DOTD - Debate of The Day #52

Post by Squishalot

#23: Should there be better civics education in the public school system?

Oh definitely yes. Not much debate there, I don't think.

I'll add, I'd like to see Ethics added into the public school system as well. It was introduced for a trial period in our state as an alternative to a legislated period designated for religious education, where the non-religious kids would just go study in the library instead, and I'd love to see it come back permanently.

Post by Levarus

No. Civics is something that parents should teach their kids, not the school.

Post by FatalHeaven

No. Civics is something that parents should teach their kids, not the school.

Civics? Really? Ethics maybe...though I agree with Squish ultimately... but civics? How shouldn't that be in schools?

Post by 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

Employers write employment contracts, not unions, and the toothless unions you envisage would have no way of even getting a meeting to discuss it.

Employment contracts are exactly that - a contract between an employer and an employee and are negotiable. You don't need union legislation for a union to negotiate a contract for you. That's what employment lawyers and job agents do all the time.

Remember, what is "commercially justified" is for employers to prevent collective bargaining from taking place by firing organizers

I believe it's a catch-22 situation. They don't want unions to be involved, because of all the restrictions and problems that come with it. If I was an employer, I wouldn't want my staff to band together and legally walk off the job without fear of penalty either. If they couldn't do that, I wouldn't have an issue. Do you see where I'm coming from? It's the union legislation that causes employers to have issues with unions.

More generally, I am trying to disabuse you of this notion that unions are some kind of anti-business boondoggle whose principle effect is to protect "worthless" workers at the expense of the skilled. That view is, as gamer said, a caricature. The truth is quite plainly that creating a business environment that's fair to both employers and employees is a difficult problem, and union laws regulating both sides are the best solution anyone has come up with so far.

Many employers would disagree with you. This, relating to an airline that was (and still is) making huge losses in the international flight sectors that the unions were disputing at the time. I don't think it's the best solution. I think it's a lazy solution that we deal with because it's ingrained into the system, and nobody wants to be the first to potentially disadvantage themselves by stepping out and trying something different. You need trust to find a new solution, and employees and large employers distrust each other too much, sadly.

Like I've said - I don't believe in any legislation that gives employees the right to walk out on their employer just because they're in a union that's been told "we can't afford to give you the payrise you want". If you're going to give that sort of protection (which you know I disagree with, but hypothetically), fundamentally, you should give it to everybody or nobody, which is what I've been saying from my very first reply:

They have a place, but they shouldn't be afforded additional privileges above and beyond what a non-unioned worker would have.

Post by Squishalot

No. Civics is something that parents should teach their kids, not the school.

Civics? Really? Ethics maybe...though I agree with Squish ultimately... but civics? How shouldn't that be in schools?

Re: Ethics in schools, they weren't told 'this is right, this is wrong', they were presented situations and reasoned out differing viewpoints, similar to Philosophy.

Post by Levarus

Civics?
Yup.
Really?

Yup.

Ethics maybe
Why?

...though I agree with Squish ultimately
You contradicted yourself; he said he wanted ethics back into schools - you said "ethics maybe" meaning schools could w/o that. So you can see the state of confusion I'm in.

... but civics?
Yes sir.

How shouldn't that be in schools?

By not teaching it in schools.

Post by yukonjack

No. Civics is something that parents should teach their kids, not the school.

Please explain why you feel this way

Post by Levarus

No. Civics is something that parents should teach their kids, not the school.

Please explain

My personal opinion is that schools should focus solidly on education, (i.e. science, history, mathematics, etc.) and that the value of one's community should be obtained through personal means - rather than the public education system.

Post by 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Levarus

Could somebody please explain "civics"? I've never heard the term.

(Noun) Civics - The study of good citizenship and proper membership in a community.

Post by 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

Then thank goodness for union laws, which prevent them from doing that without legitimate complaints and a good-faith effort to resolve disputes without resorting to such methods. Without such laws, for any employer unlucky enough to be unable to prevent collective bargaining, a minority of employees might arbitrarily threaten a work stoppage at a critical time and have management at their mercy. Thanks to union laws they cannot.

Incorrect. An unprotected strike under union laws, at least in Australia, would be treated in exactly the same manner as someone not protected by a union who walks off the job.

That's an extraordinarily simple view of things. Labor disputes occur due to differing priorities; they aren't magicked into existence by statute. What union legislation mainly does is to prevent the more powerful side from arbitrarily resolving disputes to its benefit. That is, it prevents the employees from dictating arbitrary terms in situations where they cannot easily be replaced, and it prevents management from doing so in cases where they can.

It's intended to be somewhat simplified, but I don't think your statement is correct. An employee can very easily rescind union membership and act on their own terms, for example. So what protection, then, do you believe the employer has?

Then we should be able to resolve this, because I don't think union laws provide the privileges you are condemning. I really think this would make more sense if you'd stop attacking a caricature and levelly examine the specifics. Do you think the laws really protect a strike called on no justification except that a requested raise wasn't granted? Have you checked? And what specific benefits are you claiming legislation grants union members but not others?

There are very clear terms before you can hold a protected strike. Those terms don't preclude one party from digging their heels in and functionally ignoring all attempts at compromise (I say functionally, because they need to be seen as attempting to come to an agreement). There have been a number of very high profile strikes in Australia in recent times. Pay has been a significant part of the dispute, though not the entirety of it of course, but the key point is that the only requirement is that employers and employees can't negotiate a mutually agreed set of terms, after discussions held in good faith.

Post by 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by gamerunknown

The world shouldn't work that way. You refuse to work, you should be fired.

You support a power differential then. The employee, along with the customers, have no democratic recourse to ensure a company is acting in their interests.

Yes, however, assuming you live in the USA, you don't live in a democracy. You live in a Constitutional Republic.

Hmm...

a movement that would situate history in a bloody conflict.

To be precise, he wrote about the bloody conflicts of history and claimed a shift from feudalism to Capitalism was an imperative, just as a shift from Capitalism to socialism was necessary.

Marx didn't live in a democratic country.

He wrote Capital in England and worked as a journalist in the US.

night/day

From a European perspective, about 9 and 10pm, actually.

I can see how that one might be unavailable to certain audiences

It's funny actually, I'd attended the public library from a young age. While the children's books had their own section, there was no restriction on which books could be withdrawn on a child's card. I remember reading the first page of a collection of Greek myth's my dad owned and was shocked by the salacious language.

If an employee is really so worthless that an employer would fire them for trying to organise a collective bargaining group (noting that only the below-average employees would generally want to do so), I don't have an issue with that, provided that said firing is within the contractual terms of their employment agreement (which I doubt it would be in the situation you're describing).

They'll go as far as to shut down an entire branch in order to prevent unionisation. Domino effect and all that.

It was introduced for a trial period in our state as an alternative to a legislated period designated for religious education, where the non-religious kids would just go study in the library instead, and I'd love to see it come back permanently.

That's silly. We have religious education in the UK and it's mandatory up to the age of 16. Religious education is supremely useful, as long as it can be separated from religious instruction.

It's the union legislation that causes employers to have issues with unions.

Yeah, right. Look at the terrible things they've bargained for: an end to child labour, work hour limits, health and safety requirements. They just want to limit competition because they're lazy and worthless!

Post by Squishalot

But the law effectively prevents them from extorting higher wages out of you with unprotected actions.

How so? A group of workers can still extort with the threat of an unprotected strike, and suffer no further penalties than if the laws didn't exist. What law effectively prevents that?

But you're glossing over the fact that these disputes don't arise because of unions, they arise independently. Union laws make the problems more visible, but only in the sense that they prevent the employer from "solving" the problem by firing everybody who complains until the complaints stop (c.f. "criticism of Walmart").

You're suggesting that as if employers are the devils of the world, and using the hyperbole equally frequently as I am saying that unionised workers will stuff their employers around and strike for more pay. I agree that they don't arise because of unions, but I'm saying that the strike action occurs because of the union laws. That much, I'm sure you would agree with, on the basis that people wouldn't risk their jobs otherwise.

I have a very capitalist view of the situation. If your employer isn't delivering you the conditions you want (including, but not limited to, pay, health benefits, bonuses, working conditions, etc.), you can either a) sue them for not meeting the contractual terms of your employment agreement; b) highlight them to your employer for a chance for change; or c) find a nicer place to work. Union laws make it easier to do (b). Unions generally without the legal protections can still very easily do (a) or (b). Personally, I think that if (b) isn't feasible without legal protection and/or you need to resort to (a), then I would definitely want to do (c) instead, because it sounds like a pretty crappy place to be in.

Mediation or oversight from the body that decides whether a strike is protected is part of the process, isn't it?

From what I've seen, it's been very easy to demonstrate 'effort to compromise', but if each side has a sticking point (e.g. workers want more shifts per person and happy to give up payrise, company isn't willing to budge on shifts but is willing to pay more) then they're both compromising. That's no comfort for a company that's potentially lost millions of dollars, nor the inconvenience provided to their customers.

Either way it's not the case that unions laws let people walk off the job at will without repercussion, as you suggested.

I never said that they could at will. I said that they could walk off the job without repercussion, under the protection laws. I don't think that's fair / reasonable.

Plus you haven't explained what unequal benefits are involved - as far as I know union actions and bargaining affect members and non-members alike?

Not over here they don't. As an example members of the university teachers unions have salaries and packages and benefits that are agreed between the union and the university, such that the university agrees to provide those conditions to all union members. Non-union lecturers can negotiate whatever they want (or whatever they can get) individually. The union lecturers can call a protected strike and walk off the job if they don't get what they want. If they do that, non-union lecturers can't walk off - they're still contractually obligated to work. And if the union gets a concession from the university, that doesn't automatically apply to the non-union worker.

We haven't really considered the impact on the public yet. Here's some examples.

1) The unionised university lecturers at the University of New South Wales, here in Australia, refused to enter students' end-of-semester marks into the computer system as their protected industrial action. That meant that people wouldn't receive their marks, would have to enrol into subjects without knowing if they'd passed prerequisites, wouldn't know if they were going to graduate, didn't know about their potential visa status for overseas students, etc..

2) School teachers who go on strike who hamper the children's education with their demands (even if some of their demands may eventually go on to help the kids).

3) Logsitics workers (e.g. drivers, stevedores, postal workers, etc.) who delay deliveries for people who are waiting for their services.

4) Nurses who go on strike, increasing the burden on the skeleton staff remaining on shift.

This essentially only occurs because workers are entitled to walk off the job (caveat: under specific conditions) in an attempt to get better conditions for themselves.

Anyway, I think this is turning into more of a rant, so I'll stop there. I think we might need to agree to disagree on this - I see union legislation as harmful, you see a lack of it as harmful. I don't think we're going to be able to find a middle ground on this. Given this is my third night in a row I'm up working past midnight, consider this my protected action as I bow out of this debate, and allow this thread to continue with more recent debates :)

Post by Rystrave

In my high school days, we were offered a "Government" class, which taught us our rights, explained them them to us, and even gave us a chance to work on the city board for a few days and voice opinions on local matters (apart from also learning about the government and how it works). It really opened the door for leadership as young adults.

Post by Squishalot

That's silly. We have religious education in the UK and it's mandatory up to the age of 16. Religious education is supremely useful, as long as it can be separated from religious instruction.

Not religious studies, more pastoral education. As in, Catholics go off to be looked after by a Catholic priest, non-denominational Christians go off to a non-denominational Christian pastor, Jews go off to be looked after by a rabbi, etc..

Post by ElhonnaDS

I think with unions, as with everything, there has to be balance. I do think that organizing to guarantee fair wages, fair hours, fair benefits is important. However, there are often sticking points or benefits insisted upon by unions that are not fair to the employer or the customer. Tenure is the biggest example I can think of- to guarantee that no matter how little effort or ability they demonstrate, someone will have a job, is ludicrous. How many students get a sub-standard education because of tenure? How many college students waste thousands of dollars on technical courses taught by professors who don't have a good grasp of the subject material, or are out-dated and useless but remain part of the required curriculum because it's all that professor knows how to teach. It's not fair for business to strongarm its workers into working for unlivable wages, or unreasonable hours, but it's also unreasonable for the union to use it's protected status to set up guidelines that make it nearly impossible for the employer to fire poor employees.

You see abuses on both sides of the fence, and it's not an easy answer. I think that unions are a good thing, and that some protections (the right to strike, for example) are a good thing. However, I think that when unions use that right to force unreasonable concessions because the law prevents them from being fired no matter how reasonable or unreasonable their demands are, that's harmful to the economy and customer base. I do think that there needs to be some protection for organized action, but I don't think it should be universal protection, if they are pushing for clauses like tenure which I feel negatively impacts everyone.

DOTD - Debate of The Day #52

Post Reply