Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

jelder t1_j6n3ij0 wrote

Should public employees be able to strike? Yes.

256

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.

43

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.

−5

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

−7

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.

72

Lil_Brown_Bat t1_j6nd1oe wrote

Your question is not clear. Would repealing that section allow public employees to strike? If yes, then yes.

1

jp_jellyroll t1_j6negld wrote

Replying to jelder (#1,661,298)

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.

16

Thisbymaster t1_j6nh50i wrote

Any public employees that are not covered by qualified immunity should have the right to strike.

10

jp_jellyroll t1_j6ni4h2 wrote

Replying to paganlobster (#1,665,555)

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.

−23

JohnnyRebe1 t1_j6njrc4 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,664,905)

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.

23

oneMadRssn t1_j6nle5y wrote

Replying to jp_jellyroll (#1,666,022)

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.

31

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

5

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.

5

BlaineTog t1_j6np0gj wrote

Replying to jp_jellyroll (#1,664,796)

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.

27

BlaineTog t1_j6nqrrj wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,664,905)

> 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.

28

lurkandpounce t1_j6ns3b2 wrote

Replying to 96suluman (#1,668,359)

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.

−2

IntelligentMeal40 t1_j6nu4v4 wrote

I can’t believe they think they can pass laws banning people from striking.

1

flamethrower2 t1_j6nvnc5 wrote

Replying to Potat-O-Vision (#1,660,676)

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.

1

5teerPike t1_j6nw7up wrote

Replying to jp_jellyroll (#1,664,796)

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.

41

AnyRound5042 t1_j6nxhrw wrote

Replying to lurkandpounce (#1,669,062)

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

3

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!

−8

Rizzpooch t1_j6nzuo1 wrote

Replying to 5teerPike (#1,670,398)

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

25

BlaineTog t1_j6o4sdj wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,671,805)

> 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.

6

ItsMeTK t1_j6o96mj wrote

No. Public employees should not strike.

−2

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.

−1

BlaineTog t1_j6of346 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,673,431)

> 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.

4

fendent t1_j6ogfes wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,670,658)

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?

6

paganlobster t1_j6ok7fs wrote

Replying to jp_jellyroll (#1,666,022)

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.

6

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”

28

CompasslessPigeon t1_j6otiri wrote

Replying to Mediocre_Coconut_628 (#1,679,086)

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

14

BlaineTog t1_j6ovevb wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,679,594)

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.

4

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.

−7

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

3

PurpleTurle711 t1_j6p9io5 wrote

Replying to NooStringsAttached (#1,677,902)

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.

−1