The scene: Government union guy sees attractive gal.
Government union guy: Hey good looking, how about a date, maybe a movie, some drinks and then, who knows...
Attractive gal: Get lost.
GUG: Hey wait a minute, don't just walk away. We can work this out.
AG: What the" %%$^&" is there to work out. Leave me alone.
GUG: You are being unreasonable. I have rights you know.
AG: Rights?
GUG: Ya, bargaining rights. Look, perhaps we started our relationship off on the wrong foot. Let's start over.
AG: Relationship? We have no relationship. Just go away.
GUG: Your not negotiating in good faith. Not even a counteroffer, like..... uh, coffee and a walk on the beach.
AG: Final offer, a kick in the groin.
GUG: Now you are just being unreasonable, denying my rights. Look, I just want to sit down and work out our differences. It would be a shame if we had to go to arbitration. That might not work out so well for ya. I'm just sayin.
AG: Arbitration?
GUG: Ya, I'd hate to go that route. I still think we can work this out. But if you continue to be unreasonable, well, an arbitrator will choose between our two final offers.
I could go on, but I will stop and explain things so Sean will understand. The exchange above is fictitious, false, made up, not true, and entirely a figment of my imagination. But is an attempt to illustrate the nonsense that is the "right" to negotiate. Whether it is an innocent woman, a business, a union, or our elected representatives, negotiations should only take place if both sides want to negotiate. What about consent? Anyone forced to negotiate is not free.
But hey, if bargaining is inevitable, lay back and enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
By virtue of their employment there IS a relationship between state government and the workers. So your analogy is once again false. Any relationship requires negotiation.
True, re an employment relationship, but does being in a relationship mean you must endure endless negotiations? Does an established relationship mean the consent for negotiations on the part of both parties is no longer required?
"Endless" is inaccurate Denis. Recurring is the proper word to describe when you have contracts that expire after a period of time and which in most cases go faily smoothly and rarely require arbitration.
The only "relationship" that I can think of where no negotiation is required between the two parties is that of master and slave or possibly my wife and I when she's spoken her piece and counted to three.
And I'm not sure it's really even possible in the first example.
Point of clarification Mr. Cranley, I believe that Mr. Navratil was referring to "consent" being required, not the negotiations themselves.
(Though I will note - the analogy is missing a few variables, and potentially game-changing ones)
You are correct BradK. By all means share the missing variables. I like a challenge, especially from someone with a brain.
Lol....sean, dont argue with an idiot, people might not know the difference.
Well, I'm on my phone now so I will be brief... More when I get back to my 'puter. But start with this to wet your debate-whistle. The work that is done by the public sector employee NEEDS to be done. We need cops and firemen and prison guards and teachers, etc etc... So in your analogy, the girl "needs" to date someone? However you like, start with that variable and recalculate the analogy as you would see it...
Well yes the state needs work to be done and our species needs to propagate. Still, in both cases negotiations, bargaining etc... should require the full consent of both parties. Re work done for the state, I see no reason why unelected people should be able to insist on bargaining. If given that power, they can start to take control of the state, and because they are not elected, they undermine and or diminish the power of the electorate. Again, bargaining needs to require the consent of both parties. To illustrate, suppose an employee wanted to leave the employ of the state for a better opportunity. Should said employee be required to participate in lengthy bargaining with the state that wants him to stay? Of course everyone would think this a ridiculous notion, and indeed such a requirement would border on slavery. And our current situation borders, less so I think, on slavery, with the citizens enslaved by government unions who have succeeded in usurping much of the power of the electorate. That is why in my opinion that this battle is so important and must be won by Gov Walker.
Guys - as long as we're into the "needs" discussion, which btw, is a fairly nebulous term with levels of absoluteness and that one could could argue will vary greatly depending on one's circumstances in life, let me ask an even more important question...
Do police, fire and teachers even NEED to be government employees?
And, from a woman's standpoint who still remembers her teenage years, I might argue that the "need" to date, at one time in my life certainly superseded any perceived need for police, fire or teachers and that need was dwarfed only by the absolute "needs" of air, water and food!
Lets be honest, walker is using this a means to crush unions. Period. If it was truly about saving the state money, he'd include cops and fire whose salaries and pensions take up at least 60% of city budgets in every city in wisconsin. One cannot convince me that their is no redundancy in having city cops, village cops, sheriffs and state troopers in every county of Wisconsin.
This effort isnt about collective bargaining, because if it was, bargaining for ALL public sector emoloyees would be on the table.
Lets be honest, walker is using this a means to crush unions. Period. If it was truly about saving the state money, he'd include cops and fire whose salaries and pensions take up at least 60% of city budgets in every city in wisconsin. One cannot convince me that their is no redundancy in having city cops, village cops, sheriffs and state troopers in every county of Wisconsin.
This effort isnt about collective bargaining, because if it was, bargaining for ALL public sector emoloyees would be on the table.
anon - are you sure police and fire aren't going to be included in the actual budget yet to come? I agree with you, btw, but also understand the reasoning for not (initially) including them. Given statements I've heard of from police and fire personnel, I think they know they're next.
Why should police and fire unions be "yet to come"? Walker claims we are broke, and in a state of fiscal emergency, what logical reason is there to delay this action and not include these cuts in the current bill?
From my understanding, there was a concern for public safety if there was a job action by police/fire similar to those the teachers have taken.
Let's face facts - hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers were off for days and many schools closed, yet to my knowledge, no one died or had their house burn down because of it. Had police and fire gone out in similar numbers, not sure we could make that statement.
Denis,
I understand the point you are trying to make with your analogy, I just think there's too much "simplified" or "missing" to use that particular analogy. For example, if "propagation of the species" is how you would equate "the state work needs to get done" then we really cannot ignore that the "government union guy" has been banging this "attractive gal" (and presumably knocking her up... propagating and all...) for 50 years in the same manner.
All (likely bad) attempts at humor aside, the only reason I bring it up is because I think that "established precedent" and that "the work must be done" are important here - enough to change the game, and therefore in my opinion, the analogy suffers.
If your point is (correct me if I'm wrong) that if an entity is forced to negotiate as opposed to having the choice to negotiate, then they are not free - I might contend that if I'm prevented from negotiating, I am not free either.
As always, IMHO
BradK
BradK, there are plenty of things that may well have been established but doesn't make them right. Or never mind right or wrong, can we not change what has been established? Isn't that what elections are for? Wasn't our last presidential election about "change?" Presumably you change that which has been to some extent established.
I am intrigued by your final point:
"If your point is (correct me if I'm wrong) that if an entity is forced to negotiate as opposed to having the choice to negotiate, then they are not free - I might contend that if I'm prevented from negotiating, I am not free either."
Yes that is my point. I am certain that you have heard it said that your freedom to swing your arms ends at my nose. The same would apply here. You are free to negotiate with anyone who consents to negotiation. If you suppose that freedom is denied to you if someone will not negotiate with you, then why wouldn't it also be a denial of freedom if a SI swimsuit model withstood your advances, not that she would - I have seen your soft core blog you big stud you.
OK, more seriously, under your scenario, nobody could be free. Either the person forced to endure negotiations would not be free, as I maintain, or, the person denied a negotiation would not be free, hence nobody would be free.
BradK, a few additional thoughts. I think negotiation is a fine concept. But there are times when there are differences that no amount of negotiation could bridge. This can happen with union negotiations or it could happen with a panhandler on the street. Re the former, of course at some point a decision must be made. Presently, that decision is taken out of the hands of the people we elect and given to an unelected arbitrator. Is this what democracy looks like?
What would be so wrong with that decision resting with the people whom the electorate elects? This is how it is done in many states, the federal government and in most private businesses, well, except for the election part. If the government does not offer a good enough wage etc, workers would obviously be free to pursue more lucrative offers. If they couldn't fill the positions they would have to increase the compensation. Everyone would have their freedoms intact.
"OK, more seriously, under your scenario, nobody could be free. Either the person forced to endure negotiations would not be free, as I maintain, or, the person denied a negotiation would not be free, hence nobody would be free."
And we wonder why we have dueling ideological protests at the moment ;)
Just to clarify, I was not contending "precedent" as justification to rubber stamp continuance, I was merely pointing out it is an important element not to be overlooked. And of course, you are correct, you can't change something that hasn't already been established. Otherwise it would be called "creation" or something like that.
Allowing unions to negotiate doesn't change fiscal reality in a given "session". To explain - you and I can negotiate over the price of a nice doo-dad at your shop (that's because I can't spell "tchochkie" and neither can my spell-checker), but if you demand more than I have, there's nothing I can do about it except say "no" - if the purchase HAS TO BE MADE anyways, that changes the game as well (hence why I thought it was important to include in the analogy).
On a side note... Maybe only slightly related....
The right often berates the left for using politics and legislation to "spread the wealth" but it's interesting that they would use arguments of "more equal" and "more fair" when using politics and legislation to "spread the expense".
The left on the other hand, thinks 100% of every dollar spent by the government is sacred and any change to that or "less increase" during any given year "hurts the children"
(as always, my generalities as stated do not speak for 100% of those generalized, and is my own personal observation. also, I never said my humor was funny... which is probably why they call them "attempts")
(part 1 of 2)
(part 2 of 2)
A final note - only tangentially related - and this has little to do with your post (and probably could spawn it's own discussion), Walker's reasoning for eliminating the ability for public unions to collectively bargain on the benny's has been - and I come-close-to-quoting - "to give the local municipal governments the tools they need to balance their budgets after they see the funding shortfalls in the next state budget".
Last I checked, the state budget is Walker's responsibility, not the local budgets. I'm sure as exec, he would not have been too happy if Doyle tried to tell him how to balance the budget, as I'm sure now as Gov. he would not welcome President Obama's input. Those local administrators - Mayors, Exec's, etc, were elected to represent their own local constituents - and balance their own budgets - and perhaps they would like to do their job without Mr. Walker telling them how. Having said that, I would think more (D) local administrators (Mayors, Execs, etc) would be telling him the same things. Another observation.
Finally... would it not make sense to eliminate the "earmarks" (the non-essential parts of the repair bill that are not DIRECTLY part of repairing this current budget shortfall, such as the elimination of the ability to collectively bargain, the change of administrative control of the health care system in the state, and the no-bid provision for the power plants) and if they TRULY have merit, introduce them as stand-alone bills and pass them as such? I would even say introduce the next state budget first so the local municipalities can actually see the numbers, then introduce the collective bargaining restrictions as a counter-measure... see where it goes then...
I'm just saying there's a lot of things - approaches - that don't make sense to me on either side. I also don't agree with those that say 2 days of public hearing and almost 60 hours of debate "aren't enough" to slow down a process and preserve the democratic processes. I don't think the 14 senators are "doing their job" by leaving. I think they do their job by debating the bill, voting on it, and MY GOD - perhaps WRITING SOME ALTERNATIVE LEGISLATION... I mean, isn't that what that body of representatives there for? Maybe they could introduce some fiscal legislation that would prevent layoffs EVEN IF this current bill doesn't pass. What a concept. They don't have to be successful, but that's what I believe their job is.
Yikes, I ramble....
IMHO,
B
Allowing unions to negotiate doesn't change fiscal reality in a given "session". To explain - you and I can negotiate over the price of a nice doo-dad at your shop (that's because I can't spell "tchochkie" and neither can my spell-checker), but if you demand more than I have, there's nothing I can do about it except say "no" - if the purchase HAS TO BE MADE anyways, that changes the game as well (hence why I thought it was important to include in the analogy).
Not sure this helps your argument. In my store I have prices listed on my items. I wouldn't call them "demands" as I recognize unequivocally your right not to buy the item. You may attempt to negotiate for a better price and depending on various factors I just might alter the price. But I would not allow interminable negotiations and most certainly I would not hand the decision over to an arbitrator. If the purchase has to be made that is not exactly my problem. I might take it into account but I still reserve the right to hold the line at whatever price I choose. Both of us are free. Neither can demand anything and neither has any right to negotiate. Now imagine the havoc you could create for me if you did have a right to negotiate. I would quit working assuming the right to do so still existed.
Re part two, local negotiations are greatly impacted by state law.By changing the state law, Governor Walker allows local governing entities more flexibility, if I understand correctly. They would still be free to overpay municipal employees, restrained only by theirr constituents and the amount of money they could squeeze out of them. So I don't think this is an example of meddling in local concerns.
Maybe using an analogy to illustrate an issue I have with your analogy is the wrong way to approach this.. it's like if a guy were to... okok nevermind.
See though, when I include the fact that the purchase HAS TO BE MADE, it changes the rules of the game. You may - in your counter - state that "it's not exactly your problem" - but (and here's again where MY analogy failed) my purchase is your one and only offer :) You refusing to sell means you aren't actually doing business.
ENOUGH ANALOGIES!!! Too easy to poke holes in because - by their nature - they are simply illustrations not direct correlated facts. And this is quite simply (for me) not a "yes or no" type question.
Anywho - I figure we're probably going to just "disagree" on the last bit, or at least disagree to some degree.
I would also like to say that I believe challenges beget innovation. For example, if the state and a union are "forced to endure" collective bargaining (to steal your interesting terminology), and neither side gets 100% of where they started, why, I daresay both sides are going to have to creatively come up with a way to bridge that gap. The state may need to find a different way to makeup some not-agreed concession and the union and/or it's members may need to find a way to creatively cover a shortfall. Perhaps that's idealistic, I don't know, but the likelihood of generating innovative solutions I would think is greater when there is a problem to be solved then when there are (in this case) dictated terms.
Brad K you are almost there. The problem I see is that there are certain jobs that must be done in State and local govts. But that doesn't mean we have to only hire the ones we have today to do the job. The job pool of workers is bigger than it has been in years. So the state need not be stuck with just these people.
There are problems to be solved all right. And we elect people for that purpose. I do think it is a tad idealistic, or rather completely unrealistic, to suppose that government unions will help solve the problem, especially our fiscal problems. Of the two entities, only one is tasked with the job of solving problems, and are elected for that reason, while the other entity, the union, is tasked with getting the best possible deal that they can for their members. Hence there is a conflict. If cutting the cost of labor is the answer to the problem, which is basically what our elected governor is saying, it is complete fantasy to suppose that the unions will help solve the problem. No, no, no, they will say, that is not the problem, we can tax people more etc... Question for you BradK... Does my view that this union power to obstruct the preferred solution sought by the person we elected, in any way, seem to undermine or weaken the power of the people who elected him?
In the state of wisconsin we have city cops, village cops, state troopers and county sherriffs in every county in the state. On top of all these cops, there are the Capitol police and UW system police at each public university, thats alot of cops and alot of redundancy and duplication of service which equals alot of taxpayer money. Lets be honest and admit there is fat to be trimmed here that wont cause any threat to public safety. Walker and conservatives will never acknowledge the need for reduction in law enforcement salaries and pensions because its against ideology.
Denis, the workers have ALREADY AGREED to the PAYCUTS.
Forbes: Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing to Employee Pensions:
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/
Post a Comment