 |
| Unions cannot be sustainable without consumer choice. |
Somewhat surprisingly, the elections of 2010 have had a major impact on raising an important public policy debate, outside of the foreseen battles over health care and taxes. Newly elected GOP govenors have taken over states with burgeoning budget deficits and decided to tackle the 600-lb gorillia of state budgets, public unions. They do this in the face of loud and vocal opposition, nationally organized labor resources, a president who is beholden to unions to help him win elections, and a media who is biased towards the "workers." All this makes it all the more extraordinary that governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere are holding thier ground and not backing down. Perhaps this is made easier when logic is on your side. This issue (like many others) highlights the differences between policy based on reason and policy based on emotion that so often permiates our political dialog. One side is screaming and yelling, accusing the other of being uncaring, bent on trampling the little guy, and against children's education. The other side speaks of sustainable budgets and the real world.
You just hate unions!
No, the discussion here is about public unions, not private ones. If GM wants to make poor decisions about compensation with thier employees, which eventually cause the company to go bankrupt, I can take my money elsewhere. Thousands of people are doing this now, vowing never to buy GM again (due to public funds being used to bail out GM's union workers) and are rather buying Fords or Toyotas. I have a choice whether to pay a higher price due to a product of service of private union labor. With government unions, there is no choice. I either pay them out of every paycheck I make, or I go to jail.
Unions are needed to counteract the greed of employers!
Again, in the private sector, if you truely believe this, then go for it. Barganing for inflated wages and benefits will catch up with you in the form of benefit restructuring, limited hiring of new employees or bankruptcy for the business eventually, but if you feel the need to combat "greed" of employers in this way, I have no problem with it, since I need not be involved, and can take my money to your competitor. But in the case of public unions, the union is combating the "greed" of... of... the taxpayers? The public is not attempting to take advantage of the situation to earn a larger profit - there is no profit - except on the side of the unionized workers. Furthermore, public unions have a very large say in who their employers are! Year after year, the largest political contributors are unions, and the vast majority of these dollars go to democratic politicians who promise to "get more" for the unions. When government unions succeed in electing a politician sympathetic to thier cause, then both sides of the barganing table are on the same side! Who acts in the best intrests of the employers (taxpayers) then? The politician can agree to extravagant retirement benefits that won't come due until years after he or she is gone, but by then the contracts are set, and the bill must be paid.
But without unions, employees everywhere would be taken advantage of! We brought you the weekend and workplace safety!
There was a time, many decades ago, when private unions did serve an important purpose of protecting the employee from the demands of powerful industrialists. However, these days worker safety has been ratified into law by legisation, and the dangerous work environments of the distant past are illegal. The presence or absence of unions is not what is protecting employees from harm or discrimination in the 21st century, an informed and enfranchised population does that.
You don't care about quality education!
The number one thing standing in the way of our children's education being improved is the presence of public teacher unions, not their absence. The best teachers should be paid more, and bad teachers should be fired. This does not happen, because the unions will not allow it. In Washington D.C. recently, a proposal was made that would pay most teachers more than they currently make, and the best teachers far, far more than they could hope to make now, if they would agree to a merit pay system, and replacing the worst teachers. The teachers' union wouldn't even allow their members to vote on it, under the protest that it would be "devisive." Parents should be able to use their tax money to easily pick and choose where to send their children, rewarding principals, staff and teachers that are truely doing well, and allowing failing schools to come under new direction to improve. This does not happen, because the unions will not allow politicians to let it happen. A parent can take a child to a private school, but then has to pay for their child's education twice. Once for the private school in tuition, and once for the public schools they are not using.
Teachers should be paid more!
Who should decide what any employee should be paid? The employee? A system where everyone who feels they should make more gets whatever they want is obviously unsustainable. Someone should be paid what the general population decides they are worth. This is done by the free market of people making purchasing decisions, and employers having to hire the best employees they can while balancing thier costs they are able to pass on the customer. Private school teachers make much less in pay and benefits than their public school counterparts, with better results. If the arguement is that the better results are due to better parenting and student behavior present in private schools, then you are argueing that factors outside of teacher compensation make up the difference in student achievement. I agree. Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution, but rather innovating the way schools teach and reward great teachers is.
What about police! What about firefighters?
Positions where there is no private equivalent are different, but we do treat them differently. Police and firemen obviously cannot be allowed to strike, which weakens their ability to take advantage of collective barganing. Still, taxpayers should have the right to keep a close eye on the effect compensation has on local and state budgets, and should have the right to elect politicians that will bring spending into line when needed.
You have a vote! You can try to elect politicians that agree with you!
And we see what that gets us when unions are involved. Even when the masses elect representatives that seek to reign in public spending, the unions resist with angry protects, and democratic politicians run and hide in an attempt to deny the workings of representative democracy. Furthermore, proponents of spending reform are always attacked with accusations of not caring for the "little guy," being against the middle class, being against education, and vilifying "public servants." One side always acts out of emotion and anger, while one always tries to defend itself against being called heartless, while trying to make the system sustainable in the long run.
You can't take away our right to form a union!
Really? You have the right to be a union member? Where did this right come from? God? Is it one of the Ten Commandments? No? Well then, surely you must mean that it is in the Constitution of the United States? If so, then why are federal employees not allowed to form unions? Why do so many states deny citizens this "right?" Because it does not exist. Whether or not government employees are allowed to collectively bargain is something that is subject to legislation, not an inherent right.
You are against the ability of the middle class to make a decent living!
Please. Less than 10% of private sector employees are unionized, and we have far more than 10% of working Americans living good, well-paid lives. Forcing everyone, including the middle class, to pay higher taxes so that a minority of people doing similar work get paid more, get better benefits, get better retirement, and get more job security is immoral. Either a union member must accept the same pay, benefits, and employee/employer relationship as the rest of us in the real world, or you must allow us the choice of taking our money elsewhere. When it comes to government, we cannot choose not to pay our taxes, so you cannot choose to force us to pay you more than you are worth in the free market.
d390d7fe-90c9-4f6d-b36c-089507d8ded0|1|4.0