What kind of union/collective bargaining reform would be good?
what specific restrictions should be put in place?
My problem with government unions is not the collective bargaining so much, but that they contribute to campaigns.
The military is restricted by the Hatch Act on how even individual service members can participate in an election because of possible undue influence. Why do other government employees not have the same restrictions? I feel that a government employees union should not be able to donate to a campaign and dues should not be collected for that purpose. Why should government employees have the right to buy an election basically, especially since government unions are growing more than private business sector unions.
That would also be more money in the employees pocket as opposed to going to a union or taxes.
Negotiate, which is what you are supposed to do with a union. Agree to limit pensions to only those over age 65, in exchange for not raising their benefit contributions any higher than the COLA. Agree to raise starting salaries in exchange for non-tenure contracts for teachers. These are just my suggestions, but I’m sure others can come up with other manners of compromise that would help both sides.
Of course, you have to start from the basis that unions are not evil and that there is SOME validity to the complaints about them. Hating either side for spurious reasons will keep the problem fixed in cement.
I don’t understand why government employees would need a union to negotiate fair wages and benefits. Why can’t the states adopt a similar pay system for its employees that the federal government uses for federal civil service employees, a graded pay scale with the same benefits package used by elected officials.
Republicans created this artificial crisis; there is no need for “reform”. Whenever there are budget problems Republicans always claim that the wages and benefits of the American workers are to blame and then they say the best way to fix the budge is to reduce the wages and benefits of American workers and give big business the moneys that were/are taken from the American workers. Big business has no loyalty to this country or its workers. The only reason they even pay a minimum wage is because they are forced to do so. Republicans are driving this country into the ground.
I don’t think any reforms are needed except that unions should be allowed to vote by card check, and ” Right to Work ‘ should be repealed because their only purpose is to hurt the workers
Hope this helps
First of all, with the contracts, I would dramatically increase pay and with it decrease pensions, replacing them with 401ks. I would sell the current pension obligations to the teachers slowly over time at market rates for those obligations. The real problem with pensions is that States don’t manage them well. They could, but the politics of it means they realistically don’t. You still need a security net, which is social security, because 401ks can go bad, but if you pay teachers like the trained professionals they are, they can handle the risks appropriately. That can’t be said of unskilled or lightly skilled manual labor as easily. Teachers also don’t become physically unable to handle the job so quickly like firefighters who really need pensions to make ends meet.
I would also replace testing with closer supervision, allow teachers to make detailed evaluations of students and get good principals who have been good teachers and understand which teachers are doing the job well. Then use performance evaluations to determine how well the teachers are doing and base bonuses on that. You need bonuses because there is little room for advancement as a teacher, unlike teaching administration. I would also use superintendents to carefully evaluate the schools.
I would also have expanded continuing education requirements for teachers and have them work summers, either improving the school, improving classroom policy, running summer programs, or improving their skills by taking classes. I would not have them off the clock on the summer and I would recognize in their contracts the fact that they are not off the clock when the school day ends but work much longer hours than that. It’s one of very few jobs where you get real homework.
This is not free, but it is a long-term investment in the State. I would raise taxes to pay for it and then give a tax break to State residents for each year they work in the State for every year in which they were educated there. That last proposal needs some work, it’s off the top of my head and doesn’t quite achieve the goals, but you get the idea. It’s expensive, needs to be paid for, and you’ve got to have some assurances that your State will get the benefit from that investment.
But all of that is how I would structure the contract and policy, not any legal change concerning unions. I would improve the ability to have multiple alternative unions. Such unions could negotiate together against the State, but would act as a counterweight against each other in negotiating what policies they would fight for and they would have to compete for members so members would tend to want to join the one that represents their actual views better. It’s much more effective than voting for leadership, since existing union leadership pushes membership to vote the way they want and few union members know enough about union politics to do otherwise.
On top of that, I agree with mnbvcxz about campaign contributions actually, for both unions and especially for corporations (more for corporations because they must legally act as separate entities from their ownership and required by law to be motivated only by profit or else they can be sued, but also for unions, due to the monopoly nature of them). Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with us, as Citizen’s United makes clear. I would require that only natural persons contribute to politics and that other entities must contribute only pro-rata according to the permission they receive from their natural owners/members. That might be possible in spite of the Citizens United ruling, but it’s hard to say for sure. It would require that corporations be regulated as business entities, which we already regulate legally, rather than as speaking entities. It’s unclear if that’s possible legally.
No public sector unions, period.
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”
Btw, neither Wisconsin or Ohio took away collective bargaining completely. The Unions can still bargain for wages.
It does not plenty count through fact the finished u . s . a . will cave in financially and economically interior some years. It makes no distinction what collective bargaining rights you have while the finished society, the financial gadget, and the finished government is collapsed.
Unions were originally formed to protect labor from excessive worker oppression, and unsafe work places.
Governments are supposed to be the protectors of all citizens, and therefore would not be guilty of the excesses of private industry.
I’d say a good compromise would be a reduction in pay and employees being more responsible for their health insurance and pensions (which many of them agree to) and for republicans to stop giving away their states’ budget surpluses to corporations in order to create a financial crisis.