But safety is now a matter of Federal OSHA standard, and there is not much need for unions at this point to address any particular grievances. Most issues of labor law are handled at both Federal and State levels.
Union workers do get more money, but they also pay a healthy part of it back to the Union. As Roger Miller sang: “Old worn out suit and shoes; I don’t pay no union dues.” I assume he means that yes, he is poor, but no, he isn’t forking over his money to someone else.
To the extent they are still useful I think unions should think of themselves as educational institutions, the graduates of which have EARNED the right to charge more money because they do better work. This is reasonable, and I think to a great extent the case. Some buildings only use union workers not because some goons from back east threatened them, but because they do better work and are overall more reliable.
And of course as I’ve probably commented often, public sector unions are a non-starter. In the private sector business owners want to keep wages down, while unions want to raise them. They negotiate something they can both live with. In the public sector the governments wants to pay their own workers–themselves–more and so do the unions. There is nothing to control costs. Add to this the fact that the same people who are doing handsomely can then turn around and use the union funds they collect from people required by law to pay them, to help elect people who will allocate them even MORE money, and the whole thing becomes ludicrous. There is no justification for public sector unions.
With respect to law enforcement specifically, I do think some form of collective legal representation is reasonable. Cops are often accused of things they didn’t do. They are also accused of things they did do. But I think all public pensions should be eradicated. They create too much hassle. And all the laws government retirement savings should be liberalized. I personally think we should adopt something like what Milton Friedman talked Chile into, where people have to save a percentage of their income for retirement, but where and how they invest it is up to them.
Keep in mind Social Security is inherently a negative investment. Inflation alone means would you get back only, say, 75% of the dollars you put in, and that is only IF your remittances had not already been spent on the generation before you. Add to this the overhead of a 62,000 person organization, and the whole thing makes zero sense from an investment and financial perspective.