Look for the Union Label...And then Avoid It
I'll spare you all my predictable rant describing why unions reduce quality of outputs and create elitist institutions that foster exclusion. I'd rather ask any collectivists out there a more fundamental question. Why would government workers ever need to unionize? The argument for the necessity of unions (at least, the only one that ever made any kind of sense to me) is that they protect the individual from the harsh bottom line thinking of the capitalist profit motive. But the government does not operate with a profit motive. Therefore, it has no incentive to reduce costs and "underpay" employees. In fact, the government looks for political support from its employees and, therefore has an incentive to overpay...which it usually does. In the realm of governmental employment a union serves as just another layer of bureaucracy that adds additional expense (by siphoning of dues) and adds no value.
Good for the GOP (for once) in keeping unions out of the anti-terror bill. The American people would be far better served if unions were kept out of all governmental employment.
Posts
4 comments:
For what its worth, I've always felt that unions were for two things, money and safety. Also, I agree a government union makes no sense as both of those are more than addressed (except perhaps for police and fire). I've never understood government unions, "We want more than the more we already get than everyone else with comparable skills and experience." Plus, last I read, governmental unions are either the largest or near the top of union membership nationwide. Governmental unions may be the last unions standing (which is what I think this whole thing is really about).
However, I disagree with the veto threat. Last I checked governmental employees are citizens, and citizens have the right to form unions. Given that DHS employees are basically alone with the anti-union clause, it puts the DHS at a disadvantage in hiring and it doesn't make sense that this branch is so different from HUD, DOT, etc that DHS employees don't have the right to unionize (Chertoff's reasoning is so flawed that it's not really worth debating his points). Personally its more about anti-union (which I mostly am) than any other reason (which may be enough). But all things considered I think its an unfair clause,so I don't support the exception.
More interesting is the fact that the Dems lack the courage to send it to W to force him to veto it. Make him defend his veto. They have control now, show some guts.
PS. I absolutely despise the line "If the final bill contains such a provision, forcing you to veto it, we pledge to sustain your veto." from Senate Republicans. For the love of Pete, you're supposed to be equal to the President, show some dignity.
I'm curious...my understanding is that police and firemen are barred from striking. That seems reasonable to me even though it clearly takes away rights from them that others have. However, there is a good reason for taking those rights. Do you think there is a liberties issue with that prohibition? Or is it fair that different occupations afford different levels of personal freedom? We get to choose any job we want so if we don't like the lack of liberty one profession affords we can simply avoid it.
This seems to bring up the concept of substitutes. I'm beginning to think that it is perfectly reasonable for some professions to be stripped of certain rights and liberties (within reason) if there are compelling reasons to do so. Then, the individual has the freedom to take those facts into account when considering a profession. If the lack of liberty proves onerous then workers will be hard to find and something will have to give. I believe the fact that there are substitutes keeps certain restrictions from being problematic as it still allows people the freedom to choose how much liberty they want.
So, if that analysis holds up I would energetically support a ban on all government unions. And expect all other decent people to join me on the baracades.
While I get that you would support a ban on government unions, the question is why should government employees have to give up that right. For police, fire and military, sure it makes sense, but what about the average bureaucrat's gig implies they should have to give up that right? What's the "good reason?"
I'm concerned that this is more of an anti-union stand than a real "you can't unionize because (x real need)." All jobs have substitution effects, they're just not always Federally mandated.
Unions are a counter against management. It is a defined adversarial role. In the case of government workers, the "other side" is the American people. The role of a democratic government is "only" to serve the people. Therefore, I think it is reasonable that unions, seeing as they are completely unnecessary, should not be allowed as a protection for the American people. I do not believe this affects anyone's right to organize, because they can always get a job with GM if they want to organize. Just like keeping smoking legal in bars does not infringe on anyone's right to not inhale smoke. They can just get another job. As long as there is a substitute you are not being compelled. A Government worker would not be compelled to be non-union as they can always get a job with a union shop in the private sector.
Post a Comment