If we were to have mods they should have avatars of identifying them as garbage man

[DBTrek]

Every worker has rights. To deny the rights of public works is still denying rights to the workers.

Every worker does not have rights, as the prison labor industry demonstrates. To collectively bargain against "The US citizens" sounds like an act of treason. The American people aren't 19th century labor barons, against whom the poor government worker must organize to protect themselves. In fact, public unions are precisely why "government worker" is a synonym for a lazy, incompetent, gravy-train rider.

The truth is, if 50% of government workers walked off of their jobs right now, we'd probably be ok. We don't really need them. They don't generally possess any skill set that we can't easily replace. Which is precisely why they unionize, then hold our children, our transportation, and our infrastructure hostage while demanding more for themselves.

There is absolutely zero nobility in a public union. Nothing epitomizes selfish narcissism like believing the American public owes you more pay and benefits, and holding their kids or public services ransom until they pay up.
Ride them out on a rail.

By the way - in this collective bargaining between the government workers (who consist of the military, police force, judges, tax collectors, etc, etc). Who exactly represents the public?

No one?

Well, I guess we're fucked then. Demand away.
How noble, "worker".

Pfft.

[Fife]

But who will build the roads if Penner's minions (gasp) go on strike?

[TheReal_ND]

But who will build the roads if Penner's minions (gasp) go on strike?

Scabs

[Fife]

Salvadoran scabs.

The best scabs.

[DBTrek]

They can build roads without collectivizing. They can build roads for what skilled road builders cost, rather than artificially inflating their wages and benefits at the expense of a hostage taxpayer who has no recourse against them.

[BjornP]

Every worker has rights. To deny the rights of public works is still denying rights to the workers.

Every worker does not have rights, as the prison labor industry demonstrates. To collectively bargain against "The US citizens" sounds like an act of treason. The American people aren't 19th century labor barons, against whom the poor government worker must organize to protect themselves. In fact, public unions are precisely why "government worker" is a synonym for a lazy, incompetent, gravy-train rider.

The truth is, if 50% of government workers walked off of their jobs right now, we'd probably be ok. We don't really need them. They don't generally possess any skill set that we can't easily replace. Which is precisely why they unionize, then hold our children, our transportation, and our infrastructure hostage while demanding more for themselves.

There is absolutely zero nobility in a public union. Nothing epitomizes selfish narcissism like believing the American public owes you more pay and benefits, and holding their kids or public services ransom until they pay up.
Ride them out on a rail.

By the way - in this collective bargaining between the government workers (who consist of the military, police force, judges, tax collectors, etc, etc). Who exactly represents the public?

No one?

Well, I guess we're fucked then. Demand away.
How noble, "worker".

Pfft.

A public sector union member isn't "collectively bargaining against the people", since you are not their employers. A taxpayer paying a portion of their taxes to public wages, is no more an "employer" than you are the "employer" of your local barista because you pay part of their wages as a customer. You help pay their wage, but you are not their employer.

That doesn't mean unfair demands should be heeded or any demands of pay rise accepted, or that your public sector unions are..."noble"(?).

[DBTrek]

A public sector union member isn't "collectively bargaining against the people", since you are not their employers. A taxpayer paying a portion of their taxes to public wages, is no more an "employer" than you are the "employer" of your local barista because you pay part of their wages as a customer. You help pay their wage, but you are not their employer.

I’m not the public union worker’s employer, I’m their involuntary paymaster. I’m not coerced into paying any barista. If baristas unionize and drive their coffee prices through the roof I can choose not to buy their products. Yet when public sector unions collectively bargain against my (and every other American’s) wallet who represents the hostage taxpayer?

Nobody?

Sounds legit. I can see how that’s exactly like private sector unions, give or take one staggeringly major difference.

Lulz.

[Haumana]

you pay part of their wages as a customer.

Is that what they call us taxpayers now?

[BjornP]

I’m not the public union worker’s employer, I’m their involuntary paymaster. I’m not coerced into paying any barista. If baristas unionize and drive their coffee prices through the roof I can choose not to buy their products. Yet when public sector unions collectively bargain against my (and every other American’s) wallet who represents the hostage taxpayer?

Nobody?

Sounds legit. I can see how that’s exactly like private sector unions, give or take one staggeringly major difference.

Lulz.

If you did not hire them, assign their workload or evaluate their job performance nor work there as an employee, you are also not meant to be represented in any negotations regarding their wage or work conditions.

[DBTrek]

If you did not hire them, assign their workload or evaluate their job performance nor work there as an employee, you are also not meant to be represented in any negotations regarding their wage or work conditions.

According to who, Bjorn? God? Writing an opinion as a declarative statement doesn’t make it a fact. I can easily opine the other way.

They are allowed to collectively bargain against my income, without meeting any of your requirements. Yet you believe the opposite should not be allowed. That makes the entire premise of your argument fundamentally flawed.