Quote:
Originally Posted by army one
 I'm confused. According to most on this forum public employees should not have collective bargaining. Most think it is improper for Unions to take taxpayer earned $ (dues) and use it for political purposes. The part of this statement I disagree with is after a employee earns their pay, should we be able to tell them how to spend it? Public employees provide services, yet every year they are expected to give back more to help whatever political agenda the current administration has . Here in Florida, public employees have not received a raise in 5 years, yet are expected to continue doing more for less. Most are trying to find a way to pay their bills with the same amount they earned 5 years ago. Public employees live in the area they work, spend their wages locally, pay taxes like everyone else, yet are looked at and treated like 2nd class citizens. The normal public employee does not earn a lot of money, that is reserved for management. Most forget that in a economic downturn more people are in need of more public services, food stamps, medical, etc. That translates into more work for the public employee not less. You, the general public, expect to be treated with courtesy and respect when you have need for public services, you expect them to always act professionally but yet be subject to constant ridicule because of the job they have. You expect the public employees to balance the budget out of their paychecks and give back more every year. I probably the only one on this forum that supports the public employee because I can see how easy it is for everyone to blame the public employee. This is why I can see the need for public employees to have collective bargaining, so they can concentrate on providing services we need and not to have to play politics every day on the job. Why is it OK for the NFL to have a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL owners to ensure fair compensation and benefits but the public employees should just be happy they have a job?? |
When NFL owners negotiate with their employees, their desire is to bargain to keep the owners own profits as high as possible.
When politicians who were financially supported by and elected by unions, their desire is to make the unions happy so they get more financial support from the union and the union vote, and the give unreasonable deals to the unions using taxpayer money, NOT THEIR OWN.
That is the problem and that is why unions should not be allowed to bargain with the politicians they financially and voter support.
BUT.. worse than that.. is unions refuse to require annual vote on the union by their members even though new employees get NO say in whether they are a member of the union..
and WORSE YET... the union confiscates money from that disenfranchised worker involuntarily from the worker paycheck BEFORE they even see it, they use that confiscated money to influence the politician as outlined above,
AND WORSE yet they want to intimidate and coerce union membership through pressure and refusal to allow secret ballots..
AND WORSE YET AGAIN.. unions negotiate most strongly for the workers who break the rules or are the least productive, rarely to increase compensation for the hardest workers.. in fact they come down HARD on the best workers to increase the need for more workers.. and in many parts of the country they have literally driven the companies out of town with strikes and rules.. my family have been a victim of these problems.
and FINALLY the owner of a unionized business can close the plant and move elsewhere, or close the plant and open up later with new employees if they cannot afford the union demands... the PUBLIC SECTOR cannot move and they cannot close, ... and because politicians are negotiating with other people (taxpayer) money, it is just easier to cave into demands... take the union money and votes.
JJ