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

[K@th]

Non elected government employees bargaining with other non elected government employees about how much of taxpayer money shall be allotted to non elected government employees.

Seems legit.

[BjornP]

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.

No shit? My declarative statement isn't meant as fact. This isn't a "fact" issue, after all, so I don't so why my argument would be flawed - given I never presented it as fact. I'm sure of its truth , DB. Wether or not you want to allow only citizens working in private sectors to unionize, is never going to be a question of facts. It's a question of wether you want to allow citizens the same right to negotiate wages and working conditions regardless if they work for private or public sector.

That said, you're blathering when you claim that someone can "collectively bargain against you". And "without meeting any of my requirements"? One of my requirements was working there as an employee. Anyway. They are not "collectively bargaining against your income". That's a completely nonsense sentence. Again, you are not their employer, so it's impossible for them to do that. Their collective bargaining happens between the union and the relevant government agency employing them.

You can simply elect your representatives in your state and federal houses of power, and they in turn put their guys into those government agencies, and then they can educate those public servants about how to do their job.

Or is what you're pining for, a more active, micro-managerial participation in government politics? Direct democracy as expressed in the hiring, firing, wage and work conditions for all public employees - on a case by case basis, of course. After all, you're a tax payer, and therefore you should have a right to directly vote for your favorite local social worker candidates, teachers, police officers and at the federal level, who the best officers and generals are, what military hardware they should buy and how they should allocate their funding.

[BjornP]

Non elected government employees bargaining with other non elected government employees about how much of taxpayer money shall be allotted to non elected government employees.

Seems legit.

Why does/should it matter that they're non-elected?

[DBTrek]

That was a lot of angry typing to say “The government doesn’t work for the people”.

And you’re wrong.
/shrug

When people can collectively bargain to force American citizens to pay them more money, “you’re not their employer” is no justification. Especially when it’s arguable false, and non-arguably irrelevant. I’m on the hook for providing the pay raise, which means I should have a seat at the negotiating table.

Oh wait, there aren’t 314 million seats available at the negotiating table to represent the parties forced to pay for public union wage demands? Well, I guess the other solution is government employees shouldn’t be allowed to collectively bargain against the taxpayer, especially when the taxpayer has no representation or recourse.

[K@th]

Why does/should it matter that they're non-elected?

Primarily accountability. They have none. There is no incentive for either party to look out for the best interests of the tax payers. The tax payers have no representation in this negotiation, yet they have to pay the bill for the decisions in these negotiations.

It's like your mail man and your mailman's boss deciding how much money you'll be giving to the mailman's association fund next year.

[BjornP]

That was a lot of angry typing to say “The government doesn’t work for the people”.

And you’re wrong.
/shrug

When people can collectively bargain to force American citizens to pay them more money, “you’re not their employer” is no justification. Especially when it’s arguable false, and non-arguably irrelevant. I’m on the hook for providing the pay raise, which means I should have a seat at the negotiating table.

Oh wait, there aren’t 314 million seats available at the negotiating table to represent the parties forced to pay for public union wage demands? Well, I guess the other solution is government employees shouldn’t be allowed to collectively bargain against the taxpayer, especially when the taxpayer has no representation or recourse.

You are absolutely right. The government works and should work for the people. And therefore should be a representation of the people. Should be equal to the people, have the same rights as the people. A government worker, a police officer, a soldier even, is a fellow citizen. A free American citizen has the right to start a union to negotiate better wages and better working conditions, no?

But I guess when your employer is the State, that shit must be made illegal.

Yes, you are on the hook for that. Don't see why that's unfair. That's been the price of civilization since the first city-states. And no, you're right, there aren't 314 million seats available at the negotiating table. Could that honestly (and disregarding its absurdity), be what it would take for you to feel that it's more fair for a fellow citizen to collectively bargain "against the taxpayer", as you call it?

Primarily accountability. They have none. There is no incentive for either party to look out for the best interests of the tax payers. The tax payers have no representation in this negotiation, yet they have to pay the bill for the decisions in these negotiations.

It's like your mail man and your mailman's boss deciding how much money you'll be giving to the mailman's association fund next year.

So, doctors, social workers and military officers? They don't have any incentive to look out for the best interests of the tax payers (patients, clients, all civilians) as they aren't elected, and thus don't represent by the tax payers? A public hospital doctor is not accountable to his tax-paying patients?

You guys do btw realize that arguing for legalizing labor unions regardless of sector, does not translate to arguing that one must always let the union win right? Some strikes fail, and there's even this thing called a lockout... I'm objecting solely to denying people such a basic liberty and against being resentful of the one's fellow citizens having the same liberties as oneself.

[DBTrek]

You’re actually arguing for forcibly depriving citizens of their income without any representation, in the name of protecting the “basic liberties” of the government.

Quite a convoluted position.

[BjornP]

Ah, and re-reading my earlier post to you DB. While I meant the part about me not expressing a fact or presenting it as such, that first paragraph was a touch on the slightly aggro side. So, apologies. Dealing with some chronic pain spikes today, can get more angry then, but don't really notice the change untill spike's ended.

[BjornP]

You’re actually arguing for forcibly depriving citizens of their income without any representation, in the name of protecting the “basic liberties” of the government.

Quite a convoluted position.

There's a difference between the nebolously definite article of "The Government" and the individual citizens who work for it. Definite article "The Government" has no liberties, and should have none. The individual American citizen who works for the Government... he's a citizen. Why not extend him the labor rights of any other citizen?

And what's definitely convoluted is your interpretation of my position. You have a government of the people, correct? Or, at least, ideally? Ok, so the individuals, the private citizens who are employed by the government, by the State, why should they not be allowed the same liberties any other private citizen can enjoy as long as he works for a private employer? What you're arguing looks like denying someone's liberty because it may slighly inconvience you by paying X amount more in taxes.

[K@th]

Why not extend him the labor rights of any other citizen?

There is literally nobody representing the bill payer, here. In private unions, the workers bargain with the business owners, who have a vested interest in how much money goes towards labor.

Government employees are not known for their frugality. Nobody says, "hey, we need to save money! Let's hire a government employee!"

Put your children in charge of the household budget at your own peril. When you realize they've allocated most of the budget to cake, you'll get the point.