Government employees should be allowed to bargain collectively

1.300 words discussion: Discussion QuestionsRemember: I will evaluate your participation on whether: 1) You answered all the questions; 2) Your answers and comments reference (or use) and correctly apply the theories, concepts or ideas from the required readings, lectures and related media (if there are any).Answer the following questions after you have read the required articles and viewed the required lectures and related media (if there are any):In the last few weeks, you learned that government can fail in a variety of ways such as being captured by powerful interest groups or because of the failure of self-interested bureaucrats to promote the public interest. The solution offered by the readings is to get rid of government—either privatize some government functions, or deregulate and get rid of government regulation.1. Based on your reading of Vickers and Yarrow’s article, do you think that privatization will always improve economic efficiency? In what situations or circumstances? Explain your answer.2. In terms of deregulation, Moss has an interesting take on its effects. He is particularly critical of the deregulation of the financial industry. Do you agree with his analysis? Why?

2.2 short replies: i will post it after you give me the disscussion then i will upload it

3.reply this two:

1.

1. Do you believe that government employees should be allowed to bargain collectively?

Unions and the collective bargaining agreements they negotiate are intended to enhance market employees’ autonomy to define the terms and conditions of their employment as a labor force. They operate under the assumption that collective action can compel greater reaction from an employer, and that employees are the individuals best suited to define the scope, risks, and returns associated with doing their job.

Others have argued against collective bargaining here; I would respond by saying that our assumptions about collective bargaining are heavily informed by the American legal system’s approach to handling union negotiations, which is comparatively very hands off (Dunlop, n.d.). Much of the negative externalities associated with American unions ultimately come back to this issue – the U.S. legal system does not prescribe what is and is not permissible in terms of bargaining demands (salary, tenure). I agree greater oversight is needed, but think collective bargaining is a critical mechanism to protect employees in markets without sufficient regulation, and/or in organizations where individual negotiation is not possible.

Works Cited

Dunlop, J.T. (N.d.). “History – The Bargaining Table.” U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed March 19, 2021. Available at:

2.In response to question 2: Yes

As I mentioned in my previous post (rather crudely, I apologize), in my opinion unions prevent governments from being able to allocate funding where it really needs to go. In the readings for this week we have learned about how the legislators and the individual departments represent a bilateral monopoly meaning that there is only one seller and one er. It also assumes that there are two sides that are operating in a collective manner: the legislators are a collective and the union that represents the workers in that department are a collective. But this is not really reflective of the reality as the legislators are not really one collective, they are instead divided by party. This reduces its ing power and ability to bargain collectively because the legislators are divided within their own group. The union typically does not suffer from the same division and is thus able to bargain much more effectively. This lopsided battle means that the legislative failures will occur when, for example, the budget for road maintenance is larger than the budget for paying teachers. The union representing the public works department won’t give an inch even if they are swimming in money and can afford to take a cut to benefit the teachers union. Thus, the legislators are not able to provide the funding to the teachers that is so critical simply because the public works union will always operate in their own best interest. This would also result in an administrative failure as the education department would not be able to provide the citizens with adequate services due to the lack of funding. The lack of funding could also cause some teachers to quit and go to another district which would negatively impact our education system if these teachers were some of the best we had. Even if they weren’t, losing employees in a critical area is not ideal.

3. 1 little question

1. In your opinion, which aspect of the Social Security privatization would be most beneficial for middle class workers? Why? Reading material links:12 Social Security Proposals (链接到外部网站。)Krugman on Social Security (链接到外部网站。)Longer Reads:Brookings Institute, The Troubling Trade-Offs of Privatization (链接到外部网站。)The Heritage Foundation, Creating a Better Social Security System