Unions and our Economy

Unions, whether you or for them or against them, have incited much anger recently.  The self-employed or those who are not members of a union have suffered tremendously over the past few years.  Economies all over the world have languished, sunk into recession, and are struggling to creep their way out.  Part of this problem (and only part) is the unions role, especially in the public sector of maintaining the status quo of pre-recession economics.  Before the recession hit hard, almost everyone had a pension, yearly salary increases, and assistance in paying for medical benefits.  Currently, those who were employed without a union suffered pay-cuts, pension roll backs, and some lost their medical benefits entirely.  Yet if you look at union based jobs, they have not suffered nearly as much, forcing tax-payers to shoulder the expense, especially that of teachers, police, and fire-fighters.  So while they maintain their current salaries and benefits, (which states budgets across the country have proven are unsustainable) the rest of us with less money are forced to shell out more.  How does this make sense?  Now at one point, unions were a necessity.  People were grossly underpayed by their employers and taken advantage of.  This was close to a hundred years ago.  I would like to think that we have made some improvements along the way in terms of labor reform and fair pay scales.  Yet pay scales and benefits should reflect our current economic situation and they do not.  Now what I am about to say is probably going to anger a lot of people including some within my own family, but you know what, it needs to be said, and people need to realize it.  Let us start with fire-fighters and police.  They hold high risk jobs, I will not deny, but they work far fewer years than almost anyone else and receive lucrative benefits once they retire.  How about talking to someone who is working at Walmart making minimum wage and will have to work till they can't stand anymore in order to receive a paltry pension, if they receive one at all.  You make the comparison.  These jobs are a necessity, (police and fire-fighters) are a necessity to be sure, but they are currently unfairly compensated in relation to the rest of the population.  Now lets jump to teachers.  One of my biggest issues, amongst others, is tenure.  Tenure is the process by which after working for a certain number of years, a teacher can not be fired unless they sexually assault a child, commit some grave crime within the school or in public, or unless a 3" binder full of complaints is compiled against them.  Not doing their job well does not fall under this criterion.  There are teachers still currently working who are so out of touch with reality, past their prime, barely teaching students, who can not be fired.  If someone working for a fortune 500 company slacks off even a little bit, they are fired without a second thought because there are plenty of replacements.  How come teachers are immune to this.  One idea being circulated is merit-based pay.  This is an idea that is grounded in reality and could increase the quality of teachers at public schools while reducing costs.  Yet teachers' unions are fighting it.  Why, because they are opposed to changing with the times.  Lets move on to government and their pension funds.  (This I know will anger someone in my family).  There are a slew of government employees who after working for 20-30 years can retire before the national retirement age and make more from their pensions than 3 low-income families combined.  Yet this pension falls on the shoulders of the taxpayers including those low-income families.  For the majority of us, we must diligently save our money throughout our life, investing strategically, if we want to be able to stop working at some point.  That is, if we have excess money to put away we can do this.  There are millions of people out there who currently make barely enough to pay their mortgage, pay for utilities, and feed their children.  Yet public-sector unions keep fighting to maintain current salaries and benefits, totally disregarding our current economic plight.  Since I am from CT, I will provide a small example of the excessive burden each family would have if the government was forced pay pension liabilites and health care benefits all at once.  The amount that each family would have to pay exceeds $30,000 dollars.  NYTimes Magazine Graph Unions are an entrenched and powerful part of our society, a relic of a bygone era, and in dire need of restructuring.  Unions, especially their presidents and advocates need to be held accountable, yet they are currently untouchable.  No matter how we try, unions will not go away.  Maybe they shouldn't go away entirely, but their influence and power needs to be diminished greatly if we are to avoid an even more dire economic landscape in the future.  If you read my profile, I am self employed and thus I am admittedly biased as anyone in a similar position would be.  Everyone, and I mean everyone needs to take more responsibility, especially fiscally, if we are going to get ourselves out of this recession.  If the current situation in states across the U.S. remains unchecked and austerity measures are not implemented, then the recession we are creeping out of will seem like paradise compared to what will come in the future.  Unions need to be scaled back, and that goes for government as well (which is a whole other topic to be discussed), and unless we can figure out collectively how to do this, we will have issues in our future.  Until next time, look at your own finances and put a little more money away.