Public Sector Unions: Compatible with our Constitution?

Daniel Henninger has an excellent column in today’s WSJ. The net is that Public Sector unions, signed into being by JFK via Executive Order, are bankrupting the country and are nothing more than dues machines for the Democrat party. (You may need a subscription to read the column.)

People need to think about the rationale for unions, the purpose of American government, and decide what they think is right, because these unions basically are unaccountable to the Public they purport to serve, and are a penalty on Americans that is bankrupting the States one-at-a-time.

The purpose of a union is to represent labor in negotiations with those who pay their salaries. Intelligent Management balances union demands against the profit and investment required to continue functioning and continue providing jobs for union members. Intelligent Labor leaders understand that too many demands and not enough negotiation will kill ALL the jobs, as happened in Detroit absent government intervention.

But the core is this: Labor and Management work to create a balanced environment that works for both.

The problem with Public Sector unions is this: This balance CANNOT be created in the Public Sector, hence no reason exists for the politicians to back-down the unions.

By definition Public Sector unions cannot negotiate with those who pay their salaries (taxpayers), and those with whom they DO negotiate (pols) have no profit motive to balance the negotiations; they just cave and spend other peoples’ money: that of the taxpayer. And when they run out they borrow (states) or print (Feds) more.

Coolidge rightly fired the Boston police when he was Mayor, noting that public employees have no right to strike. Reagan rightly fired PATCO (and got the attention of the USSR when he did, as many recall) for the same reason.

Public Sector unions CANNOT negotiate with those who pay their salaries – we taxpayers – ergo, there is NO rationale for their existence as no balance can be struck and no benefit to the public can be derived – only a penalty on the public is possible with Public Sector unions.

The several states can outlaw these unions through right-to-work laws or the simpler expedient of firing them, as did Coolidge and Reagan. The response of a lawsuit to SCOTUS should immediately and decisively be to challenge Public Sector unions along the lines above: No benefit to the citizens of the US arises from the unionization of the Public Sector, no neutrality of result to the citizens, only penalties.

As the Constitution defines the role of our government as providing the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness, and as Public Sector unions stand in direct opposition to that pursuit (by providing ONLY penalties to the public), states must be allowed to outlaw them. Alternatively, of course, either a new Exec Order overturning JFK’s (immediately appealed to SCOTUS by the Left) or a Constitutional Amendment (very difficult) are the only ways to solve a problem that is bankrupting the nation.

One of the other must be done, or our kids will have no freedom at all to pursue their happiness, as they will be working for the benefit of the government sector more than half of their days. In CA I already work for some level of the Government about 50% of my time, which means my children’s standard of living and futures are being given away to unions over whom I have ZERO control.

This may be alot of things, but it is neither right nor moral nor in-line with our Constitution.

About Alex Scipio

About Alex Scipio: Alex moved out of the People's Republic of California to the Free State of Arizona, finally tiring of the lack of the Bill of Rights, the overgrown idiocracy, and the catering to non-Americans & welfare recipients. He still wonders how America got from Truman, Eisenhower, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan to the Liberal and Conservative extremes so badly managing America today. And, yes, islam DOES need to be annihilated. And doing what he can to get folks away from the extremes of political life.
This entry was posted in Domestic, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Public Sector Unions: Compatible with our Constitution?

  1. adam hamm says:

    Great article and great response to charlie! Lol funny. I notice charlie shut his pie-hole!

  2. Alex Scipio says:

    Charlie: Thanks for reading. As to my statement that Coolidge had been mayor – you are right and I was mistaken. Thanks for pointing it out. He was governor, as you stated. I’d read a bio of him a few years back and had forgotten and did not check. My bad.

    Regarding PATCO, your thoughts on the PATCO firing are at-odds with most pundits of the era. Most wrote that Gorbachev and other E European leaders realized Reagan wasn’t to be trifled with as a result of his firing of those participating in the illegal strike. Here’s a reference for
    you:http://research.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/3/6/1/p153618_index.html

    Regarding “alot,” I am aware it is a colloquialism. I use colloquialisms alot on this site. No need to point it out to me, I am aware when I do so. Perhaps if you are going to critique a colloquialism, you ought not begin that sentence with a conjunction? Just a thought.

  3. Charlie says:

    I certainly enthusiastically agree with the gist of this article, but you could use an editor/fact checker.

    “Coolidge rightly fired the Boston police when he was Mayor, noting that public employees have no right to strike. Reagan rightly fired PATCO (and got the attention of the USSR when he did, as many recall) for the same reason.”

    Coolidge was governor, not mayor, and he didn’t actually fire the police (but he did support it). I don’t think Reagan’s handling of PATCO had much effect on the USSR – certainly such items as SDI were of exponentially greater significance to them.

    Also, although people do say “a lot” a lot (probably too much), there’s no such word as “alot.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *