Comments

  1. As a co-founder of a company, I hate unions because they insist on dictating who I do and do not offer continued employment. Any layoffs have to occur by seniority without regard to which employees are, or are not, productive. Collective bargaining would be fine as long as I could cut the dead weight. Instead, the union exists to protect the worst employees with the most bloated salaries.

  2. Greg the Geologist says:

    Professor Bainbridge is quite correct. Another crucial difference between negotiating with a public sector union and a private sector union is the following. A negotiator for a private company has a fiduciary responsibility to the ownership (including shareholders) of that company, and thus must faithfully represent the ownership across the table from the union reps. In the case of public sector unions, who represents the interests of the ‘ownership’, or stakeholders, who would of course be the taxpayers? Not the union reps. And not the politicians who owe them. We see what happens when the taxpayers are represented only theoretically, not in reality, when dealing with public unions. Or, ‘Welcome to California’.

  3. Steve Phoenix says:

    Dr. Bainbridge is a rare light in a very dark night of his profession (the American legal system). Two years ago he presented a notable and brave defense against SB 131, the bill that would have selectively extended the statute for abuse claims almost exclusively against the Catholic Church, yet a second time—and yet exempted the public school system and California Teachers Union where the greatest number of abuse cases exist:

    http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2013/06/an-open-letter-to-assemblyman-adrin-nazarian.html

    Bainbridge was one of the few Catholics who pointed out this was basically an ad hoc law (I think it was a constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder, a law aimed at one “individual”),…

    • Steve Phoenix says:

      … but SB131 represented a huge payoff to the California Trial Attorneys lobby, who now reap about 45% of the awards PLUS fees. It never was about the victims, it was about the legal Vegas jackpot.

  4. St. Christopher says:

    Bishop McElroy continues the long list of idiot bishop-economists in the modern Catholic Church. He appears to wish to become “popular” to largely liberal Californians. Aside from urging heresy regarding his command that priests under his charge administer the sacraments to remarried/no annulment parishioners, B. McElroy also urges economic and social malpractice by wrongly linking public and private union justifications. It is increasingly difficult to understand how B. McElroy is even Catholic. To those within the Diocese of San Diego, stand up and shout out the wrongs of this truly awful bishop, and refuse to accommodate him with the lush life awarded to local bishops, even as they show their craven nature.

    • SChris, you are in clear violation of Canon 1373 which says: “A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.”

      Why don’t you prove your first allegation, namely that this Bishop has commanded that his priests administer the sacrament to divorced/remarried Catholics. Please do quote him so we can see. Thank you.

  5. Well, I agree wholeheartedly with Roberto V. and have said same before. Ad multos annos, Roberto V.!

  6. anne o. nymous says:

    Thank you Prof. Bainbridge for a well reasoned argument. Wait until the unsustainable public employee pension system comes unhinged. Perhaps the good ordinary of San Diego will relinquish his diocese’s tax- exempt status to choke up the funds to keep the system afloat.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.