Jan

24

2010

Why do we need unions in Goverment?

by Tim Condon

Government employee unionization should be outlawed. Unlike all other employers, government at every level is a monopoly. Accordingly, people have no choice on whether to patronize the "business" of local, state, or federal government. There is no competition. Government employee unions can thus directly attack the public interest with impunity: Their employer cannot go out of business, and can merely "raise prices" (aka taxes) in order to meet union demands, something no other employer would dare to do, even if they had the capability. The "true employer" of government employees is the public, and unionization of government employees is therefore the creation of organizations squarely in opposition to the public interest. Government employee unionization is designed and operates to benefit politicians and the political class (of which public employee unions are a major part). They are a threat to the public welfare, as we are seeing throughout America. According to President Calvin Coolidge:  “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anyone, anywhere, any time.”

Like it? Share it!

by Tim Condon

I’ve been political my entire life, starting out with Barry Goldwater and The Conscience of a Conservative in the1960's. In 1972 I was a Florida presidential elector for Prof. John Hospers, the first Presidential candidate of the national Libertarian Party which was founded that same year. During the late 1970's and into the 1980's I was a contributing editor and monthly columnist for Reason magazine, and I’ve authored numerous articles in the print and online media about various subjects relating to individual rights and personal freedom. Today I'm a lawyer by profession; I divide my time between New Hampshire and Florida all year long, spending much of my time practicing law in Florida. As an early supporter and past member of the board of directors of the Free State Project, I was drawn to the Live Free or Die state of New Hampshire in late 2003 when it was chosen by a vote of the first 5,000 FSP participants. In 2004 I founded the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, and continue today to work within the state political system to advance the traditional NH values of frugal small government, low taxes, small business, free enterprise, and self-responsibility. To all, I say "Come and see what we are building in the beautiful, healthy, livable Free State of New Hampshire!"

See all posts by Tim Condon
Visit Tim Condon's website

Leave a Comment

  • http://newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com David Starr

    Amen. Bill Hemminger of the Wall St Journal had an editorial on this very subject just the other day. Hemminger blames JKF for a 1960′s executive order allowing unionization of federal workers.
    There is a difference between private sector unions and public sector unions. Private sector unions are about how to divvy up company earnings between workers, stockholders, management and owners. Public sector unions are about squeezing more money out of taxpayers, i.e. everybody.
    Public sector unions are more political than private sector unions. Since their wages are set by public officials, public sector unions work hard to elect public officials friendly to increased public pay.
    Was it me, I’d outlaw public sector unions completely. Unfortunately the public sector unions have substantial political influence and will use to block such a move.

  • Steve

    Coolidge’s statement means more than you may think…most public sector unions and almost all public safety departments do not have the right, by law, to strike. They can be fired for it. All public sector union contracts are either voted on directly by those who pay, (Town Meetings etc.) or by politicians elected by the public. Either way, the management (the people) has the right to either deny the raises directly or elect people who will. So without the right to strike against what the union believes to be levels of compensation/working conditions that are not acceptable and a public check on the compensation via the voting booth (either directly or through elected representation) the only way the union can get what they want is to have a majority of the support of taxpayers/voters. It’s up to the taxpayers to speak with their vote (much like they do with their wallet when purchasing a prviate sector service provided by a union) and to do so responsibly. Getting rid of something you don’t like or agree with (and trying to silence those voices) is a liberal/progressive stance. Using the power of the vote to create change would fit the conservative mold a little better.

Previous post:

Next post:


Notice in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of Federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "Fair Use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.