gets thrown the younger ones that the older better paid ones have learned to dodge) – in ‘unionized’ sectors the scale is still flatter than in the private sector.
In a limited view, collective bargaining may be seen as the process in which a contract (for the services of labor) is secured and negotiated between the employed and the employer. One would think that a democracy would hold the value of a contract as sacrosanct.
In addition, the freedom to be represented by an entity of your choosing is another hallmark of a democratic institution which many corporations freely oblige by employing and handsomely rewarding (the US Chamber of Commerce comes to mind) their representatives.
Jack,
Any reply would be very long and derail the thread well away from the topic at hand. Islam is not currently compatible with western liberal democracy as its practiced throughout the muslim world. I expect it to change to become compatible, but I doubt it will happen without considerable bloodshed.
As for the rest, I would say the R party is more compatible than the D party in the US. The D party regularly fights against freedom of speech, religion and against the rights of citizens to provide for their self-defense. The openly espouse open racism and preferences based on sex, race, and gender. The D’s beleve in group or collective over individual rights in general. YMMV. But both parties easy conform to western liberal traditions. (As do both the Catholic and Protetant churches in the US). You can always find the radicals in every organization though…
As for you homosexual reference, Lawrence was decided correctly and should have been an easy case. It increased individuals rights to socialize with whomever they please. This is a negative right – the right for the government to leave you alone. Homosexual marraige on the other hands is asking for a benefit that must be provided. A positive right, which the government is free or not to grant at its whim. (We had a very long thread on this subject a few years back).
Your abortion reference is a moral issue that revolves around when a fetus becomes a baby (i.e. a human). Right now the supreme court says that the fetus becomes a baby upon live birth. Until that time the mother has every legal right to kill/terminate the fetus/baby at her whim. People obviously disagree with this legal resolution of a moral issue. Personnaly I feel Roe being decided in the courts was far more a lightning rod than if it had been legislated. YMMV.
Sorry for the short answer but I believe we have hashed this out many times before. I a nod to keeping the thread on tract, I will not repond further.
ISlam will change
jessica
it is a mistake to conflate “managers” with “older workers.”
if nick was as hot as he thinks he is, management would find a way to promote him… into management perhaps. but he’s not as hot as he thinks he is. he’s just another young person who ccan be manipulated by management into weakening the union.
the kind of idealized world that nick… and you… imagine only exists in a small number of businesses so small the owner can look across the shop floor and see who is better at what jobs and place and pay them accordingly. a few more enlightened large business may attempt to do this with varying success. but by the time you are dealing with a factory… or something as factory like as american education…. there is no room for individual “enterprise” at the worker level. there is room for a good bit of political … sycophancy… and that is where managers come from.
if nick, and you, think you are getting a bad deal because the unions protect the older workers first… they protect the younger workers too, but the younger workers are easier for management to fool… then … and poor nick will not understand the metaphor: “get a job in canada”… that means get a job in a non union shop. or start your own business. eventually you will learn enough about the world to understand why the unions have ‘seniority’ rules. that is, if you keep learning. lots of people don’t.
it’s not a case of “selling younger workers down the river.” it is a case of making the best deal they can under the circumstances they face.
when you are faced with massive layoffs, who is going to be hurt the most by a layoff… a younger worker or an older. and if your answer is that the younger worker is so much more productive that he should get to keep the job while the old workers goes on welfare… if the republicans haven’t cut welfare… then you are just thinking through selfish eyes. and its not so much the selfishness that’s bad as the blindness.
Run, thanks for this and the Ike quote. The bad guys love to mislead by presenting just enough “facts” to make their case sound good. IT works pretty well with people who only want to hear just enough “facts” to justify their “me” ethic.
not that there is anything wrong with “me,” it’s just that it leads to short sighted stupidity.
Nick, don’t let the dunderhead crowd run you off. You appear to be better educated than they, and are welcome, if you can take the heat.
I agree with MarkJ on this although my opinion is just that, opinion.
One other thought. If taxpayers do not like the public union that keeps the public workforce away from the willies of temp supervisors like governors, legislatures, appointees, etc., they can decide to organize themselves and set up a non-re-electable panel to negotiate their side.
What bothers me about the recent discussion is the tendency to deny one group of people the right to organize and choose a representative for negotiations in what is clearly a process with elements far more important to the workers than pay and benefits.
What other groups in the US are not allowed to organize as long as they don’t perform criminal activities? Organizing for mutual advantage is not just as American as Apple Pie, it is a part of nature and survival.
Organizing is Apple Pie and life. We had a Revolution didn’t we? One could say it was an organization of taxpayers for mutual advantage. It shifted the recipient of taxes to greater mutual advantage. But no one saw fit to place a restriction in the new government against others who might see the need to similarly organize. (Remember that the hated tax was an advantage to a company.)
Legal barriers to representation, especially, should never be discussed. Just because you find that the common good doesn’t seem to advantage you personally in your current circumstance doesn’t mean it is bad. It could become useful at some point to you as part of the common good.
It is tragic that people don’t understand that in many ways organized public workers help protect the taxpayer from willies of the temps that taxpayers never considered when casting a vote for “lower taxes”.
Nick Bradey: “There were colonies that didn’t want to be part of the union — it’s called Canada.”
Well, they were reluctant colonists of England, since most of them were French. They did not want to be part of the English colonies, with which they had often been at war. English Canadians are largely descendants of loyalists who fled north during and after the Revolution.
The real issue is the difference between public and private unions. It reminds me of a post on http://www.freemarketsfreepeople.net, “Government Unions Are Different”.
Min
I think the more important point that Nick failed to understand is that the Canadian “colonies” would act in the metaphor like another business. The Tories who didn’t like the American “union” could go to canada, or great britain, or simply pay their “Union” dues and accept the Union benefits of being Americans.
It is bizarre that he confuses individual rights with the “rights” of a “state.” The folks in Canada were no more free to not pay their “union” dues than were the the folks in the United States.
If NIck doesnt’ want to pay Union dues for accepting the benefits of being represented by a union, he is free to go work for another company, or start his own business, or even try to convince the union members that they should get rid of their union. but he has no “natural right” to refuse to pay dues.
He does not understand how management uses people like him to weaken unions, but all it ends up as is that he as well as the other workers will get less pay for the work. His “superiority” won’t mean a thing.
IF he had any real superiority, managemetn would reclassify him and give him more pay… but they don’t need “better” assembly line workers. They just need a few people who think they are better to break the union and make sure all receive lower pay.