Should Public Employees be allowed to join a Union?

@bobmnu (8157)
United States
March 13, 2010 4:10pm CST
States and Communities that have Public Unions all seem to be in financial trouble. the biggest expense in almost any budget is the payroll and the benefits package. They work for the people and yet they get to elect the people who hire and fire them they both owe their jobs to each other not the people who pay them or the people they work for. Some would say this is a conflict of interest on the part of the elected officals. The Question is should public employees have the right to join a Union?
4 responses
• United States
14 Mar 10
Of course they do have the right just like all workers in this country. Please show me the non-unionized States and Communities that are doing well. Blaming unions for all of the funding issues of states and cities is like blaming Obama for not funding two wars for 7 years. Most public workers don't "make" money for their communities or their states, so it isn't like they aren't working as hard, or not bringing in as much revenue. To quote Bill Clinton: It is the economy stupid.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
14 Mar 10
If you study the facts you will see that Right to work states (Union membership not required) show some of the lowest unemployment rates, and overall show better job growth, growth in population and economic growth. Right-to-work States Outperform,1997-2007 Productivity Growth Job Growth Economic Growth Right-to-work 18.6% 17.6% 41.6% Union shop 17.3% 8.9% 33.5% As you can see from this chart (based on information from the US Dept of Commerce) the economic indicators show that Right to Work states do better than Union States. Private Sector job growth and job growth are higher in Right to work states. http://aphiemi.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/facts-on-right-to-work-vs-forced-union-states/ Look at the current Unemployment rate in North Dakota (4.2) and South Dakota (4.8) (Right to Work States)and Michigan (14.3) and California (12.5) Forced Union States. IT should also be noted that both states have large Public Unions. http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm Instead of forcing Union Membership on workers we should be encouraging Right To Work Laws.
• United States
14 Mar 10
Bob, what does unemployment number have to do with this discussion? I am confused on that one. Bob, how many people living in North Dakota and South Dakota? There are more people that live in LA than both of these states combined. It isn't hard to have that low of unemployment when you don't have many people. By the way how is the economy in both of these states, and even the right to work states? How many of them have high unemployment. I did of little of your work for you: Georgia Unemployment rate: 10.4 Alabama Unemployment rate: 11.1 South Carolina: 12.6 North Carolina: 11.1 Looks like the right to work states sure aren't doing much better than the states that don't. But, those are facts, and we all know that those don't matter.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
15 Mar 10
Unemployment is a sign of the economic health of a state. For the comparison between the Dakotas and California we are talking percentages. If 100 people get laid of in North Dakota it will effect their Unemployment numbers but 1000 people laid off in CA will not change their percent. The economies of ND and SD are growing and their population is growing as business move into the area. There are jobs there, business is expanding and taxes are low. If you compare that to CA and NY you find that business and people are moving out, both have high taxes, powerful Public employee Unions, and high unemployment. I am surprised that you did not mention the Unemployment in Nevada (a Right To Work State). Many people point to irresponsible comments by the President about people visiting and conventions in Las Vegas. It was reported by the Convention Bureau that over 400 conventions canceled the week after the President's speech.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
15 Mar 10
No, they should not. Public employees work for the taxpayers, and the unions should have no say over what happens in a government job. I was a Public employee for 17 years in Missouri, and even though we had a union I was not a member for the majority of that time. The union had no real collective bargaining rights and no right to strike, and was pretty worthless overall. We finally got fed up with them and voted them out of the department. I don't believe that there is a necessity for a union, and I think it was a mistake to ever allow them to be started in the fist place. The only thing I have seen them do is cause more trouble than they solve and price the workers right out of a job. Look at what happened to the auto industry... the unions had a lot to do with that problem, along with over-regulation. I say kick the unions out of the country, and make them illegal.
• Philippines
14 Mar 10
Of course it their right to express their sentiments tantamount to freedom of expression and i know that it exist as a way for employees to care and protect for their rights in hearing their voices and others need like when their arise an issues between employees and employer and need to be transparent with their cases against each other and also the way for the higher management to heard the issues surrounding their employees and receive some newest development for the employees to be more productive and heard any suggesstion which would benefit both side.
• India
14 Mar 10
It depends on how individual think about to join in Union.It is a vast areas wherein public employees understand the importance of the same. Union will work exclusively for the benefits of the employees. So i think it is better to join in Union by the public employees