Generally I'd say public sector unions (especially in essential services) are of very questionable benefit and need limits, but robust private sector unions are much more obviously beneficial to society.

-----

In the private sector the incentives are mostly aligned for producing reasonable deals, because both sides rely on the business being healthy and making a profit and the jobs fundamentally rely on that.

In the public sector they aren't aligned. The politician is most incentivized to avoid immediate political turmoil. Voters are not market analysts who recognize and have a problem with deals that produce massive costs in the long-run (ex: exceptionally young or exceptionally generous retirement). The union is often aware it can extort the public with the threat of causing chaos. Government can raise taxes/take on heavier debt, which further weakens it's negotiating position - in all but the most extreme cases it won't be going into bankruptcy or ceasing to exist, taxpayers in 30 years will just be on the hook for paying a bad deal made by a previous generation.

Public sector unions, like all unions, are designed to level the power imbalance between worker and employer. Nothing about public/private employers changes this dynamic.

Public sector unions are inherently problematic.

The argument for a union is that they keep a company in check and the two balance each other at the negotiating table.

Public sector unions negotiate against voters and tax payers. There is really no opposite force to resist against their negotiating power and the only hard line is the state budget.

100% agree with this. Yes government's can also abuse it's workers, but society can more easily vote out an abusive government (especially locally) than an abusive CEO / board. There's no perfect solution, but police unions are a pretty good example of a worst case scenario.

I'm very pro union in the private sector.

Teachers aren't a paramilitary force employed by the state.

Nor do they somehow have contractural agreements with their cities that limit civilian oversight and require that possible crimes by members have to be handled as internal disciplinary issues first.

Structurally this means evidence gathered by internal investigations will often be destroyed and can't be used for possible criminal charges, as well as plenty of time to tighten up stories and close ranks with each other.

Hey the military has rules of engagement.

Uniform Military Code of Justice and Military Court Martial.

Also, probably for obvious reasons military unions are strictly prohibited by federal law for active-duty personnel [1].

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/976

Parent post says "paramilitary" which is explicitly NOT the military.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here, but it seems clear to me that the comment you're replying to was drawing a comparison to the military.

Right, they’re just the people tasked with educating and keeping safe our most vulnerable.

And they, already, don't have qualified immunity while they're doing so. They are also already disallowed in many places.

Are you seriously trying to equate people exercising their right to peacefully protest to the power to detain and shoot people?

Rarely does one see a single word do so much work as "spectrum" here attempting to link protests to paramilitary activity.

"On the spectrum of" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you there. How many teachers have shot someone in their care this year? I'm guessing very few.

Also, "definitely not zero" is an absurd bar. "One teacher did something, better condemn all teachers!"

this may be the weirdest definition of "paramilitary activity" ive seen.

It’s not weird, it’s just a lie.

I hate how our society has just normalized people lying blatantly to our face and still giving the benefit of the doubt. It’s how you see a violent crowd breaking windows and beating people get called a peaceful tour.

Most propagandized people in the history of the world

Teachers don’t have state granted rights to commit violence. They also don’t have qualified immunity. The Supreme Court hasn’t decided they have no duty to protect.

You’re talking apples and donkeys.

They even had to reach far enough to compare performance standards to corruption investigations.

> Why wouldn’t this logic apply to all unions?

For public sector unions, it absolutely does.

A better comparison is, on a sliding scale, tsa or firefighters, emts. All can invade your privacy and take / destroy your things to a varying degree. You don't get to chose which fire gets you out of your car or which EMT does cpr on you.

You do get to choose not to use TSA though. It might be inconvenient or expensive but that doesn't mean the choice doesn't exist.

Are you talking about being able to afford a private jet? If yes, then I would hardly call it a choice. I would definitely pick private, if I could, but I believe that most people (including me) just aren't able to afford it.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you are talking about. TSA Precheck still requires you to go through TSA security checkpoints, and you still gotta get all your items scanned and walk through the security gate (you just don't need to pull your laptop out of the bag and don't need to take off your shoes). And you still might get occasionally pulled to the side for an extra check because you got randomly picked (happened to me twice in the past few years).

Can you explain what you mean by that? Are you saying "You can just drive instead" or do you mean there is a way to fly within the US without going through the TSA?

That logic does apply to most/all state employee unions. Teachers, fire & rescue, etc.

But as others have pointed out, police unions are even worse in that the police uniquely are allowed to wield the power of the state with lethal force (military too, but until recently, we were supposed to be protected by Posse comitatus).

Good point. I accept your terms.

Straw man argument. Teachers are important but don’t have impunity to use deadly force.

it should apply to all public sector unions, they're a disaster. That's the real problem. Should never have been allowed.

Cop unions are very different from basically every other kind of union. Cops aren't workers. They don't need workers unions.

Teachers and administrative staff are workers. They need workers unions.

Teachers don’t have guns, and the ability to tie you up in the courts or worse.

Teachers can weaponize CPS reports and absolutely cause legal problems. I know someone who dealt with that. Their kid's doctor put the kid on an ADHD medicine, he had a bad reaction to it, and then the doctor told the mother to immediately discontinue it.

The teacher was annoyed the kid was kind of disruptive and so filed a report that the mom had committed "medical neglect" for not giving her son the meds.

She had to take off work and deal with random CPS visits until they were satisfied.

This is a kid with good grades who can read multiple grade levels higher and who is most likely bored in class. I think he was in the first grade at the time

I don't know what the consequences of that are or could have been but it raised my eyebrows

Yeah, that's a great point, thanks for sharing. One time a teacher cut in line in front of me at the grocery store, so it seems like the real problem here is teachers having too much power.

This. Police routinely take away people's lives, either by shooting them needlessly, or using their power to fabricate charges or evidence against someone to ensure they spend their life in the criminal justice system.

They only have the power to mess up dozens of kids' futures each...

Sure, that makes the case for reform stronger for police unions, but why should bad union behavior (ie. protecting criminal or incompetent members) be tolerated at all?

Because the freedom of association is a core principle of the American constitution. Curtailing that freedom should be a measure of last resort.

>Curtailing that freedom should be a measure of last resort.

This just feels like it turns into a cudgel against whatever groups you hate. Bad police unions? Boo! Let's ban them! Bad teacher unions? Free association is protected by the constitution so they get a pass. Catholic priests? On one hand they're consistently hated on by progressives, but on the other hand much of the arguments that can be used to defend them can be applied to teachers.

Police, like the military, should be held to a higher standard, because we grant them a monopoly on violence.

What you want to say is: teachers don't have qualified immunity

Nonsense.

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (citing Thomas v. Roberts, 323 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 2003)("This case involves a[n] ... action brought by thirteen elementary school students ... against Tracey Morgan, their teacher [and others].... [W]e affirm[] the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the individual defendants on the children's claims.")).

Fair enough, TIL.

I know some kids who had a really bad time in school because some teachers treated them badly. Yes, it's not as bad as what the cops can do, but it was still pretty life altering.

Maybe not teachers or the DPW mechanic or whatever, but pretty much ever "enforcement" arm of the state does by proxy though.

Anyone with "inspector" in their title is just an abstraction layer above the cops and courts.

are you seriously arguing that Teacher unions are just as bad? Teachers don't have the power to weild state sanctioned violence on you.

I mean, maybe you could argue about Fire Department Unions, (they can shut down events, force you from entering your home, etc) but then again, nobody has written a song called "Fuck the Fire Department"

Dude. If it weren't for unions, you would be working 70 hours each week for a shit pay and would even have less employee rights than you have not (assuming you live in the US, based on your dismissive comment against unions)

Unions are bad, period. Teachers Union is one of the worst.

This logic absolutely should apply to all unions, including both police and teachers unions. You can find equally disgusting anecdotes of bad teachers who are protected by their unions, with students paying the price. You can tell a lot about whether someone has impartial judgement by seeing whether they consistently support/oppose both