24 March 2011. My thoughts are these. On style I note a deceit of having two people who are for unions discussing the effects of unions. Though the writer claims to have been anti-union, the ensuing discussion is one-sided, disguising persuasion as objectivity. On issues of public sector unions, my thoughts are more complex.
I am for unions and right-to-work laws. I do not condone that a simple majority of workers joining together in a union – whatever the workplace – may compel all workers to be members, pay dues, and adhere to union directives. I put my individual rights (and hence the rights of other individuals) above the rights of groups – however constituted. Unions should compete with other workplace options for my loyalty. I note here that a badger is a solitary animal not a herd animal.
In the private sector, I see declining union membership sector as due to an unintended consequence of laws that regulate workplace safety and rights, child labor, and minimum wages – and not to the efforts of greedy capitalists. Many of the issues that gave rise to unions no longer exist. Further, “capitalists” (those who build companies and hire labor) have learned that labor is a resource/tool set essential to long-term success of their enterprise: A satisfied workforce is absent less, engages in less sabotage and work stoppage, and understands that the quality of the goods and services of a firm are essential to the long-term health of the company and their job. Right-thinking capitalists do what they can to insure they have a stable satisfied work force. Having learned this lesson and taken steps consonant with its implications, over the past few generations capitalists have decreased the need of unions.
Public sector unions are another matter. There are a variety of reasons why I see them differently. Taxes are the source of funds to pay worker salaries and benefits. Since I view taxes as takings from citizens, these should be minimized, their expenditure should be scrutinized with the most stringent and skeptical eye, and be free of corruption. None of these conditions hold at present in any government with which I am familiar. The most cited example of corruption is the circle of support: union dues –> Democrats’ campaign funds –> elected democrats increasing worker pay and benefits. The most egregious aspect of this circle is that a public sector worker with strong conservative values who seeks limited government must watch as union leaders send money to politicians who espouse views totally contrary to his beliefs. The herd tramples the badger here. If honest accounting accompanied proposals to fund increases in pay and benefits and if expenditures were required to be fully funded at all times (two actions that would bring unfunded liabilities under control and force the future tax increases into the present), I would be willing to trust the electorate to discriminate among the persons vying for office. Unfortunately, our elected officials seem incapable of enacting either of these honest actions. Short of making programs actuarially sound from the moment of initiation, a careful and skeptical scrutiny of expenditures might serve the same purpose. Both Republicans and Democrats resist this type of scrutiny. So we are left with a large pool of individuals who derive their income from the tax pool and who return a fraction back into the tax pool: Such individuals are not affected by tax increases as long as they can negotiate en masse for higher wages and benefits. They are in fact, not net taxpayers, but rather net tax receivers. Now, I am willing to say that teachers, firefighters, police and government workers are doing useful and honest work for which they should receive just compensation, yet among these groups there are no competing forces to increase productivity, lessen costs, and reduce featherbedding. In fact, the forces are aligned in the opposite direction. This has to change. Since the 1970’s education expenditures have more than doubled in inflation-adjusted constant dollars – to what effect. A well-run company that received a doubling of capital investment would generally present a much different performance profile. So let there be unions, but let me choose whether I want to belong.
As you know from past writings, I am disgusted by the amount of tax takings in this country. Further, I am disgusted by the notion that the “rich” must pay their fair share, in which the definition of “fair share” is simply more. At times I am tempted to respond in kind, by saying that net tax users (as opposed to payers) should not be eligible to vote on tax increases. To date, I have managed to maintain a relative state of personal calm and usually vote for the most fiscally conservative candidate who is not a Republican or Democrat. Systems usually work until they stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment