2008 Woodie Awards
An infringement of workers' rights
Scott Snyder
Issue date: 2/25/08 Section: Opinions
Over the last few weeks, there's been talk of a strike at UIC authorized by a vast majority of the workers. However, the whole concept of unions has been corrupted from their original intent. The original unions fought for better workplace conditions and better compensation for workers. Since then, the federal government has enacted legislation regarding most things the original unions fought for. Now, unions are headed by greedy union leaders only looking out for themselves. The driving force behind unions now is to get the workers better benefits, only so the leaders can take more of the members' hard earned money.
I understand that some workers consider themselves under-compensated, but should people get a raise simply because they think they deserve it or have worked somewhere longer? I thought that raises were given on the basis of the quality of work produced as well as the time spent working. However, union leaders push for additional benefits and wages just so they can take a bigger part of the pay check. The union leadership is better off, the workers are slightly better off, but the employer and the general public end up becoming much worse off.
Unions interrupt the equilibrium of free markets. They monopolize labor and set a premium price on it. They force contracts on employers that demand inefficiently high wages and benefits as well as guaranteeing job "security" for its members. The contracts make it unreasonably difficult to fire unproductive workers. They bully employers to accept the terms of these contracts. If employers reject them, the workers may threaten to strike. Instead of earning an honest wage for an honest day's work, union workers receive nice wages for doing less work than they should, while the only work union leaders do is take money out of their member's paycheck and fight with employers every time a contract is up. Historically, unions were necessary in an age of children working in sweatshops. With reformed legislation in place, unions only serve to ruin the market so they can make money.
I understand that some workers consider themselves under-compensated, but should people get a raise simply because they think they deserve it or have worked somewhere longer? I thought that raises were given on the basis of the quality of work produced as well as the time spent working. However, union leaders push for additional benefits and wages just so they can take a bigger part of the pay check. The union leadership is better off, the workers are slightly better off, but the employer and the general public end up becoming much worse off.
Unions interrupt the equilibrium of free markets. They monopolize labor and set a premium price on it. They force contracts on employers that demand inefficiently high wages and benefits as well as guaranteeing job "security" for its members. The contracts make it unreasonably difficult to fire unproductive workers. They bully employers to accept the terms of these contracts. If employers reject them, the workers may threaten to strike. Instead of earning an honest wage for an honest day's work, union workers receive nice wages for doing less work than they should, while the only work union leaders do is take money out of their member's paycheck and fight with employers every time a contract is up. Historically, unions were necessary in an age of children working in sweatshops. With reformed legislation in place, unions only serve to ruin the market so they can make money.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Scott
posted 2/27/08 @ 9:59 PM CST
I found out today that in order for UIC to have something painted it costs $50 an hour with a 4 hour minimum, assuming my source is correct. (Campus Housing) So it will cost $200 to stain one door. (Continued…)
Post a Comment