To be honest, I'm not sure. There's a difference between taxpayers and public employees, but they both have legitimate claims on the government's resources.
I admit I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of stripping unions of their collective bargaining rights. But of course, when I mentioned that nonunion workers shouldn't be tithed or bargained for by unions in another thread, I was told that if you don't like the arrangement, you should just get another job. If I was a cynic, I'd apply this formulation to the Wisconsin crisis: If you want your employer to recognize your union, don't work for the government.
There's a fundamental difference between accepting a job under certain conditions and losing your right to self-representation and being forced to pay union dues because a majority of your coworkers want union representation.
Well, the NLRB doesn't have a breakdown of how workers voted during unionization elections. All I can find is data on how many elections were won and how many were lost. The ratio seems to be about 2 to 1, which suggests that plenty of workers vote against unionization:
Good point. I think we should extend this logic to other areas. Think your job is too dangerous? Change occupations! Worried about unsafe working conditions? Get a job down the street!
Fair ball, but this is secondary to my first, and more fundamental, concern, which is that I don't believe you should be forced to affiliate with or subsidize a union just because a majority of your coworkers choose union representation. This isn't something that can be tweaked at the margins - it's the fundamental model for union membership across the country. And I have no interest in reviving or expanding that model, be it in the public or private sectors of the economy.
The other weird thing about this post is that you link to an article outlining an absolutely disastrous public sector pension crisis without refuting any of the particulars. So we're stuck with this massive problem and the solution is to . . . export that model to the private sector?
Leaving aside your economic assumptions, it's worth mentioning that American labor law as it relates to unionization and union membership is profoundly coercive. If a union gets into a bargaining unit through a majority vote, everyone in that workplace is obligated to accept union representation, whether they voted for it or not. Moreover, unaffiliated workers in said workplace can then be compelled to pay union dues for the purposes of collective bargaining. I'd rather see that system reformed than extended to more sectors of the economy.
I think we need to distinguish between war aims and bad tactical or strategic choices that occurred over the course of the war. You can be proud of the United States' role in defeating the Nazis while deploring Dresden or Hiroshima.
If someone could point me to historical documentation indicating that a bloc of powerful, influential Southerners was about to peacefully abolish slavery, Pat, I'll be happy to reconsider my views.
Stabilizing Afghanistan has no bearing on Egyptian politics. Defeating the Yankees would have had a very real impact on the existence of chattel slavery.
I don't get the impression that LeBoeuf was conscripted.
Fighting for Southern independence while failing to recognize that by doing so you sustain the institution of chattel slavery strikes me as the definition of a moral blind spot.
Historical and moral judgments are distinct, I'd say. I can understand Confederate soldiers in a historical context while still condemning slavery as a morally odious institution.
On “A Basic Conflict”
To be honest, I'm not sure. There's a difference between taxpayers and public employees, but they both have legitimate claims on the government's resources.
"
Fellows, this cracked me up.
"
I admit I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of stripping unions of their collective bargaining rights. But of course, when I mentioned that nonunion workers shouldn't be tithed or bargained for by unions in another thread, I was told that if you don't like the arrangement, you should just get another job. If I was a cynic, I'd apply this formulation to the Wisconsin crisis: If you want your employer to recognize your union, don't work for the government.
On “The Public Pension Problem”
Let me try to respond less snarkily:
There's a fundamental difference between accepting a job under certain conditions and losing your right to self-representation and being forced to pay union dues because a majority of your coworkers want union representation.
"
Well, the NLRB doesn't have a breakdown of how workers voted during unionization elections. All I can find is data on how many elections were won and how many were lost. The ratio seems to be about 2 to 1, which suggests that plenty of workers vote against unionization:
http://www.nlrb.gov/chartsdata/petitions#chart9tag
"
Unions rarely get voted in unanimously. So yes, I'd say it's fairly common.
"
My comment referred to the idea of getting rid of workplace safety regulations because employees are always free to change jobs.
"
Good point. I think we should extend this logic to other areas. Think your job is too dangerous? Change occupations! Worried about unsafe working conditions? Get a job down the street!
"
Fair ball, but this is secondary to my first, and more fundamental, concern, which is that I don't believe you should be forced to affiliate with or subsidize a union just because a majority of your coworkers choose union representation. This isn't something that can be tweaked at the margins - it's the fundamental model for union membership across the country. And I have no interest in reviving or expanding that model, be it in the public or private sectors of the economy.
On “The State of the Unions”
The other weird thing about this post is that you link to an article outlining an absolutely disastrous public sector pension crisis without refuting any of the particulars. So we're stuck with this massive problem and the solution is to . . . export that model to the private sector?
"
Leaving aside your economic assumptions, it's worth mentioning that American labor law as it relates to unionization and union membership is profoundly coercive. If a union gets into a bargaining unit through a majority vote, everyone in that workplace is obligated to accept union representation, whether they voted for it or not. Moreover, unaffiliated workers in said workplace can then be compelled to pay union dues for the purposes of collective bargaining. I'd rather see that system reformed than extended to more sectors of the economy.
On ““Reasonable” People”
I am much too elegant a writer to be confused with one of your alter egos, Thompson.
More seriously, good to see you back in the saddle.
On “More True Grit”
So, this discussion of True Grit got off to a fantastic start . . .
On “The Glorious Cause”
I think we need to distinguish between war aims and bad tactical or strategic choices that occurred over the course of the war. You can be proud of the United States' role in defeating the Nazis while deploring Dresden or Hiroshima.
"
To be fair, this entire thread has gotten out of hand.
"
Cheeks, this bloodthirsty neo-Confederate pose has gotten out of hand. Stop it, or I'm going to start deleting comments.
"
If someone could point me to historical documentation indicating that a bloc of powerful, influential Southerners was about to peacefully abolish slavery, Pat, I'll be happy to reconsider my views.
"
Stabilizing Afghanistan has no bearing on Egyptian politics. Defeating the Yankees would have had a very real impact on the existence of chattel slavery.
"
I don't get the impression that LeBoeuf was conscripted.
Fighting for Southern independence while failing to recognize that by doing so you sustain the institution of chattel slavery strikes me as the definition of a moral blind spot.
"
Historical and moral judgments are distinct, I'd say. I can understand Confederate soldiers in a historical context while still condemning slavery as a morally odious institution.
"
Well, LeBoeuf fought for the Confederacy. This doesn't make him a monster, but it is a moral failing.
On “Important Poll to Determine the Respectability of our Readership”
Even if we don't do a science week, get in touch with us if you guys want to guest post. We'd love to talk submissions.
"
This is exactly right. Couldn't have said it better myself.
"
I'm not sure if we're "science-y" enough to pull that off. But I'm certainly interested.
On “Prospects for Economic Liberalization in Russia”
That's a fair point. But it's still a great article.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.