Public sector unions consist in one part of the government–the union members, and the leaders paid for by the dues they pay that come out of their checks which are paid by the taxpayers–negotiating with another part of the government, usually politicians who benefit from contributions from these unions. Both sides have every interest in inflating the wages of the union members, and virtually no accountability other than public outrage at constantly increasing benefits and wages at far greater than the rate of inflation, which has been the consistent outcome over the last several decades.
Public sector unions suck money out of the private sector, with NO compensating increase in performance or benefit to the people at large. This is a necessary conclusion, given both that the money is taken in taxes, and that NO part of the negotiations involves any promise to perform. On the contrary: quite often unions work to protect the lazy, incompetent, and the dishonest.
Other than that it is convenient as an issue for Democrat politicians who benefit from this process, there is NO BENEFIT to public sector unions for the people at large. It helps 10% of the population, and hurts 90%, which is about par for most Democrat policies.
To be clear, PRIVATE sector unions at least negotiate with people who are not on the same side as them, and who are spending THEIR OWN money. I will reiterate my views on private sector unions, which follow Barry Goldwater’s ideas in “Conscience of a Conservative”:
1) They must exist in relation to one company only, and as a general rule should only be formed when there are actual grievances. Given the extent of government regulation, such as OSHA, very few reasons exist to form unions any more other than to facilitate extortion, which backfires over time, as Detroit–and the northeast generally–will readily attest in a mute way if you drive though it.
2) Membership must be voluntary. Most people would rather work for less than be paid nothing, which is the result of layoffs that attend overly aggressive union representatives emboldened by the fact that THEY can’t be fired. Most uninsured people live in Closed Shop/No Choice States, where unions are allowed BY LAW to require union membership. Even if members hate their unions, and would gladly work for 25% less, they are not ALLOWED to. Such States bow to the Unions by requiring a linkage between EITHER an employer or a Union and the ability to buy health insurance. Everyone in every State should be able to buy health insurance directly from the insurer. The Unions can be relied on to oppose this, since it reduces the advantages they offer their members.
3) Unions should not be able to make political contributions. As things stand, as I understand it, both public and private sector unions are tax exempt, yet they can make political contributions. The way things were, corporations–which make ALL the money that unions and government rely on–were not allowed to form PAC’S, and yet had to surrender 25% or more of their profits to the government, AFTER they paid the unions, where applicable. It is small wonder that the left screamed bloody murder about that decision, since corporations are now more or less on an open playing field with the unions.
I would change the law, though. I think anyone who pays taxes should be unlimited in their ability to make contributions, but I think that it is unfair both that unions and corporations spend money on candidates their employees/members may not agree with. It dilutes the power of democracy. Therefore, I think BOTH unions and corporations should be banned from making political contributions, but that corporations should be TAX EXEMPT too. All taxes should be income, excise, and sales taxes. Obviously, income taxes will go up, but so will incomes, since all that money now being paid to the government can be either reinvested, or used to increase incomes.
When a dollar of profit hits a corporation, it is double taxes. It is taxed when it is accrued as a profit, then it is taxed again when it is paid out in a salary or wage. Most people don’t know the basics of how things work, and fail to even want to try and learn.
2 replies on “Public Sector Unions”
I posted the first part of this over at Huffington Post, and would like to post the comments in response to it:
1)Unions help employees negotiate better working conditions, pay increases, etc. I would suggest that the private sector join a union… Public sector employees pay taxes just like you do, union dues are paid the by employee not the tax payer!
In the name of greed wealthy CEOs, keep private sector wages and benefits at a bare minimum… since when is making $25 a hour a horrible thing…?
The main reason wages have gone down the past 10 years is due to the fact that private sector CEOs don't want to pay a fair wage… it would hurt their multi-million dollar bottom line!
Private sector employees need to band together and form a union… then you'll see wages start to rise again!
Obama 2012
2) People that have never been in a Union know nothing about a Union ,
With out Unions you would not have trained skilled professionals doing the job ,
Unions are that edge that America has , It's not a college , It's an organization that trains the workers just in that job to do that job with all of the technical expertise needed .
It's education employees need and it gives America that leg up on the 3 rd world countries ,
It really angers me when The Very Stupid of all Americans " The Republicans", run their fascist mouth .
3)Not sure I understand what you are saying.
It seems that you are alleging that a public employee's salary is not their own to spend as they see fit? That it is subject to the whim of the taxpayer, even though it is compensation for services proved to the taxpayer, such as educating their children? Picking up their garbage? Plowing snow off their streets?
That is like saying your employer has the right to prohibit you from spending your salary to purchase products made by a competitor. A'int none of his business.
And, oh, yeah, public employees are tax payers also
If a majority of public employees vote for an exclusive representative to be their bargaining representative, and part of the obligation they incur to that bargaining representative is the payment of dues from THEIR salary, that is NONE of the (non-public employees) taxpayers business.
Public employee bargaining representatives do not bargain with elected officials. They bargain with management, and the representatives hired by management.
It appears that some non-public employee taxpayers are more disgruntled by the lack of success at the bargaining table by management's representatives, and thus want to take away the collective bargaining rights of the public employees.
This argument seems to be more along the lines of "I am taking my ball and going home"
First off, wow. The extent of the ignorance on display here is quite astonishing. Among other things it belies a failure not to teach basic economics, but basic common sense.
Who pays a teachers salary? The tax payer. Does this make them taxpayers? Of course not. They give back some proportion of what they got. They are not generating ANY net wealth.
This is not to say they are not needed–of course we need teachers–but it is to say that it is STUPID to argue that their money can come from any place other than the productive private sector.
One person also fails to distinguish between public and private sector employees. This is also stupid, as it is fundamentally different in the private sector as the employers are spending THEIR OWN MONEY, and not someone else's.
One person claims that the negotiations happen with management. Who does management work for? The government. Who allocates the money for the salaries? The legislature or school board. Duh.
Further, the point is missed that teachers are not CHOOSING to join unions. They have NO CHOICE. They can't work and not join. The law prohibits it. So even if their preference would be NOT to send 10% of every check to some hack, they can't not do it.
Finally, we see this idiotic claim that wages are down because the rich are keeping their money. What evidence can be shown of this? We are in a recession: all companies are down. Some are sitting on cash in the hope Obama will not get reelected, but reelecting him will not liberate that money.
Our core economic problem is the subversion of our currency, and government interference in the economy, as in Fannie Mae and the like. That is a much longer discussion, and not suitable for cartoon treatment, which is all some want.