|
In economies there are private sector unions and public sector [government] unions. Public sector unions serve no useful purpose as far as I can see, and in fact there’s an inherent problem in even having these public sector unions. The reason for this is that normally, in the relationship, there is an employer who is protecting the interests of the company, in this case the shareholders, and a union who is fighting for the workers. Both sides have a kind of tug-of-war to find a reasonable compromise on workers’ wages while still preserving the profitability of the company.
The problem with the public sector union is that they are essentially bargaining with the politicians, who have a vested interest in giving into the unions which give them campaign contributions. Not only this, but the politicians aren’t parting with their own money, they’re actually parting with the taxpayers’ money.
So what you really end up with is a conspiracy of unions and politicians to rip off the taxpayer, which has been happening on a scandalous scale across the United States in recent history and is the reason so many states have approached fiscal crisis if not bankruptcy.
The private sector unions, on the other hand, have historically served a purpose. So I have no objection to collective bargaining in and of itself, but I do object to the sort of mafia style strong arm tactics that unions often use which sometimes reach such a point that they make the companies themselves unproductive.
A prime example is the way in which the unions in Detroit have dragged down the American auto companies. Japanese companies are making cars, not just in Japan, but also in non-union states, more cheaply and of better quality, which is the reason that Detroit has been having its problems.
Author, Commentator and President of The King's College, Dinesh D'Souza
Respond
|
