Privatization

[collegestudent22]

Still, if a union were to be open-shop and national, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

Like, say, the DGA? No, that's fine.

When you work for the government, the rules are different. Hence, the military cannot unionize.

Why is it different because you choose to work for the government? Government employees lose their freedom of association even though they're still civilians? Please explain. And would that affect government contractors? If a substantial portion of a government job is fulfilled by a private company, would you ban them from unionizing?

I actually looked into this, and again, it is the closed-shop problem. An open-shop union, being voluntary, cannot call a national strike. Neither should a government union be able to do so, due to the required functions of the government. It is a little bit of a gray area. If a business like the TV industry shuts down for a few months because of a strike, it is an inconveinience for those that use the service. If the government, on the other hand, shuts down an important function - like Air Traffic Control - it causes big problems. Although, I suppose there are laws on the books preventing a government union from striking, so it isn't a big deal to me.

They rule primarily on contractual items because that's what they're limited to by law. My point was that I would not want to see this expanded to other points because the little guy loses more often than he does in court.

Could that not be due to the inherent nature of contractual law, combined with the fact that the court is more of an appeal system, letting only some cases come forward regarding contractual mediation?

Finally, there is the Supreme Court, which has always looked to the past for guidance. Even now, it looks back to English common and statute law and jurisprudence of the 1600s and 1700s to understand the path of logic of the Founders to help them decide on cases.

But they don't always do so. If they did, there wouldn't be a controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment. I understand that the past law should play a role in the determination of constitutionality. However, I don't think that "because it was done before" is a good enough reason to allow something to happen if the Justice believes that it is unconstitutional and can explain how.

They understand -- as you do not -- how a poorly-considered or upending opinion can throw society into some chaos. Brown v. Board caused all manner of problems throughout the nation (with a focus in the South, of course) because people weren't ready to accept it.

I understand the concept. I also think that we shouldn't allow rights to be violated until the people violating the rights are "ready to accept the change".

Consider what would happen were they not to feel bound by it. Every generation, as the Court's makeup changes, legal precedent would fly out the window on a regular basis. The Court could make you happy by the end of the term, and then in 20 years make you furious by overturning everything because they were not bound by precedent.

They should be bound more by the Constitution than precedent, and when it conflicts with precedent, throw precedent out.

[adciv]

CS22, MB, how would you two feel about removing the ability of public employees from being able to strike?

Just a reminder: I am one, but not union.

[collegestudent22]

CS22, MB, how would you two feel about removing the ability of public employees from being able to strike?

Well, you get rid of closed-shop unions, and strikes become meaningless anyway, as only a portion will be in the union anyway. But I am in favor of removing the ability of public employees to strike. The government cannot halt, like the TV industry did in Fall 2007, due to workers demanding higher pay or more benefits. (Well, that's not entirely true. The things that the government SHOULD be doing can't halt. The rest shouldn't be the government's deal in the first place.)

[Martin Blank]

Actually, most employees of open-shop employers are union members, and they tend to look down upon those who do not join the union.

I have no problems with most government unions striking to a limited degree. Those which are involved with public safety or national security are prohibited under federal law from striking, so police, firefighters, air traffic controllers, and postal service and intelligence agency employees cannot strike. If the DMV goes on strike, it just slows down the process somewhat. They should have a cap on how long they go on strike, however; off the top of my head, I would say that 10 days would be an agreeable number. There are many things that would go into that, though (if someone cannot pay their registration on-time because the DMV is closed, do they have to pay a penalty?).

And cs22, you completely skipped the question of whether unions working for a company contracted to the government -- the very privatization that this was all about -- should be able to strike.

[collegestudent22]

Actually, most employees of open-shop employers are union members, and they tend to look down upon those who do not join the union.

They also cannot call a strike that is as effective.

And cs22, you completely skipped the question of whether unions working for a company contracted to the government -- the very privatization that this was all about -- should be able to strike.

I'd say that they would have to follow the same rules that you have recommended in your post. Safety related contractors (defense contractors, mail delivery, etc.) would have to not strike, and other government contractors would have some limit on the time they could strike.

[collegestudent22]

Of course, you are never going to be able to privatize social security or anything else, when the rhetoric LIES are this ridiculous.

[Deacon]

Why can't these people be arrested for that kind of bullshit?

[collegestudent22]

Actually, what's odd is that there already exists a privatized Social Security system in the US. For a short time, Congress allowed state and local governments to opt out.

Right now there are more than five million state and local workers who are exempt from the Social Security system. (Don't get too excited; Congress closed the opportunity to opt out in 1983.) Galveston County in Texas opted out of Social Security for its public employees in 1981. Workers there have their money put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities instead and - guess what? - they're doing great. Even after the stock market plunge in 2008, county employees had netted out much better than those in Social Security.
I had Rick Gornto, who designed the Galveston plan, on my television show back in October 2009. He told me that a Galveston worker making $75,000 a year would get monthly checks for about $4,500. Under Social Security, that same worker would get around $1,645 a month. Galveston's program is safe and works great. So why doesn't the government learn more about it? Well, according to Gornto they've already studied it but "this issue of privatization versus public option that you're talking about is really more of a political issue than an economic issue."
Exactly right - which is why the fine print is not even worth debating until politicians stop playing the "only government can do it right" game.

[collegestudent22]

How exactly does the american postal system work if they are not receiving tax money? They must have a giant amount of debt by now if they lose billions each year.

They don't receive tax money, but they are covered by the government. This results in them claiming they (technically) don't receive tax dollars, but their deficits are taken on by the government and added to the overall budget deficit. In effect, they do, but because the revenues of the government are less than the expenses, they actually receive loaned money like the other federal programs.

Essentially, it borrows money from the US Treasury (money that will never be required to be paid back) to keep from bankruptcy.

[hojoos]

Assuming his facts are correct, point to CS22.

[FirebirdNC]

Assuming his facts are correct, point to CS22.

The post is from 10 years ago he probably isn't keeping score anymore .

[Seir]

Someone actually joined just to necro a ten year-old thread. I even wonder how this guy even became aware of this thread in the first place.

[raptor9k]

Russian 'bot'? I know they pay troll farms to boost 'conservative' viewpoints on social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they've branched out into semi-private forums.

[Deacon]

That’s pretty sophisticated for a bot...

[raptor9k]

Sorry, I should've clarified, bot was in quotes because they're real people that are paid to post online all day. Some platforms make it easy to deploy actual bots (twitter) but others require live people to spread their misinformation. It sort of fits the profile of a human in a click factory fed random places to post by software running keyword searches. Though, this could very easily be just some rando clicking around that has a thing for the topic and decided to register and add his $.02.