Comments
foxrun89 t1_j6nsenj wrote
I’m in a union working for the state and I’ll be fired on the spot because I’m essential.
jp_jellyroll t1_j6negld wrote
What about the police? They're very much public employees with a strong-as-hell union. Are they included in this?
The police union will inevitably decide to use their new-found leverage to go on strike whenever it suits them. If we try to push police reform or accountability? Strike. Trying to stop the crazy amount of police over-spending? Strike. Trying to fire a corrupt police chief who all the cops love? Strike.
The state will acquiesce every single time because, as much as we hate cops, we decidedly can't have ZERO police for an extended time. That's the reality.
paganlobster t1_j6ngpmc wrote
They "strike" all the time by sitting on their asses anytime something doesn't go their way. Strangely, society does not collapse when this happens.
spiked_macaroon t1_j6o78f6 wrote
I mean Jesus, look what they do whenever a locality tries to implement civilian construction flaggers.
[deleted] t1_j6nv2vf wrote
[deleted]
jp_jellyroll t1_j6ni4h2 wrote
Yeah yeah... cops suck, fuck cops, I hate cops, ACAB, we don't need cops. I get it. I don't like cops either.
But I also live in reality where police are still part of the equation. The kid who robbed me at gunpoint while I was coming out of the laundromat didn't care about politics. He only cared that police foot patrols were cut back so there weren't cops literally walking the block anymore. Easy money.
oneMadRssn t1_j6nle5y wrote
I would dispute whether the cops we have would actually help in the situation you describe. Thanks to the Supreme Court, we already know that cops don't have a duty to intervene or save you during a crime. If anything, a cop being there might have caused the kid to pull the trigger sooner. The better way to prevent that kid from robbing you is ensuring he has a job available that provides him with better income and benefits than going around robbing people, and strengthening public unions is one small piece of doing that.
Back to the topic at hand, I think there is a middle ground available. I'd say public unions can only strike during contract negotiations and only after their current contract has expired. They shouldn't be able to strike mid-contract absent some very exigent circumstances.
spg1611 t1_j6ntyvp wrote
I love how used this Supreme Court case is. They literally go to their calls lol
OakenGreen t1_j6nqaqu wrote
I also live in reality and cops love to “silent strike” and leave those gaps wide open while striking is illegal. It doesn’t matter at all to them.
IntelligentMeal40 t1_j6nuav0 wrote
Strung out drug addicts who rob you at gunpoint are going to do that even if the cops are around the corner. And the cops aren’t going to do anything about it because they don’t have to.
5teerPike t1_j6nwewe wrote
That is why people say things like acab too.
paganlobster t1_j6ok7fs wrote
Cops don't prevent crime. Plenty of studies have proven that. The only thing that actually reduces crime is reducing poverty and making something other than the dumb fucking societal choices we keep making that probably lead to that kid trying to take your shit.
[deleted] t1_j6nmtn7 wrote
[deleted]
5teerPike t1_j6nw7up wrote
There's a difference between a protest that involves freedom of speech and a temper tantrum holding public safety hostage because you don't like people using their freedom of speech to criticize your brutality.
Rizzpooch t1_j6nzuo1 wrote
Yeah, and generally people pay enough attention to understand the difference. Teachers striking for smaller class sizes and living wages? Parents bring them pizza. Cops striking to refuse body cameras and oversight? I don’t see that many people being sympathetic
tubatackle t1_j6oune8 wrote
morally yes, legally IDK
5teerPike t1_j6ovnbx wrote
Fair. I just don't use the law as a guidebook for morals though. No one should.
BlaineTog t1_j6np0gj wrote
They do this already. It's called a, "sick-out," and they can't really be punished for it because they're the ones who would do the punishing.
Our policing system needs a complete overhaul.
SymmetricDickNipples t1_j6oaegw wrote
Police on strike? Lmfao go strike, see who breaks first 😂
potus1001 t1_j6pfptp wrote
What a police officer gets paid is entirely different than what a teacher or an HMEO makes. I feel for those employees, just not so much for the police.
IntelligentMeal40 t1_j6nu7t7 wrote
Yes I support having zero police because all they do is murder Black people anyway
ferrusducks t1_j6nbhz3 wrote
It should be legal for all people to strike in order to protest the inequality of their working conditions, advocate for safety, and gain the compensation they are due for their work. The right to strike is an individual right, and should be treated as such both at a state and federal level. Consider France - they are being heard loud and clear.
Remember, any government authorized protest is just a parade. The ones prohibited from striking are the ones who need to the most, and you should stand with them in solidarity and material aid if needed.
BlaineTog t1_j6n436w wrote
If the state is telling you that you can't strike, then you definitely need the ability to strike. Like, I get the idea that there are some sectors too important for disruption, but the solution to that is to make those jobs good enough that nobody working them feels the need to strike. A ban on striking just gives the state an absurd amount of leverage, meaning those workers eat a ton of pain and then eventually quit. I would rather have veteran public servants working happily to keep the Commonwealth moving smoothly than see heavy employee churn kick out everyone with an ounce of experience while the newbies hired in have all the optimism and joy ground out of them.
Mediocre_Coconut_628 t1_j6om57k wrote
So I am a water treatment operator somewhere in Massachusetts (not going to disclose where for obvious reasons) and we aren’t able to strike at all. In fact any shutdown or wildcat strikes constitute not only termination but criminal charges.
It’s a crappy catch 22 to be in, being underpaid and undervalued and not having any actual resources to protest. Our union is a joke because what actual leverage do they have? Our negotiations typically go something like this
Union: ”we feel out members need a 9% raise to meet cost of living increases and to make sure we can attract qualified applicants”
Company: “ best I can do is 2%”
Union: grumbles “ok fine I guess”
CompasslessPigeon t1_j6otiri wrote
Yep. Paramedic in the same boat.
“We can’t survive on 2%. Losing good medics to other areas with better pay and cost of living, dedicated employees can’t afford the increases we have seen in rent”-union
“Too bad. You get 2% a year for the next 3. Too bad that inflation was 12% and we had record profits. We want even more record profits” -management
Potat-O-Vision t1_j6n1ojr wrote
Sure, put it on the ballot. Choice is good.
flamethrower2 t1_j6nvnc5 wrote
It won't really do anything because the powers that be will repeal or amend it either on the effective date or shortly thereafter. They are not prohibited from doing so, although their political opponents (if any) will use that against them every election thereafter.
Even under a Republican governor, the assembly could easily do anything on which there was broad agreement among leaders, even over the governor's objection.
[deleted] t1_j6nesit wrote
[deleted]
BlaineTog t1_j6nqrrj wrote
> There's a reason 9A exists, and it's to prevent labor unions - who do not hold public office of any kind - from holding public services hostage as a negotiating tactic.
Public workers need to be able to bargain for good working conditions. Otherwise, they're just going to quit and public services will end up being run entirely by a churn of bad or inexperienced employees who really hate their jobs. If their bargaining power is insufficient without the ability to strike legally, then they need that option returned to their quiver.
As with anything, we need a system of checks and balances in place in order to create a healthy work environment.
[deleted] t1_j6o0ob2 wrote
[deleted]
BlaineTog t1_j6o4sdj wrote
> I have some unfortunate news for you: We're already faced with bad/inexperienced employees saturating administrative positions the public sector.
Yes, I was speaking rhetorically. My prediction was really just a reverse-engineered description of the present. This sad reality is partially because these employees aren't allowed to strike.
> You want your municipality attract the same talent as the private sector, and top-shelf public sector workers from other municipalities, do what I do: Say "I could stand to pay more in property tax," show up for your local elections, and approve budget overrides.
None of that means anything if employees aren't allowed to advocate for themselves. The additional money will just get thrown somewhere else in the budget. This is exactly what happens with lottery money: in theory it's meant to support schools, but in practice, the government just lowers school budgets by exactly the amount that the lottery adds so they can use that money elsewhere. The school is basically only in the mix to launder gambling dollars.
We absolutely do need to put more money into our public sector, schools especially, but we need to solve the problem at both ends. A rising tide doesn't actually raise all boats when some of those boats are frantically pumping sea water to their private-sector buddies with sea water businesses.
[deleted] t1_j6o5ryy wrote
[deleted]
BlaineTog t1_j6of346 wrote
> You say "partially"; if you were to draw up a pie graph of "Not allowed to strike" versus "Paid absolute dogshit" what do you think the sizes of those respective sectors would be?
Ok, this kind of question is just sealioning. What I'll say is this: I don't see how you bargain with an employer who knows that you are, when all's said and done, legally obligated to come into work and do your job. The one chip you have left to play is to quit, and these jobs don't pay enough to make quitting a feasible option for most people, especially since health care is tied to employment.
[deleted] t1_j6onkcd wrote
[deleted]
BlaineTog t1_j6ovevb wrote
Honestly, I did you a favor. Reddit arguments where we passively buy into each other's ridiculous argumentation and try to snit over every little fractalizing sub-point are absolutely interminable. I've been dragged into enough silly discussions like that to know that they benefit absolutely no one.
JohnnyRebe1 t1_j6njrc4 wrote
You don’t just get told to strike by some unforeseen force. In a union you vote. If the majority vote to strike than the union as a whole goes on strike. If you choose not to participate in the union vote than that’s a you problem. If you have no savings built up to cover a couple weeks on strike, that’s on you. Getting paid 2.25 to hold signs for a couple hours, to better your unions standing, better pay, benefits, or to prevent the company from taking benefits away. Only a moron would complain about the strike. We’ve got people like you in my union as well. Everyone hates them. Waah I have no money. I can’t strike. Who cares if the company wants to take the pension away. Who cares if inflation is at 10%, a 3% raise is fine…. Fuck that shit.
OakenGreen t1_j6nqpkr wrote
Nah let’s just lose all our teachers and not solve a single thing instead because rhetoric bad.
AnyRound5042 t1_j6nxrks wrote
Wow can't believe they let a scab in the union for ten years
[deleted] t1_j6nx17w wrote
[deleted]
fendent t1_j6ogfes wrote
Did you know the paraprofessionals in Woburn make $22k? Like, per year? One of the lowest rates in the country. Fucking Ohio pays them nearly 30% more and they still have shit pay there. How is this supposed to be corrected?
5teerPike t1_j6oif5x wrote
You misunderstand.
I am fully for unions, what I'm not for is this "I got mine fuck you, if it doesn't affect me I don't care" hyper individualistic bs.
peteysweetusername t1_j6nq1lp wrote
^this is the correct answer
Thisbymaster t1_j6nh50i wrote
Any public employees that are not covered by qualified immunity should have the right to strike.
GyantSpyder t1_j6oajn6 wrote
All public employees are covered by qualified immunity. It’s just that nobody sues the town clerk for violating their civil rights.
Thisbymaster t1_j6ocp1y wrote
A town clerk can't bash you over the head and not get sued.
NooStringsAttached t1_j6oivep wrote
All but the police.
Mighty-Rosebud t1_j6ooufr wrote
Firefighters, too?
PurpleTurle711 t1_j6p9io5 wrote
Police and public safety in general should still be afforded the right to strike for better working conditions as well as pay. Employees at the state level with essential designation jobs currently do not have any effective bargaining power. That said, I’m for the POST Commission, and other police reform policies.
The state isn’t always correct when they make changes that in those fields and there is a difference between a meaningful strike and a police temper tantrum.
thankubest t1_j6nmuts wrote
If we passed it via ballot initiative the legislature would meddle like always and add their own stupid spin on it like they are legal except in cases of emergency. Then every strike is an emergency
96suluman OP t1_j6npydq wrote
That’s why it should be specific.
lurkandpounce t1_j6noejb wrote
The problem is not that they are not allowed strikes, which is necessary because many public employees are essential and failure to work could literally kill people...
What they do NOT have is an effective alternative that forces the gov't to act on legitimate grievances. That should be added to the law.
5teerPike t1_j6nwsa7 wrote
>many public employees are essential
So we should pay them like they are.
lurkandpounce t1_j6p3prp wrote
Not disagreeing with the goal, just suggesting that there are alternate means that could be used that would not potentially cause harm to innocent people.
[deleted] t1_j6p3u9j wrote
[deleted]
96suluman OP t1_j6npwqg wrote
That’s why we need a ballot initiative to repeal it
lurkandpounce t1_j6ns3b2 wrote
No, I was suggesting that instead of repealing it we ADD a new section that provides for an effective mechanism for public employees to force the handling of issues that would otherwise require a strike by other (effective - important) means.
Work stoppage by public employees like police, fire, ambulance and all other essential services could have catastrophic consequences. This approach assures both the services are not interrupted AND the issues are expeditiously handled.
AnyRound5042 t1_j6nxhrw wrote
The mechanism you're talking about is the threat to strike. If they're so important give them what they ask so they don't have to strike. Stopping them from striking means you don't have to give them anything at all
mikemerriman t1_j6nwx87 wrote
no
Busey_in_the_walls t1_j6p3pne wrote
“It’s ok for them to strike, so long as it doesn’t inconvenience us” typical beacon hill
Lil_Brown_Bat t1_j6nd1oe wrote
Your question is not clear. Would repealing that section allow public employees to strike? If yes, then yes.
IntelligentMeal40 t1_j6nu4v4 wrote
I can’t believe they think they can pass laws banning people from striking.
NerdyKirdahy t1_j6ny24u wrote
It’s already a law in MA. Whenever you read about a teacher strike, they’re taking the risk that they’ll be fined and disciplined because of this law.
Ken-Popcorn t1_j6o9svx wrote
Just ask PATCO
tubatackle t1_j6owfgd wrote
No
Sharp-Ground-6720 t1_j6pcjwp wrote
Yes
[deleted] t1_j6peet4 wrote
[deleted]
potus1001 t1_j6pfi5k wrote
Absolutely yes!
Runymead t1_j6nbvez wrote
Yes
taseru2 t1_j6ocmmp wrote
This is going to be a controversial opinion but no. Public employees are paid by the state and their contracts are the responsibility of elected officials. If they want changes to contracts they need to convince the local populous to elect people who will raise their pay/give them better working conditions.
Additionally, if they could strike they essentially have infinite leverage. Closing schools or not having first responders would devastate the community so they’d have to capitulate regardless of their demands.
TywinShitsGold t1_j6mys1v wrote
No I don’t see a particular need for that.
OakenGreen t1_j6nquev wrote
Look at the state of our public school system and come back.
ItsMeTK t1_j6o96mj wrote
No. Public employees should not strike.
1000thusername t1_j6o8ouk wrote
No
potentpotables t1_j6objx1 wrote
Here's an opinion piece on why it wouldn't be good to allow teachers or other public employees to strike. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/22/opinion/public-school-teachers-there-can-be-no-right-strike/
DumbshitOnTheRight t1_j6n54v1 wrote
I'd like to see a provision in the end of a contract period, if a new deal isn't reached, no work will be performed until a new contract is approved.
It puts the burden equally - on the towns and state to get a new contract in place, and on the union to get it done unless they like their membership not collecting a paycheck.
Yeti_Poet t1_j6og972 wrote
Dumb shit indeed.
wombatofevil t1_j6n9dzv wrote
No, almost everyone should have the right to strike
(edit) and labor rights should not be at the whim of popular opinion
Lil_Brown_Bat t1_j6ncxrp wrote
almost?
jm96789678 t1_j6ox14d wrote
Public employees are the biggest welfare queens there are. They should not be able to strike. If you don’t like the job. Find a new one. Get off the tax payer dime.
barzbub t1_j6nzd0x wrote
The public shouldn’t suffer from government workers refusing to work! If they don’t like it, quit and find a better job! No one is forcing them to stay!
jelder t1_j6n3ij0 wrote
Should public employees be able to strike? Yes.