Why aren't we on the side of the union protesters?

[specsaregood]

I don't see what tangible difference privatization would make. It's a symbolic change of ownership. Great. The fundamental problems haven't changed. It's an entirely ideological solution that doesn't really change much.

If you can't recognize the difference how the marketplace affects a private business vs govt monopoly then there is no hope for you.

 

[low preference guy]

If you can't recognize the difference how the marketplace affects a private business vs govt monopoly then there is no hope for you.

just went and listened to that part. the guy was speechless.

 

[madfoot]

<snip>

First of all, good post.

Interesting point about schooling. I went to a very good public school, education-wise, but I'm also aware most schools are subpar. I don't think si ply privatizing the system is a good solution, because all the same problems would still persist. I've been told Finland has the best schools in the world - so the public system can definitely be salvaged - but innovation is definitely needed.

I don't agree with the Post Office analogy, though. We have private alternatives. Nobody's talking about closing private schools. It's a completely faulty analogy.

 

[Stary Hickory]

The current line parroted on Faux News is that we can't place a cap on Wall Street paychecks because that would be unfair. But as long as Wall Street gets government money, we should be calling them out on their hypocrisy. If they want to distort what libertarianism means, let's not make their jobs easier.

Good god man do just a LITTLE reading on libertarian ideology please. There is a huge difference between the private sector which is VOLUNTARY and the public sector which is forced on us. There is NO parallel between the public and the private sectors.

The problem is bailouts and government intervention...you want more government intervention, not only that you want more intervention with unions. Unions are not special snowflakes they do not get special rights. They can work for the pay and benefits they are offered or they can go home...screw unions. We all have to deal with this, we can't all just go to the government and demand they threaten to attack others so we can get a sweet deal.

Are you really here just to shill for unions? They are the most anti free market thing we have in the labor force. They have not represented the little guy ever since they started using the government to fleece the little guys. Which is what these so called teachers in WI are doing. The pay these idiots receive is a decision of the WI state government, and by extension the voters of WI. I wish he would fire every last one of the scumbag teachers in WI.

Hey since we have unapologetic progressives on the board can we get some pro war neocons floating about? That would be freaking sweet.

 

[madfoot]

How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

 

[Danke]

How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

Two different animals. Public workers vs. private workers. Nothing "free market" about government monopolies.

 

[FrankRep]

How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

madfoot, are you being serious right now? I think you're on the wrong website.

 

[AuH20]

How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

There is no threat of the their employer (the government) going out of business, due to poor performance. Their mere existence, given the how the relationship is currently constituted, is in itself a moral hazard.

 

[cswake]

How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/23/the-difference-between-private

If private sector unions negotiate deals that make their respective industries more expensive to operate, and thus their products more expensive, consumers have the right to buy less, or to go elsewhere to get what they want. Businesses can send fewer employees to Las Vegas conferences. Families can pinch their food budgets if labor costs at grocery stores make prices more expensive, or replace their cars less often if union benefits add too much to the price of an automobile. If too many people opt out, or buy too little, the company in question goes out of business. And unless the government offers a bailout, that’s the end of the story. When dealing with the private sector, unions generally have some incentive not to overreach to the point where their employer goes out of business.

The story’s not the same in the public sector. When government employees negotiate added salary and benefits, those who are not directly employed by the government—which is to say, the vast majority of taxpayers—can’t really opt out. So one of three things has to happen: 1) Taxes are raised to pay for the added compensation costs. 2) Services are cut in order to pay for the additional compensation. 3) The additional compensation isn’t ever paid—a situation that usually comes with, at minimum, some sort of minor political drama, if not a serious showdown. This is why the power of public sector unions is such a big deal: When they negotiate better benefits, the majority of taxpayers usually end up forced to bear the cost, somehow, whether they want to or not. With private sector unions, that’s not necessarily the case.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Wisconsin isn't "killing" the public sector Unions. They are just removing their "collective bargaining" power.

He's not even doing THAT, he's only proposed to remove a PORTION of their collective bargaining privileges. Specifically, the collective bargaining ability for retirement pensions.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Maybe you're not, but Walker is.

LOL, no, he's not. Try facts figures and truth. Speak to me in rhetoric and you will drive me to your opponent's side. Walker has ONLY proposed to limit collective bargaining with respect to non-salary benefits. Particularly pensions.

Madfoot for the love of Mike, and Pete, respond to my point that I posted and that was reposted by another member. It addresses this post you made.

Given his adamant support for rhetoric over reason I would hazard to guess that he's not interested in actually reading or understanding any position which opposes his predisposed understanding.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Wisconsin teachers are the employees of Wisconsin tax payers. Wisconsin tax payers made an executive decision to bust the teachers unions by electing politicians to do it. Why are you against Wisconsin tax payers?

Public school teachers get paid 50% more than private school teachers, on average, and that's not including the hefty compensation that public teachers get. Private schools provide a better education for less money. "Poor underpaid school teachers" is a myth... public school teachers are overpaid.

Depends on where you are. In some places (like Wisconsin) it is indeed a myth. In other places (like South Carolina, Louisiana) it is not a myth, it is truth. That doesn't mean public sector collective bargaining is the answer, but it would be a good idea to bear in mind that public school teachers are not exorbitantly paid in ALL of the 50 states in the union.

 

[dbill27]

Why aren't we on the side of the union protesters? Have you seen the union protestors? Most of them that are left are college aged kids sitting in drum circles in the statehouse talking about how great communism is. Unions are completely anti free-market, and a public union that collectively bargains with government is fraud. The only problem I have with scott walker is that he didn't go far enough. He should have taken away the collective bargaining rights of firefighters and policemen as well.

 

[Ninja Homer]

What's stupid is they keep saying that "collective bargaining rights are being taken away." The very nature of collective bargaining rights is that they can never be taken away. Even slaves that don't have many rights at all can unite together, and decide to stop working until certain provisions are given.

What's being taken away are special privileges for state worker unions that tax paying citizens don't have. If there's a single concept that the entire history of the US is based on, it's that all people are equal. So why should state workers get extra privileges?

 

[jackers]

How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

Don't pretend that you are like anyone on here. We have seen your other posts and it is quite obvious (even from this thread) that you don't understand libertarian principals. You came here to provoke us and to play "gotcha" when you think that you find inconsistencies. But whatever. I just find it insulting when you try to label posters as statists.

Hey Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[erowe1]

I understand we're supposed to be against public schools in principle, but punishing teachers and other public workers seems like the wrong move to make.

How is anyone being punished or screwed over?

I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action.

How would it be a big government action to allow a private employer to fire employees for unionizing? It seems to me the big government action would be that which prevents them from doing that.

 

[DisillusionedPatriot]

There is an inherent difference between public and private unions. Without recognizing that distinction, we risk equivocation.

Private unions are based upon the premise that in a truly free market a private employer is sometimes interested only in the bottom line and his own profits. He may be so greedy as to be willing to seriously mistreat his employees in this pursuit. Unions were originally started over such outrageous issues as 14 hour shifts, very young children in factories, etc. It is perfectly legitimate for people to say, en masse, "We refuse to work under such conditions."

Whereas private unions are designed to protect against the selfishness of an individual, public unions are supposed to prevent abuse by whom? The public? The very notion is absurd. Teachers, as well as all other public employees, are the "public servants." They have no right to their positions, and no right to do anything other than what the citizenry wants.

I went to a private high school where the teachers made substantially less than local public school teachers, and their benefits were not even comparable. Yet, from what I have gathered and heard, my teachers seemed to care more and work harder than their public counterparts. The Unions' arguments are lost upon thousands of teachers who would do the same job for less.

A teacher is a very unique role, specifically dedicated to training and informing impressionable young minds. What message are these teachers sending to their pupils? That when you don't get what you want you should throw a tantrum? That everyone deserves to be paid a wage higher than the free market proscribes? Perhaps the message children will receive is that public school teacher unions are inherently and directly opposed to their own best interest. After all, the money to pay these bloated salaries is gathered from the taxpayer, these children's parents. Without exorbitant taxes, a child's parents might be able to spend less hours on the clock, and more at home, involved in the education process.

 

[Carson]

The thing for me is that with all of our budget problems we have this issue playing on and on and on.

Notice how we are attacking the money people get all the while the government entities and front organizations spend and spend on their merry way. We seem to be chopping on the wrong end of the snake.

( The thing where the unions support the candidates and the candidates negotiate the contracts is very interesting though. )


When it all comes down to it the government will spend and spend and spend until not only will the teachers wages be sold out from under them so will any retirement or savings.

 

[Cowlesy]

Unionized teachers in Wisconsin make 30-40% more than my father, who is a chemistry professor at a university. I'm sure these teachers can handle a nice cut in pay.

Has your father ever watched the TV show Breaking Bad?

I'm not sayin' I'm just sayin'

(yes I am kidding)

 

[AlexMerced]

yeah I'm on neither side, for where both sides are for voluntarism, I agree, where both sides are for compulsion, I'm agains