Should collective bargaining be abolished?

it depends because collective bargaining has it's pluses and minuses. The NFL reveals a case in point against collective bargaining as the players didn't negotiate it's deal with the owners, their union did. The players voted to abolish their collective bargaining agreement and basically kicked their union in the balls because the agreement didn't just work for them... it worked against them.

Collective bargaining essentially is a union granted full power to negotiate on behalf of workers and in the case of civil servants, this is definately a double edged sword. Collective bargaining, in relation to what you are talking about, has always been unbalanced in that it's not an across the board agreement and where one group like law enforcers may be given benefits, another group such as sanitation workers or teachers don't receive the same benefit. Collective bargaining representing all civil servants as a collective group gives their union reps the power to fight against the wealth of who exactly... not private business owners, but against the government and no group should wield this much power when it's you and me paying their salary.

Collective bargaining often gives one group more than another where a teachers union may get greater benefits on it's own and the firemans union may get less... but at least it's fair in that the individual union can be held accountable for failure where a collective bargaining arrangement allows failure to be concealed by it's successes.

The NFL players initially believed their union gave them a good deal. Unfortunately, the owners began fighting for new stadium deals where players in cities that got new stadiums found themselves bound by their collective bargaining agreement where they couldn't get a dime more than what the initial across the board deal gave them. Thus, the owners of the teams that got new stadiums made out like bandits taking millions of dollars in additional profits that players could not negotiate to get their fair share for having earned that money for the owners.

A collective bargaining agreement not only empowers the union workers... it also empowers the people they work for as in the above example with the NFL.

Police might get a better deal if represented by a union which represents only them where a teachers union may fail... but this is going to happen under a collective bargaining situation anyhow... the huge difference is if the teachers get screwed in a collective bargaining agreement, they cannot demand change or get union rep's fired because those same rep's successfully got benefits that police needed. It offers a safety blanket to the unions rep's more than anyone in such agreements.

My examples are not always the case but you will find that under most collective bargaining agreements, it's the union workers who get screwed and they don't have any power to gain better representation.

It's like the German workers party before the Nazi's came to power as before that event happened, it was extremely weak to the point that after some initial successes, the Nazi's were losing big in elections and Hitler was on the verge of suicide. But after he was made Chancellor, the Nazi's recovered and as a union, they began negotiating and strong arming through collective bargaining agreements to gain more and more power until Hitler had enough power to essentially outlaw almost all unions except for the Nazi's.

Most people forget that the Nazi's began as a workers party / union and that the name originates from the union and represented the power of this union to control the entire country when Hitler became powerful enough to enforce his will on everyone. People forget that the Brownshirts were almost all leftwing and that without them, there would never have been a Third Reich because they were the ones who made Hitler a force to be reckoned with. The Night of Long Knives found Hitler betraying them in a deal with the German military to give him their support. But Hitler and his fellow Nazi leaders were not rightwing... they were leftwing with everything from animal rights to environmental laws, universal health care and their social welfare programs being preserved to this very day, almost word for word, by todays leftwingers in the US and elsewhere.

Leftwingers i say this too balk and say it's a lie until they investigate the Nazi's animal rights laws, their environmental laws and then their healthcare laws where Hitler banned everything from cigarettes to enforcing mandatory exercise and health food advocacy... all of it almost word for word identical to what the left here puts forth today.

Likewise, abortion today centers on Pro Choice and Planned Parenthood of which both were largely influenced by a leftwing activist named Margaret Sanger who was a known racist who believed that Hitlers final solution was cruel for killing undesirables when to her it was far more humane to convince them to sterilize themselves and to abort their offspring. Margaret Sanger created Planned Parenthood with a charter aimed directly at doing this and today it's the reason black women have two to three times as many abortions as white women and almost all races in America outside of Asians have a disproportionate ratio of abortions comparing their population stat's.

Many on the left support the concept of collective bargaining because it supposedly gives the workers more power and if you read the comments here, you'll find most who are leftwing are saying we need to keep collective bargaining and most on the right and most moderates are saying no.

On this issue, it's more a situation where collective bargaining is initially successful, but it then gradually works against the workers because it cannot represent all the different groups equally. Firemen will have different needs than school teachers in regard to the hours worked, the danger of the job and the effect it has on them financially. this can never be represented by a single bargaining agreement. What's needed is a collective union representation where the individual unions may send representatives to when their workers need things like a pay raise and the collective union support group can then take action uniting their resources to offer support to the union trying to get pay raises and benefits for their union members such as the teachers union.

People do not educate themselves about such issues and while collective bargaining differs from state to state, the essentials are still there limiting some groups of union workers to represent themselves when they may need higher wages or a change in their benefits where other union groups don't.

Unions should never be given so much power where they are also heavily investing to get political leaders elected or even to win elected office for themselves... that's how the Nazi's came to power and it's how the Communists came to power.

Leftwing politics requires a higher level of education and understanding of what you learn to be effective as an ideology. Following blindly like uneducated sheep is extremely detrimental to their cause because anyone with proven intellect will tell you that sometimes the left is correct and sometimes the right is correct... essentially, they higher intellect allows them to see that both sides have merit in their beliefs and views. For the right, it's much easier to just follow along because what they support is often the proven status quo. Where they change and evolve is often in adding more people not originally benefiting from rightwing views to their ideological base and waiting until an ideal has proven itself before accepting it as a cultural norm we should all strive to succeed in or apply to our daily lives. The left wants radical and swift change which they want to force upon us much as the Nazi's did as they want to ban cigarettes, force us to eat healthy foods they approve of, to force us to exercise and live a healthier lifestyle they approve of.

The perfect example of the failure in leftwing thinking is PETA which for decades has been a darling of the left's cause for animal rights. Only, PETA doesn't live up to the ideological views expressed by the left... instead, they act like the Nazi's pushing an ideological view on everyone that they don't live up to as PETA kills up to 95% of the animals they take in, animals which were better off living with families who were often only guilty of not having enough money to properly care for their pets as PETA defines they should... that is how the Nazi's operated and PETA proves the claims against the left about Nazism is true.

The claims that the right are Fascists may be true because the Nazi's weren't Fascists... they were Totalitarian in that they used any ideals that might benefit them to empower them where Mussolini was so weak because of Fascism that he couldn't get his corporations to provide him with modern weapons so he had to use WWI style weapons and he had so little power over his military that his troops often refused to carry out his orders or surrendered to the enemy without a fight. Hitler toyed with Fascism at the start of his career in politics because he admired Mussolini, but the other Nazi's opposed Fascism and Hitler abandoned it for what became known as Nazism before 1940.

So do we really want unions to have so much power that they negotiate for what they want even if it works against the interests of their union workers... or it works for some but works against others? Each group should have it's own union and each union should have their own negotiated deals which work for their members. Collective bargaining has it's strengths in the beginning... but ultimately, it works against the union members and they must become more politically active to give union reps more power over state leaders and that's the greatest reason collective bargaining should be abandoned so we don't see the things happening in Wisconsin happening elsewhere. Too much chaos, too little achievement and unbalanced representation that helps some union groups but can work against others.

True and collective bargaining doesn't represent this as I state above in my address of the NFL having abandoned collective bargaining because as individual owners got new stadium deals making millions in additional profit, the players couldn't get access because their collective bargaining agreement was across the board and because most NFL teams don't have new stadium contracts, the players in cities that have them are prevented from getting a higher percentage of the profits earned by their teams owners.

Collective bargaining only works in the beginning where all affected groups may need stronger collective bargaining because they all suffer... basically, they're in the same boat. But as time goes by, some benefit more than others to a point that collective bargaining limits them.

In your example with police, a simple answer would be to move the police around so they share the dangers and the security more evenly... but the collective bargaining agreement basically prevents this because it drew a line in the sand to establish a status quo the cities are bound by. Try to make decisions like moving cops around to share in the dangers more would be opposed by the officers who like their comfy jobs and the union would support them using the collective bargaining agreement to enforce what the officers in the less dangerous areas want.

As you said, officers working in more dangerous areas deserve greater pay... but the collective bargaining agreement their union rep's created did not ask for this so they cannot get it nor can any police union do anything about it because they gave authority to the group that negotiated the collective bargaining agreement which supercedes their own.

The only way to get officers who work in more dangerous areas is to break the collective bargaining agreement and strike out on their own to get a better deal.