How Unionism Created
the Coming Jobs Depression
By: Jabram Raven
Allen
Jan. 27th
2011
Due to Union
opposition in creating a three tier work force consisting of : civic workers (
workers that would rely upon our current government for employment in areas of
public works and service; while accepting a 1/3 salary cut in those salaries
normally earned by both Union and private sector workers in exchange for job
permanency, compensatory benefits, no union representation), private sector
workers (those willing to compete in an open job market for lucrative business opportunities
while risking frequent unemployment, lack of employee representation and
bargaining power usually provided by unions), and finally Union workers that
rely upon Unions to secure steady employment, healthy work conditions and benefits
through collective bargaining and their ability to organize, support, and
implement public protest against employers which are capable of disrupting
productivity; thus preventing corporate stock holders from benefiting from
their investments in various industries.
During times of
socio-economic difficulty, Unions damage a state/city government’s ability to utilize
revenues generated from state/city sales taxes to maintain/upgrade its
infrastructure and services by insisting upon wages that employers may not be
able to provide – this is because wages are directly related to the cost of
goods and expenditures needed for their creation; whereas private and civic
workers may be willing to work for whatever wages and benefits are offered by
existing employers including the government. Due to their dependence upon State
and Federal government to provide workers for various projects at cost, civic
workers (which may consist of individuals that are considered unemployable by
private sector employers or Unions) will work for much lower wages than Union
workers that insist upon a particular set of wages or private sector workers
that are willing to operate based upon a feast or feminine reality within the
job market which creates a mercenary perspective within private sector workers.
Civic workers which
consist of individuals that are considered unemployable within the job market
are able to provide their state of origin with inexpensive labor in exchange
for on job training (OJT), basic social health benefits: housing, medical care,
food/clothing vouchers, etc. benefits that the state formerly provided through
various programs such as SSI/SSDI, Food Stamps, or General Assistance. Private
and Union workers are not willing to work under this type of arrangement; thus
they may prove more expensive than their state of origin can afford. For
instance, under this arrangement civic workers may cost 2/3 of what a Union or private
sector worker may cost to perform the same type of labor. This decreased labor
cost allows both State and Federal government to initiate and complete much
needed repairs to our public infrastructure during times of serious
socio-economic impairment which could not be done under the costs required to
employ both private sector and Union workers.
However; there is a difference between management and labor when it
comes to Public workers just as there is a difference between management and
labor in the Private sector. Each sector, both public and private has come to
possess an innate ruling class which is often over paid in comparison to their
non-management brethren who work for much lower wages. This phenomenon of an
elite class in terms of management and labor also exist amongst various occupations
required to operate those parts of our city infrastructure that requires
contact between city and federal employees and private citizens which may
increase or decrease based upon differences in various states -- for
example a nurse in Boston may perform the same type of work as a nurse in San
Francisco, but earn much less based upon the cost of living differences in both
cities. However, this may not have entered the nurse’s thinking of moving from
Boston to San Francisco in order to gain more substantial pay and benefits, nor
the fact that she/he may be displacing another nurse who is a native of San
Francisco by pushing that individual out of the job market and onto public
assistance; thus increasing the strain upon the city’s social welfare system.
What is in the nurse’s mind is that they perceive Boston’s pay rate for
nurses as being unfair when compared to San Francisco’s pay rate for nurses. It
is also quite likely that this fiction of unfair pay rates between San
Francisco and Boston nurses is intentionally unaddressed by Nursing Unions in
Boston who willing allow the Boston nurse to persist in their belief of unfair
pay differences perhaps to suit their own agenda such as getting nurses in
Boston to fight for a higher unnecessary rate of pay. This is based upon the
fact that Unions themselves are not monolithic entities with identical goals,
visions and perspectives.
According to CHARLES V.
BAGLI of the New York Times in an article published December 9,
2010, as stated by Gary LaBarbera,
president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York,
a 100,000-member federation of electricians, iron workers and operating
engineers “at times there will be competing interests between public- and
private-sector unions.” In short, it may be in a Unions best interest to:
misrepresent the work and living conditions of worker’s in another state in
order to get workers behind their particular agenda; play ball with political
parties whose socio-economic philosophies are out of alignment with their own
even at the expense of workers in other occupations, or consider other
occupations not as valuable as their own and therefore expendable. This
behavior would explain why Unions may prove territorial in nature and actually
fight off other Unions in order to preserve their place in the pecking order,
or to even dislodge another Union.
To resolve this issue
and return as many U.S. citizens to work, it would be necessary to create three
classes of labor in which the phenomenon of elitism amongst labor is dispersed
and wages are stabilized. The means of creating these three classes would be to
1) national standardization of wages within the public sector; 2) decreasing
the wage disparity between management and labor within the public sector, 3)
removal of unions from the public sector; while creating a standard basic
social health benefit agreement which is enforced by government agencies such
as OSHA and others; 4) exclusion of Union labor from projects that require
continual maintenance and possess high turnover in order to keep such
maintenance from exceeding state and federal affordability cost; thus
preventing much needed maintenance of state/city infrastructure from being
discontinued and resulting in public health hazards and deteriorating public
services.
These steps would
result in creating a situation in which unions would be forced to compete in
the private sector against non-unionized workers while decreasing expenses
within the public sector; thus making it possible for workers that are
considered unemployable to be hired within the public sector and perform labor
in areas that would be undesirable to both Union and Private sector workers.
Comments
Post a Comment