Bigdogg;711711 wrote:One of the checks and balance in the private sector is the threat of a union if you do not deal fairly with your employees.
Actually, the threat is:
1. Your qualified employees finding jobs elsewhere and leaving.
-AND-
2. You either get a flood of underqualified applicants to take their place (which you have to spend money training, and who probably won't have the output the others did even when they ARE trained), or you have a hard time getting any applicants at all.
If you compensate your employees like they're high school students, guess what? Your employees are going to leave, and the only people who would work for you would be ... high school students, or people who only need that kind of income. IF by some chance you happen to get lucky and land someone qualified beyond the pay you're offering, you can bank on them leaving the minute they find something better.
I have never once worked for a company that was worried about a union. I HAVE worked for companies that recognize that the job sucks, and that in order to avoid high turnover and underqualified employees, they have to compensate well.
Bigdogg;711711 wrote:As for cost savings, when you give me a detailed analysis of how much is actually going to be saved as the result of eliminating collective bargaining in the public sector, then I will take you serious.
It's hard to take a person "serious" [sic] when they:
(a) Use an adjective where an adverb should be ... something most learn in high school.
(b) Make completely unsubstantiated claims about the "dangers" of a lack of collective bargaining, when those dangers have yet to play themselves out anywhere in modern industry.
(c) Show hipocrisy by asking for substantiated projections when they, themselves, have yet to present any substantial proof to back their own case.
(d) All of the above.
