You are totally wrong about politicians and unions being on the same side of the table. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some politicians are labor-friendly, and others have a vitriolic hatred for unions. I have personal experience with contract negotiations, and there is NO truth to your statement that politicians automatically pander to unions.
Unions are no different from any other group that supports politicians who will further their particular interests.[/quote]
There is a perception (which I happen to share) that public unions have a great deal of control over the careers of their negotiating counterparties (i.e. politicians). Said another way its an old boys club, same as what happens in wall street, where the basic instinct is to protect their own. Bottom line is, politicians and public employees are part of a club, the “public at large” isn’t part of.
…
Another “moral/ethical” reason if I were king, I would eliminate public employee unions is, because I read they:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS “hurt the overall interests of the working poor.”
I’d guessing if there were some kind of public vote, I’d bet a majority of people would have to wonder if the “public employee economic self interest” more often than not is biased inward toward “the old boys club” rather than to the public at large.
[/quote]
Yes, I’m sure you do have that perception, and it’s no accident that you do. It’s been fed to you by the Privatization Movement. These are people/entities who benefit from the government far more than any union employees do, and they will not be satisfied until they own and control public finances and all of the commons.
The ONLY thing standing in their way? Public employee unions.
Once again, politicians and public employees are NOT “on the same side of the table.” There is no “club,” there is no secret society where public union employees and politicians come together to conspire against “the people.” Public unions are no different from any other stakeholder group, as mentioned in my post, above. They have no more control or power than those other groups. The ONLY thing any of them can do is donate to a candidate’s campaign, or endorse a candidate, or help pound signs, etc. Every single person has that same power, either as a group (for those of “normal” means…”immigration reform” advocates, Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Realtors, etc., etc.) or as a single, wealthy individual (Bill Gates, George Soros, David Koch, etc.).
And you’ve offered up a perfect example of the Privatization Movement’s propaganda, right there in your very own post. That totally ridiculous “Daily Beast” article, apparently telling “progressives” that they need to encourage an artificial divide between public and private workers, was written by Dmitri Mehlhorn, the venture capitalist “free market” thinker who is going to lecture progressives about how to think and act in ways that will further destroy labor. Who is Dmitri Mehlhorn?
“As a political activist, Dmitri has co-founded several groups focused on market-friendly advocacy. In 2003, he co-founded Hope Street Group, a 501c3 national nonprofit focused on centrist innovation in healthcare and education. In 2010, with former Washington DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, Mehlhorn co-founded and served as COO of StudentsFirst, a 501c4 focused on K-12 educational performance. In 2011, Mehlhorn founded and chaired the Great New England Public School Alliance, a group funded by Michael Bloomberg and focused on electoral advocacy in New England. Mehlhorn has also served on the boards of other market-oriented groups, and has written about market-friendly progressive solutions in housing, antitrust, technology, and economics, with publications in journals such as the Fordham Law Review and the San Diego Union Tribune.”
Here’s a thread where we had discussed Michelle Rhee’s qualifications and successes (if one can call them that).
And my all-time favorite post from paramount where he tried to claim that some poor, little ol’ teacher was taking on the big, bad unions (see who was hiding behind the curtains):
