Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 8 2021 04:42pm)
the problem is every sector is unified, and if govts were allowed to negotiate with multiple unions that just means they can prop up the cheapest negotiating union even if it ignores the majority.
i cant think of a sector that would truly compete, why wouldnt you as a public works sector chose a union that wont fight for the most pay, the best benefits, etc.
if a fast food union strikes people make their own food, or go to a non strike restaurant. if teachers strike there's no alternative. worse yet is the prison guards union, there's zero recourse for the govt against them. the can not be allowed to strike or we risk mass public safety with scab guards possibly allowing mass breakouts, its a mess. why let a union hold the taxpayer for ransom with zero recourse? instead we should have independent arbitrators, most negotiations go to arbitration anyways in most of the public sectors.
If they are truly that valuable, that all of society depends on them and them leaving results in anarchy, then maybe we should, as a society, reevaluate the pay and benefits for those workers so they don't want to strike.
Seems like exactly what we want unions to do. Strike, show everybody they're incredibly valuable, give it to the demands. If they aren't that valuable, then go a little bit without and replace them.
If your union is trying to get higher pay, and the state says no, and there's another union of teachers with spare capacity that can step in, then maybe kick your union leaders to the curb for losing you money.