Over the course of the past year, I think we've seen more evidence that the federal workforce's collective bargaining rights aren't strong enough. Workers' employment contracts are being ignored, employees are being threatened, constructively terminated, all in an attempt to enact RIFs without following the law.
replyThings are happening to the federal workforce right now that aren't even legal in the private sector.
If contracts are violated then the impacted parties can seek redress through the courts. Government employee unions aren't needed for that.
replyYou have to have your contract violated for a significant amount before you can notionally afford to hire a lawyer to fight it out. Below 5 figures it doesn't make much financial sense to do that for most people, so they just eat it instead. It's how a lot of "theft of wages" and other mistreatment happens so often. Lawyers don't take those cases for free, and court isn't free either. And you're not going to instantly appear at the top of the docket for something small like that especially if the government buries you in procedure. They can do that for years.
replyBut sure, yeah you can seek redress through the courts.
The result of some of the issues at hand might not even be damages, but simply to realign policies with what the law requires.... which may no longer be relevant for someone who lost a job a year ago and has since moved on out of necessity.
replyAnd this admin doesn't simply stop an initiative when courts block them, they find a new "creative interpretation" to do the same thing, and carry on for however long it takes the next trial to happen.
Suing the federal government solo is an insurmountable task for most people -- even more so while they're being constructively terminated. Employee unions have been suing on their workers behalf over the past year, but the executive branch can drag out federal trials for a lot longer than people can stay without a job.
replyCentralization of all power in the government is also contrary to the interests of the taxpayers.
replyEvery time i see an anti-union article, its usually about unions that do good union things...
But noone ever complains about the police union. It's always the public goods people like ATC or teachers.
People complain about police unions all the time, it's just their complainants don't overlap much with the people who complain about private sector unions.
replyDoes your comment also include the police union(s)?
replyYes absolutely. They're a perfect example of the unique issues w/ collective bargaining for public services.
replyYes, absolutely. No government employees should ever have collective bargaining rights. If they want better wages and working conditions then they can advocate for those through the political process, the same as any other citizen.
replyIn your suggestion any other citizen has collective bargaining at their disposal, do they not?
replyCollective bargaining rights shouldn’t even be a separate thing. They’re just a natural consequence of the fact that free speech is protected and slavery is illegal. The idea of an illegal strike is bizarre.
replyThis is a discussion with nearly unanimous agreement that poor ATC working conditions are causing Americans to die in preventable aviation accidents.
replyMaybe this is the one evidence-driven case where you can be open minded about the value of a public employee union?
Nope. Public employee unions bring zero value and this incident is not evidence to support such unions. Relying on unions to act as ersatz safety regulators would be stupid, just completely the wrong approach. Decisions about things like ATC procedures, staffing levels, and training standards should be the responsibility of apolitical career bureaucrats.
replyPublic employee unions are contrary to the interests of taxpayers
replyThis is not obvious on its face, but also, paying taxes is not my only concern wrt the civil society in which I live.