Inevitable Outcome

The concept of a union is fairly basic and at one time there was arguable justification. Workers were at the mercy of greedy capitalists, aka the "owners of the means of production." The factory owner could demand outrageous effort and dictate unreasonable compensation under the threat of dismissal. There was no reason to provide safe working conditions if that would hamper production or increase overall operating costs. Upton Sinclair's 1906 book, "The Jungle", about conditions in the Chicago stockyards is illustrative of the time.

By unionizing the workers could present a single face to negotiate for better wages and conditions. They provided a counter-balance to the singular power of the owners. All well and good if you are talking about late 19th and early 20th century. The two-class society described by Marx was very apparent.

Time, however, has changed things. The emergence of the middle class, which Marx apparently never envisioned, means that ownership is not exclusive to a vested wealthy bourgeoisie. Workers rise in the corporate world to management. Profit-sharing plans allow employees to be a part of the enterprise. Investments let shareholders participate in management decisions. It isn't a us-or-them environment anymore. Yet, unions persist in the north and east of this nation. Despite the decline of the industrial base that can clearly be linked to the outrageous demands of the unions which drive wages and benefits without regard to profit or value of labor. The unions still wield power.

The market compels a company to provide a competitive wage. Common sense leads owners to conclude that keeping an experienced worker is less costly than training a series of beginners to replace him. Workplace safety is under public scrutiny and failures will impact the bottom line. If company A provides a package of benefits, company B will need to offer similar attractions to compete effectively in the labor market.

So, where do unions look for their power today? If competitive business finds it easier to operate in areas without unions making outrageous demands, then the only place to organize workers and milk the coffers of the employer is the public sector.

That simply doesn't make sense, does it? Government doesn't seek profit. There is no motivation for government to oppress workers. Why would workers need to unite for protection against the very government which they fund for public goods? It isn't about protection anymore. It is the Willie Sutton response to "Why do you rob banks?" His correct reply was, "Because that's where the money is."

Now this:

Pad the Overtime, Skip the Streets, Make the City Pay

Reports are now trickling in of deaths as a result of this malfeasance. Dissatisfaction by the residents of the city and demands for legal recourse are being raised.

This was a snow storm. What about police and fire protection? What about health and sanitation issues? What will be the next manifestation of the venality of the modern public employees union?