The Future is Local: Look for the Union Label
So you know what to avoid
There are some who would say that unions have a proud history in this great democracy of ours. They may have a point. Labor unions claim credit, with reasonable support, for things like the five-day work week and the eight-hour work day, and things like leave policies, sick time, and on and on. Some of those claims may have a grain of truth. Some are demonstrably overblown. But whichever way, unions have certainly had an impact on American society.
As with anything good, though, it has a limit here in this mortal world, and there’s a terrible trap in carrying it too far. I’d like to talk for a minute or two here about the gone-too-far version of unions that turn poisonous: government unions. First, let’s discuss the label “government union.” Those who align themselves with such racketeers typically use “public-sector union” instead. That’s a dodge, using “public” in much the same way the “we”-trap works: it offers a veneer of community approval, using “public service” as an exercise in stolen valor just as atrocious as any military impostor. You’re expected to respect and honor a member of a public-sector union. They just want to help. They’re servants of the people, you see.
Unfortunately, then there’s this:
Let me break down what you’re looking at there. That is a text sent out by my town’s chapter of the California Teachers Association, which is an affiliate of the National Education Association. It was sent to teachers in the Riverside Unified School District. For reference, Andrew Woodard is their endorsed candidate for an open school board seat on next month’s ballot, and the RCTA has bankrolled his campaign. Let’s put a pin in questions of Woodard’s suitability for the seat; we’ll come back to that. First, let’s look at the macro-level problem here.
In the classic model, union leaders represent all the dues-paying members in negotiations with the company’s owner(s). This negotiation service is paid for via the collection of dues from their members, who are the workers at the company. The owner pays the workers, using money earned by selling goods or services to consumers on the open market. By definition, then, unions skim money off the transactions between owners and workers, using the owners’ money against them.
In a private business, this is neither good nor bad. An individual owner can choose to contract with union labor or not (in most states, anyway). Owners voluntarily take on this kind of weird parasitic union-negotiation setup. Many would call this a bad deal for the owners, but sometimes it makes sense. The reasons it might make sense are complicated, however, and will carry us away from the point in play here, so I’ll leave that alone for now. Suffice it to say, owners of private businesses are free to deal with unions or not, and everybody knows who’s who, who wants what, and where the money is coming from to pay for it all.
Government unions work mostly the same way, but with an insidious twist. That twist is the source of the money. Government isn’t offering goods or services on the open market. Instead, government imposes taxes on the citizenry, and takes that money while only promising future services, not delivering anything up front. You’re paying taxes whether you get anything or not. That’s not a market exchange. In fact, it’s theft, but elaborating on that will again carry us away from the main point here, so I’ll leave that alone for now.
Your tax money is used to fund government programs. Public school is a government program, which employs teachers. The teachers in the public schools pay dues to a union. The teachers union uses that money to negotiate with … the government. The government that doesn’t actually make anything, but is instead funded by soaking money off of you. The government that is supposed to represent you.
So let’s bring this full circle to the screenshot of the text above. The people of Riverside paid taxes. Those taxes threaded their way through government, to the Riverside Unified School District, who used some (most?) of it to pay teachers, who in turn pay dues to the union. The union is using part of those dues to bribe its members (and anybody else who shows up) to knock doors for a political candidate the union has funded. So if you live in southeast Riverside, your tax money is being used to pay people who are trying to get you to vote in favor of “their” candidate. It’s a racket. You’re paying the people who are propagandizing you. Think about that for a minute.
While you think, let’s pull the pin we put in the candidate himself and talk about what’s going on there. Andrew Woodward is probably a nice guy. He probably loves his wife, coaches his kids’ soccer team, goes to church, wears his seat belt, gives to charity, and is an otherwise model citizen. But the union funded his campaign. You can’t credibly believe he would ever vote against the union’s interests. For him to do so would mean no funding for his next campaign. He is a political candidate who is guaranteed to perpetuate the pattern.
What is that pattern? Ever-increasing teacher salaries, which translates into ever-increasing union dues collection. The money to pay for that comes either from other school services (which means your kids get a worse and worse education) or by raising your taxes. Nothing about the teachers union’s activity is good for you or your family. Letting them finance a candidate who will sit on a board that’s supposed to see to your interests is a terrible idea.
There’s a Woodard in your town, too. The union that has affixed itself to your local schools has almost certainly funded a candidate they prefer, who they know will keep that sweet sweet money flowing to them. Find out who that candidate is, and don’t vote for that person. Let government unions know you’re done playing their game.
You are the owner of the company. And you get to pick who you contract with.