Is Collective Bargaining a Bad Thing for Government Employee Unions?

The argument has always been that the unions are necessary because they protect the workers from the abuses of their employers. That being the case, the public sector employees are paid by the tax payers. From whom do they need "protection?"

We the People? With all of the protective labor laws on the books and the safety regulations in place, why do we still have Stalin/Soviet era unions? They promulgate the fear mongering lies of protecting the workers.

As an employer who took the risk of investing my last $5K to start a business, I have grown my business to a place where I am forced to either hire outside help to keep up with the demands OR accept that I've reached my limit. Having opted to continue the growth, I've hired help. I think it extremely offensive that after I took these people in, trained them and have provided them with a pay check, these same people would band together against me and demand more than what I am capable of giving.

And to believe that I CAN afford to pay more is extremely presumptive. It's called greed. "...negotiate on even ground with management...?" In what fantasy world?

Right now, the team owners of the NFL are under the gun for having had forethought enough to save money to get them through in case of a strike. The unions are allowed to save money to get their striking members through the "down time" while negotiations "progress." Trouble is, there's a law that says you cannot force someone to sign a contract by applying undue force.

It's called "coercion." But this EXACTLY what unions do when they strike. The company loses money until they come to some sort of agreement.

If the company holds out too long, they run the extreme risk of going bankrupt. The reality is, this is another classic example of the unions perpetuating the flawed belief of "too big to fail." They wrongly believed that in the 1970s and forced Eaton's Manufacturing, Inc.

(Valve Division) of Battle Creek, Michigan to close its doors permanently. And the hard lesson (apparently NOT learned) is that when the job's gone, and unemployment runs out, so too will the union. So much for the "brotherhood.

I have no major problems with labor unions in general but when it is government workers they should be very limited. A business has to balance profit and costs so both sides if they are sensible can work together and actually did so for years but government has no profit motive and all the bills are paid for by the taxpayers. The government employee unions have contributed millions of dollars to politicians (about 90% Democrats) and in effect are hiring the "boss" and expect repayment.

Before the "big business gives money to Republicans" line comes out you should research it-banking and insurance give more to Democrats then Republicans (about 605-40%), trail lawyers Democrat, criminal defense Dem, Criminal Prosecutors Rep, domestic oil Rep, International oil Dem but almost all these cases it is a split between parties ranging from 80-20 highest to about 50/50. The NEA and other government employees have no balance and are the single largest contributors to the Democratic Party while the largest contributor to Republican Party is retired personnel not counting AARP which is Democratic being an insurance company. Government workers should be able to unionize but it should not be allowed to strike, benefit negotiation should be limited and as proposed by Gov Walker any salary increase above CPI should be voted on in the next election as a referendum.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.