BlaineTog t1_j6nqrrj wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Should there be a ballot initiative about repealing Section 9A(a) of a law banning public employees from striking? by 96suluman
> There's a reason 9A exists, and it's to prevent labor unions - who do not hold public office of any kind - from holding public services hostage as a negotiating tactic.
Public workers need to be able to bargain for good working conditions. Otherwise, they're just going to quit and public services will end up being run entirely by a churn of bad or inexperienced employees who really hate their jobs. If their bargaining power is insufficient without the ability to strike legally, then they need that option returned to their quiver.
As with anything, we need a system of checks and balances in place in order to create a healthy work environment.
[deleted] t1_j6o0ob2 wrote
[deleted]
BlaineTog t1_j6o4sdj wrote
> I have some unfortunate news for you: We're already faced with bad/inexperienced employees saturating administrative positions the public sector.
Yes, I was speaking rhetorically. My prediction was really just a reverse-engineered description of the present. This sad reality is partially because these employees aren't allowed to strike.
> You want your municipality attract the same talent as the private sector, and top-shelf public sector workers from other municipalities, do what I do: Say "I could stand to pay more in property tax," show up for your local elections, and approve budget overrides.
None of that means anything if employees aren't allowed to advocate for themselves. The additional money will just get thrown somewhere else in the budget. This is exactly what happens with lottery money: in theory it's meant to support schools, but in practice, the government just lowers school budgets by exactly the amount that the lottery adds so they can use that money elsewhere. The school is basically only in the mix to launder gambling dollars.
We absolutely do need to put more money into our public sector, schools especially, but we need to solve the problem at both ends. A rising tide doesn't actually raise all boats when some of those boats are frantically pumping sea water to their private-sector buddies with sea water businesses.
[deleted] t1_j6o5ryy wrote
[deleted]
BlaineTog t1_j6of346 wrote
> You say "partially"; if you were to draw up a pie graph of "Not allowed to strike" versus "Paid absolute dogshit" what do you think the sizes of those respective sectors would be?
Ok, this kind of question is just sealioning. What I'll say is this: I don't see how you bargain with an employer who knows that you are, when all's said and done, legally obligated to come into work and do your job. The one chip you have left to play is to quit, and these jobs don't pay enough to make quitting a feasible option for most people, especially since health care is tied to employment.
[deleted] t1_j6onkcd wrote
[deleted]
BlaineTog t1_j6ovevb wrote
Honestly, I did you a favor. Reddit arguments where we passively buy into each other's ridiculous argumentation and try to snit over every little fractalizing sub-point are absolutely interminable. I've been dragged into enough silly discussions like that to know that they benefit absolutely no one.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments