The economist on Public Sector Unions

Wookster

LOOK around the world and the forces are massing. On one side are Californian prison guards, British policemen, French railworkers, Greek civil servants, and teachers just about everywhere. On the other stand the cash-strapped governments of the rich world. Even the mere mention of cuts has brought public-sector workers onto the streets across Europe. When those plans are put into action, expect much worse.

“Industrial relations” are back at the heart of politics—not as an old-fashioned clash between capital and labour, fought out so brutally in the Thatcherite 1980s, but as one between taxpayers and what William Cobbett, one of the great British liberals, used to refer to as “tax eaters”. People in the private sector are only just beginning to understand how much of a banquet public-sector unions have been having at everybody else’s expense (see article). In many rich countries wages are on average higher in the state sector, pensions hugely better and jobs far more secure. Even if many individual state workers do magnificent jobs, their unions have blocked reform at every turn. In both America and Europe it is almost as hard to reward an outstanding teacher as it is to sack a useless one.

full article here:

http://www.economist.com/node/17851305

Thought this was a really thought provoking article. Its not hard to see the short sightedness of the likes of Mark Serwotka's comments: No public sector cuts at all. Listening to the councillors talking about how they will have to simply cut services. It is a cop out and the lazy way out. The private sector has to keep providing a service otherwise it goes bust.

treliac

Wookster wrote: »

The private sector has to keep providing a service otherwise it goes bust.

Often by exploiting its workers, which isn't to be admired.

michaels

So paying someone what their input is worth is exploitation - so what are the options - pay them more than they are worth and go broke or don't employ them at all?

treliac wrote: »

Often by exploiting its workers, which isn't to be admired.

treliac

michaels wrote: »

So paying someone what their input is worth is exploitation - so what are the options - pay them more than they are worth and go broke or don't employ them at all?

Not at all michaels.... paying someone less than they're worth, not meeting legal requirements for minimum pay and conditions, exploiting people's youth, need to have a job etc. so that they are willing to overlook unsafe working conditions, having to work unreasonably high or irregular hours etc. etc. is exploitation. We all know it goes on and from time to time employers are prosecuted.

If a firm can't survive without mistreating its employees, maybe it should go bust.

markharding557

treliac wrote: »

Often by exploiting its workers, which isn't to be admired.

There needs to be a balance because it is not economically possible to pay everybody £20ph but is it economically sound to subsidise low wages with benefits which means people in these positions are not net tax payers?
Looking at the other side of the issue it is better for people to contribute something rather than doing nothing so not an easy one.

treliac

markharding557 wrote: »

Looking at the other side of the issue it is better for people to contribute something rather than doing nothing so not an easy one.

I agree, which is why I am not against people having to do some sort of work in return for their benefits. There are a great many people who earn less from employment than they are able to receive in benefits.

I would rather wait and see what sort of scheme is implemented before condemning it outright as some have done.

StevieJ

michaels wrote: »

So paying someone what their input is worth is exploitation - so what are the options - pay them more than they are worth and go broke or don't employ them at all?

You know and I know they will pay them as little as they can.