OPINION — I’m replying to Annarose Lilly’s labor bargaining comments.
America's Charters of Freedom already give Arizonans the power to bargain, so why would they pay a third party to negotiate their individual labor that would be in the union's best interest as a collective for all? The end doesn’t seem to justify the means for an individual.
Myself, family and friends have dealt with private-sector labor unions, generally resulting in poor outcomes. All knew they could have done better themselves and saved money.
Union history is rooted in 10th-century guilds and have been a useful tool until declining after World War II just as a new unionizing market appeared: governments, beginning with teachers.
With improvements in workforce engagement through common understanding and collaborative leadership, modern business management competed for a better labor market, resulting in a significant shrinkage in private labor unions.
Competition forced managers to offer wage structures, benefits, improved quality of life and product, which enabled America to safely compete in today’s world.
On the contrary, governments’ bureaucratic management did not adopt those techniques, resulting in a public-sector labor force that is dependent on unions and legislation. The freedom of choice allows American labor to succeed in a competitive world without third-party dictation.
Compare, for example, the type of service operation you expect when entering a Department of Motor Vehicles office to an auto dealership, or postal service delivery versus shipping company lead time. You may disagree, but the two comparisons illustrate that business must have a competitive labor force to avoid going out of business. The other, the government, doesn’t care if labor succeeds or fails, it’ll keep operating.
The union collectivism model assumes one size fits all, and is contrary to every American individual’s guarantee by their Freedom Charters.
Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.