Unions: Private Versus The Public

Unions, Private Versus the Public An important question in the world of business and how they interrelate to their employees is the use of unions. The fundamental use of unions weas mostly used in private sector, causing difficulties for the success of the public union. For example, Florida’s Supreme Court observed in United Teachers of Dade vs. Dade County School Board, 500 So.2d 508 (1986) that “it would be impractical to require that collective bargaining procedures … be identical in the public and the private sectors. Myriad distinctions, not just those of procedures, exist between public and private collective bargaining, and have been noted by the highest courts of several sister states.” (Unuionwatch.org). There are three major …show more content…
(1) It can pass legislation requiring industries to meet those minimum desired standards, or (2) it can pass legislation-permitting workers to collectively bargain, to meet the ever-changing standards within the confines of the market. A negative aspect of the implementation of public unions can be summarized by Wellington and Winter the authors of The Unions and Cities. If unions are able to withhold labor—to strike— … they may possess a disproportionate share of effective power in the process of decision. A large part of a mayor’s political constituency will in many cases, press for a quick end to the strike with little concern for the cost of settlement. Interest groups other than public employees … may be put at a significant competitive disadvantage in the political process. . . . In the long run strikes may become too effective a means for redistributing income; so effective indeed that one might see them as an institutionalized means of obtaining and maintaining a subsidy for union members (The Unions and Cities, pg. 225). In Raymond Goetz’s review of the book, he summarizes that the private and public sectors collective bargaining techniques require a much different approach. To quote the authors: Even Franklin Roosevelt considered a strike by public employees ”unthinkable and intolerable” (The Unions and Cities, pg. 37). However the authors quickly understood …show more content…
However his opinion on public unions is much more critical: Public-sector unions, he thinks they ...don't work like this. They aren't bargaining against capitalists for a fair cut of the cooperative surplus. They're bargaining against everybody who pays taxes and/or benefits from government spending. The question of distribution in democratic politics isn't about splitting up jointly produced profits. It's about interest groups fighting to grab a bigger share of government revenue while sticking competing groups with the tax bill (Democracy in America, The Economist). Another opinion from the Econimist.org, sites an argument for equal public and private unions for an equal distribution. In this environment, it's quixotic to argue that private-sector unions (which are withering) are legitimate, while public sector ones aren't. It might be interesting to consider the merits of an economy with 50% private-sector unionization and no public-sector unionization at all, but that's not an economy we could conceivably get at this point (Democracy in America, The Economist). In summation there are differing opinions as to what would be better for the economy or better for the individual laborer. I believe an equal distribution of both private and public sector unions with an emphasis on the laborer would