Quote:
Public employee unions are a scourge on the economy, contribute nothing to the society, and cater only to the lowest of base values against the values of the society that pays for them, to the benefit of government employees who have both the legislature to protect them from unfair employment factors, and unions to overwhelm the government employers.
This last group is not only offers the least improvement to society, but also seems to be the most likely lately to abuse their political capacity to install weak kneed legislators who are installed to do the public employees union's bidding.
|
This perspective is simply incorrect. First of all, employee unions (governmental or not) exist to protect the union members and enhance their compensation and working conditions. Period. Improvements that unions win for their employees often transfer to non-union employees, and subsequently trickle into the population in general, but that is not the priority of any union.
In the end, unions have only one lever to pull, withholding services. That capability is denied to many public employees because they are allegedly "protected" from workplace abuse by their employer...but what if their employer is following a political agenda and finds it politically expeditious to attack them, rather than protect them?
Yeah, unions can sometimes be mobilized politically. When a sentiment is widespread, beyond the specific interests of one union, this can have an effect at the voting booth, as it did in Ohio and will in Wisconsin. In Ohio, the citizenry voted specifically, and rather overwhelmingly, to retain public unions.
Are there governmental union members who are overcompensated and under worked? Surely. Just like in every other sector. However, I know of many situations that are on the other end of that equation. In some states, elementary school teachers are now required to have a master's degree. That can take six or seven years. Then, they might get a part-time position (if they are lucky), at $24,000 per year, without benefits. Not only have they paid to go to school for six years (minimal investment of $90k with tuition, books, and housing), but they have been out of the workplace during that same time. Had they taken even a minimum wage out of high school, they would have made $60,000 during that same time. Thus, a teacher starts a career around $150,000 in the hole, compared to a working high school graduate. And for what? The "big bucks"? Maybe....sometime in the future. But they still have that $150k hole to climb out of.
And someone thinks THESE people don't have a legitimate need for a strong union?