Monday, July 7, 2014

File Under "N"...

...For "No S**t Sherlock"...

Unions representing government workers are gaining
Unions representing government workers are expanding while organized labor has been shedding private sector members over the past half-century.

A majority of union members today now have ties to a government entity, at the federal, state or local levels.

Roughly 1-in-3 public sector workers is a union member, compared with about 1-in-15 for the private sector workforce last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Overall, 11.3 percent of wage and salary workers in the United States are unionized, down from a peak of 35 percent during the mid-1950s in the strong post-World War II recovery.
So, basically, union membership is five-fold higher among the ranks of government employees. You know, the ones that shouldn't need to be union? I mean, we are told over and over, ad nauseum, about how unions came about because eeeeeevil big business was exploiting workers and how that forming unions was the only way to stop that from happening, right?

Do they mean to insinuate that, absent the power of the union, the Federal government would start exploiting their workers?

Honestly, can anyone explain this to me? Other than self-perpetuation, what, exactly, does a union comprised of Federal employees offer to its members? Other than making them basically impossible to fire, demote, or otherwise discipline for anything short of capital murder, that is. Look, unions had their place in history. There may even be some modicum of use for them in unskilled labor pools (very doubtful, but a case could be made).

But when you're talking about, by and large, professional people working for the Federal government? It is positively mind-boggling to believe that, without the unions, that the government would take advantage of the employees, it really is. With the myriad of rules, regulations, and other hoops that government agencies have to go through to do *anything*, it's highly doubtful that "exploit those that work for us" is anywhere near the top ten worries...

Why would they take advantage of those they can already fleece?

That is all.

Another dispatch from...
(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

6 comments:

Old NFO said...

Follow the money... Unions can extract a higher payment from .gov workers...

Ancient Woodsman said...

Government union cronyism to me is best illustrated here by the PFFNH. Their president is a retired guy, but such a good lobbyist that they modified their rules so he could stay in office after he retired.

Unknown said...

And the unions keep donating campaign money to the democrat incumbents. Are they simultaneously saying that govt leadership is evil and the unions are necessary to protect the workers and also that they recommend the current dem incumbents?

Glenn B said...

Jay,

You hit it on the head. I said it for decades while employed by the feds - we dunt need no stinkun unions. It was kind of nice for me though, that is once the unions were out for fed LEOs.

I was in a union until Ronald Reagan or GHWB - one of them - forbade federal law enforcement to unionize. In a union one day and out the next day but with a decent raise in the form of me keeping what had been my union dues. Screw unions and their greed driven corruption, screw any government that does not compensate and protect its own employees well enough for them not to see the need to unionize and screw employees who just want more, more, more for les, less, less.

All the best,
Glenn B

Ed said...

Unionization worked so well for the Boston Police Department in 1919. When two-thirds of the BPD walked out on strike, Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge (later U.S. President) said "There is no right to strike against the public safety, anywhere, anytime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Police_Strike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge

Cargosquid said...

Even FDR was against public unions.