Sure, but I haven't heard much of an argument against his stance. This is especially interesting since he was a very progressive and pro-union leader. This is just a small excerpt.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
Workers in the public sector are still workers, and can be mistreated by management. They can be underpaid, be forced into dangerous workplace conditions, etc.
Who determines what is fair? Is it not The People? The point is that government employees shouldn't need a union because the voters should be enacting laws and electing leaders who make fair policies. Also, that the government services that people rely on should not be held hostage by the workers.
It's charming you think that we people to try and achieve a fair outcome. The incentives are way, way out of line for that.
Tribalism rules the day, even in the face of more or less objective facts.
Collectively bargaining to ensure you are being treated fairly is not holding anyone hostage. Your melodramatic language doesn't do your argument any favors. Folks like our mail carriers deserve to be treated well, to have decent pay and functional equipment. Yet legislators time and time again do what they can to cut funding and decrease worker compensation.
"It's charming you think that we people to try and achieve a fair outcome.
Tribalism rules the day, even in the face of more or less objective facts."
It's charming that you think unions try to achieve a fair outcome. Aren't they a tribe fighting for a they can get? I've seen businesses go under due to never ending demands.
"Collectively bargaining to ensure you are being treated fairly is not holding anyone hostage. Your melodramatic language doesn't do your argument any favors."
And your condescending language doesn't do your argument any favors. The ability of the workers to hold the services hostage from the people until thier demands are met, is very much true. This can be extremely inconvenient, in cases such as teacher strikes, even forcing some people to miss work to stay home with the kids.
"Yet legislators time and time again do what they can to cut funding and decrease worker compensation."
This isn't always bad. Do you really think the government should be giving everyone a pension? It would make sense to move people from defined benefits plans to defined contribution plans. This brings them in line with the vast majority of industry.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."