Ponder This:

Real public servants are free enterprising individuals who, inspired, embrace challenge, take risks, and create, sometimes big, and often, they create jobs in the process, all out of their ideas, and self initiative...

Friday, May 13, 2011

"A Cogent Analysis" says Jack Dean of Pension Tsunami of The Differences Between Public and Private Sector Unions

Here's the intro:
By Tim Kowal, on May 13th, 2011

Many supporters of public sector unions suggest there are no meaningful differences between public and private sector unions when it comes to collective bargaining. As I explain below, however, there are in fact several fundamental differences, many of which have been pointed out since the inception of public sector collective bargaining.

Here's an excerpt:
Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector Is Anti-Democratic

Public sector union advocates suggest that collective bargaining in the public sector is essentially no different than in the private sector, and that far from being a problem, it is a positive good. To evaluate this argument, first briefly consider the policy reasons for authorizing private sector unions.

And another excerpt:
Conclusion

Collective bargaining in the public sector is fundamentally different than in the private sector. Put most simply, the government is not simply another market actor, because the government lacks the same economic incentives as private industry. Perhaps more importantly, the government is uniquely entrusted with the political power of the people to act for the benefit of the entire public. To provide to a special interest group unique tools and procedures to use as leverage to wrest that power for itself is anti-democratic and tyrannical. Finally, the public sector collective bargaining, unlike in the private sector, permits a union political leverage over the employer, making negotiations less than arms’ length.

It's a lengthy article, comprehensive, historical and well reasoned. If you want to understand the distinctions, and argue with integrity, I please read it. Then if you disagree, tell me what you disagree with, but please, spare me the rhetoric about being anti Democratic or anti-worker's rights. Click here to read more
Post a Comment

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids: An Epidemic of "Isolated Incidents"

"If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern." —Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006. An interactive map of botched SWAT and paramilitary police raids, released in conjunction with the Cato policy paper "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids," by Radley Balko. What does this map mean? How to use this map View Original Map and Database

Key

Death of an innocent. Death or injury of a police officer. Death of a nonviolent offender.
Raid on an innocent suspect. Other examples of paramilitary police excess. Unnecessary raids on doctors and sick people.
The proliferation of SWAT teams, police militarization, and the Drug War have given rise to a dramatic increase in the number of "no-knock" or "quick-knock" raids on suspected drug offenders. Because these raids are often conducted based on tips from notoriously unreliable confidential informants, police sometimes conduct SWAT-style raids on the wrong home, or on the homes of nonviolent, misdemeanor drug users. Such highly-volatile, overly confrontational tactics are bad enough when no one is hurt -- it's difficult to imagine the terror an innocent suspect or family faces when a SWAT team mistakenly breaks down their door in the middle of the night. But even more disturbing are the number of times such "wrong door" raids unnecessarily lead to the injury or death of suspects, bystanders, and police officers. Defenders of SWAT teams and paramilitary tactics say such incidents are isolated and rare. The map above aims to refute that notion.

Blog Archive