[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]The vast majority of people who apply for a position with a public school district are doing it specifically because there IS a union. You always have the option of working for lower pay and benefits in a non-union position…though I’m not quite sure why anyone would choose to do so.[/quote]
You are saying the same thing – that unions increase the cost of teachers’ salary because they can command higher prices based on their market power. In other words, it’s a monopoly. Yes, there are other options, but they are not viable.
That monopoly selling to the public entity hurts the taxpayers. Also, that monopoly uses its voting power to put people in office that are willing to keep the monopoly in place, again, at the taxpayers’ expense.
How anyone, regardless of their left/right tendencies, can support the legality, morality or public worth of any public employee unions is truly beyond me.[/quote]
PRIVATE entities who do business with the government use their money and/or voting power to put people in office who are willing to keep the monopoly in place…at the taxpayers’ expense. Not only that, but EVERYONE who has any power at all, even if they don’t do business directly with the government — all corporations, banks, business associations, etc. — use their money/voting power to extract money from taxpayers. It can be in the form of tax credits, incentives, new infrastructure which benefits the corporations, special trade and tax policies, etc. There are so many ways that PRIVATE entities use the government/taxpayers to benefit their bottom line.
It’s naive to think that public employee unions are the problem. At least the money that goes to public employees is spent back into the local economy where the tax money came from. That’s much less likely to be the case where private corporations/entities are concerned. These public union positions provide decent-paying jobs that keep demand levels up for local businesses. They also help private sector workers because private employers have to compete with public employers for employees; and private, non-union positions pay better wages/benefits as a result.
Keep in mind, the unions cannot control who gets into office, nor the decisions they make, any more than a private entity can. They have no more power over politicians than private entities do.
Now, if you want to argue that ALL money and influence (including offers of jobs in the private sector, etc.) should be kept out of politics, we’d be 100% in agreement.[/quote]
I’m not sure I agree with that but I *do* agree with a radical change to campaign finance. Limit personal contributions of actual humans to some fixed amount. Eliminate PACs and Super PACs. Eliminate Union financial contributions to political candidates and paid “issue” ads. Eliminate corporate contributions and paid issue ads. Corporations and unions can ask employees/members to contribute personally or volunteer personally, but not coerce. After all – we have free will – folks won’t contribute or volunteer if they don’t agree. No coercion of any kind allowed. (My company “suggests” that employees above a certain paygrade contribute to a PAC – I have yet to do it because I disagree with pretty much every candidate the PAC funds. If they ever even hinted it was required I’d make such a stink…)
And severely restrict lobbying. Shut down lobbyist-for-hire K street firms. Citizens (human beings) should be able to go make their case. Employees of a company should be able to go make a case for their industry. (In other words – it’s ok for a company to have a DIRECT employee who’s job it is to make the case for their industry.) But having 3rd party firms involved in it, providing access, etc, corrupts the system.
