[quote=sdduuuude]You have side-stepped the point by trying to make this a public school vs private school discussion, which it is not.
It is a discussion about public jobs (school is a fine example) being served by union labor (monopoly) vs. non-union individuals.
For the same government job, there is no difference in overhead/profitability whether it is served by a union worker or by a non-union individual.
If you insert a “teaching contractor corporation” in between the employee and the employer then – yes – you will be paying profit overhead.
However, the cost is simply higher when you have to pay higher union wages than if you paid the employee directly. Take both the union and the private corporation out of the picture and there is no overhead at all.
I don’t buy for a second that those at the top of union structures aren’t in it for personal profit. Somehow unions have people convinced that they are for the public good. They are truly in it for themselves and behave exactly like greedy corporations. I don’t blame them for trying. It’s the American way, but when they unecessarily increase taxes under the guise of being lowly public servants, it is unacceptable and now comes the time for government employers to just say no to union labor.[/quote]
Okay, you’re trying to say that, given a particular position in government, having non-union members would be cheaper per position than having union members. I would agree with that to an extent; but how long do you think it would be before a “special interest” (corporation or union) got involved and tried to take over those jobs, negating any “savings” the govt might see?
The way I see it, we, as a society, can choose to have the profits derived from labor go to the workers (who create the profits in the first place) or to those who control access to money and power. When profits go to labor, they can be spent back into the economy as workers buy goods and services from others in their communities. When profits are concentrated into the hands of too few, those few will end up controlling all of the world’s resources — our land/housing supply, water, food, infrastructure and distribution channels, etc. and they will charge rent (fees, whatever you want to call it) for the use of these assets. The masses will not own anything, but will be forced to pay all of their earnings to those at the top who control (and own) access to all resources.
I believe an egalitarian system (this does NOT mean that everyone is paid the same, regardless of their abilities, BTW) allows a society to reach its greatest potential, economically and socially. I would rather see the wealth created by labor going to those who have earned it, rather than having it go to those who control the system. For this reason, I believe that the power of corporations and concentrated wealth must be countered by the power of individuals who work in concert. Without this balance, we will quickly slide into a situation where we will all be forced to work just to pay the wealthy “gatekeepers” all of our earnings in order to just survive. Because of the misinformation and brainwashing perpetrated by the few at the top, we are well on our way right now. I’d like to see that trend reverse, and unions are the only way to change it, IMHO.
