Hacker News Reader

Comment by nknighthb | Hacker News Reader

I support public employees, public employee unions, and the right of those employees/unions to strike. I also do not believe most of these salaries and other compensation are outrageous.

But I also support complete transparency in government. Ultimately, we are their employer, and we have a right to know how much we're paying them. I know this will sometimes have negative consequences for the employees, but this is a balancing of interests, and in the end, I believe we're all better served by this.

We would be better served still, however, if we knew exactly how these numbers came to be, because some of them are very strange. I'm guessing we could eventually figure most of it out with sufficient research, but ideally a subject matter expert would come forward and save us some time by explaining it.

View on HN

Why would you support public sector unions? They face a very different dynamic than ones faced in the private sector. Here's a good write up: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/432...

It's a little humorous that they are talking about unions disrupting the political system when corporations spend infinitely more money on lobbying government.

Unions are corporations, too.

If unions protect workers from management, who protects workers from unions?

This is fucking absurd. Unions are unions OF WORKERS. A unions political power comes from the combined power of its members, who are citizens of the state and can thus be considered an accurate reflection of the citizens wishes. A corporation's political power comes from the top, and does not reflect anyone's wishes but the CEO.

> Unions are unions OF WORKERS.

But there's still someone in charge. Who polices them?

> A unions political power comes from the combined power of its members, who are citizens of the state and can thus be considered an accurate reflection of the citizens wishes.

By this argument, we don't need anyone watching the government because it is elected by the people and so represents the will of the people.

> But there's still someone in charge. Who polices them?

The union members vote on union matters. Do you know how unions work at all? Why are you talking as if you're an authority on unions when you don't even know this stuff?

> By this argument, we don't need anyone watching the government because it is elected by the people and so represents the will of the people.

Don't be ridiculous. The point is that a democratic organisation of workers exercising the collective political will of those members using the collective funds of those members, is quite clearly compatible with democracy, infinitely more so than companies spending billions to exercise the will of a small group of people at the top.

> The union members vote on union matters.

And who monitors the ballots?

> Why are you talking as if you're an authority on unions when you don't even know this stuff?

I'm not. I'm asking questions and being downvoted for it. Worse, none of my questions are being answered.

> The point is that a democratic organisation of workers exercising the collective political will of those members using the collective funds of those members, is quite clearly compatible with democracy

Only if the ballots are free and fair. Otherwise, it's just the union bosses dictating terms. So who monitors the ballots?

Does anyone have refutations to these points, or are union people going to disagree by downvoting?

The parts of that article I don't believe are factually incorrect are parts I fundamentally disagree with.

Trying to convince me public sector unions are bad by linking me to a conservative think tank rattling off a list of things public employees fight for/against is a bad idea. I fight for/against the exact same things.

So the answer to your question is, I'm a bleeding heart pinko commie bastard, that's why. Have a glass of vodka, comrade.

Thats the strategy, divide and conquer, make the private sector hate the public sector, make the nonunion workers hate the union workers, etc. As soon as they have enough haters to form a critical mass, the hated group gets shit on and they repeat the process with the next group.

Just so you know, I wasn't trying to insult you or start a fight. I think there are two interesting sections that most people may not have thought of/considered: THE POWER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS & THE DISTORTION OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICS

e.g.

Correction officers’ unions are powerful forces in states like California and New York; they push for the construction of more prisons and for longer sentences for criminals (so that there are more people for correction officers to guard). Their activities in California are a case in point. In the last eight years they have spent $10 million on state politics — either in direct contributions to politicians or in spending on ballot initiatives relating to crime and punishment. They have mounted full-scale political campaigns. For instance, the California corrections union has attacked public officials, such as the Los Angeles district attorney, who supported an alternative to the union-favored “three-strikes law.” Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in February of this year noted that “the three-strikes law sponsor is the correctional officers’ union and that is sick!” In 1999 the union even successfully opposed a proposal to permit the California attorney general to prosecute brutality in prisons.

> Ultimately, we are their employer, and we have a right to know how much we're paying them.

Although I support the general sentiment I don't think this is clear cut. Should shareholders have the right to know the salaries of the employees at the companies they invest in?

This sort of thing is actually one of the reasons the public stock markets bother me. I do, in fact, believe that someone who has an ownership interest in a corporation should be privy to such information (and much more).

That said, it's up to the shareholders of a company whether they will force the company to release the information, and I can't blame them for choosing not to widely disseminate information that could be useful to competitors. I can blame them for being shareholders in companies with such fractured ownership, but I must blame myself, as well, for I also own stock in such companies.

In this case, however, there is no direct competition, and the "shareholders" of the public sector have wisely decided that they shall have access to this information.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com