Unions; Public vs. Private

The union showdown in Wisconsin is drawing public ire for the following reasons. The unions being targeted in Wisconsin are government employee unions (public servant unions), not private sector unions. The right to collectively bargain that is at issue is for benefits only, not for wages. So the left stating that it is all about busting the unions is at best, disingenuous. The passage of the bill will not take away their right to bargain for wages and it only affects public sector unions, not private unions. It gives the government the freedom to amend the pension plans going forward and to address the projected shortfalls. It addresses the very real problems associated with a defined benefits pension plan. The projected shortfalls in pension funding are real and that is what this bill will fix going forward.

This bill does not alter collective bargaining rights in any way for private unions. It does weaken the government employee union's political influence, such as monetary support for candidates by reducing the size of their coffers. it does this by discontinuing the automatic payroll deductions for union dues. In this way, only those union members that actively send voluntary contributions as dues will be funding the unions. Not all members of unions appreciate the ways in which their dues are used to support political candidates that they may or may not personally support.

It is because of that single provision that President Obama weighed in on the subject. And he did much more than just weigh in, he is actively participating in fomenting a contrived opposition. His political campaign apparatus known as "Organizing for America" has bussed in thousands of "rent-a-protesters" and had signs professionally printed up for his rent a mob. He is afraid of losing his base. The very unions that handed him the Presidency are under direct assault and he is lashing out at the attackers. Those attackers just happen to be ordinary citizens and politicians that are fiscally conservative and this will come back to bite him and it is also going to be very damaging to the democratic party in general.

Unions served a valid purpose years ago, but they have outlived their usefulness as attested to by the rapid decline on overall union membership over the past few decades. In fact, the only unions that have grown at all are public sector unions. And lets face it, these people are supposed to serve the public not have the public serve them. They get loads of paid holidays that most do not get. They get great benefits that they pay little or nothing for. They have job security that most do not. They have higher average wages than most. What makes them feel so entitled as to organize into labor unions at all? They do not suffer the ills that prompted the advent of unions in the first place.

You see, government should run more like a business. If it did perhaps unions would have been a necessity years ago, but not now. The elected politicians pass laws that the bureaucracy implements. Where is the "management to labor" relationship? It doesn't exist! So why do they need a union to begin with?