Unions serve as a check and balance

I must take issue with the anti-union position recently written by Jeff Gorden. His position is that public sector unions “bargain for wages and benefits coming out of our pockets.” That is also true of private sector unions. The price of any product you buy is partly determined by union and other contracts. That’s not a reason to ban unions.

The writer ignores two other important points. The first is that unions came into existence as a check and balance against the unmitigated power of corporations and governments. An individual has no chance against a corporation or government when standing alone. There will always be a contract in that case, either one bargained and agreed on, or an unwritten one based on whatever “the man” tells him to do, dangerous or not, ethical or not, paid or not. Do we really want to go back to the days, for example, when unionless teachers were not even allowed to marry?

Secondly, he ignores the fact that any union, even the union mentioned in the first 15 words of our Constitution’s preamble, is an organization of people with mutual interests and concerns. Its purpose is to serve as a check and balance that is the foundation of democracy.

If he really wants to ban unions, even though they serve as a check and balance against overwhelming power, then let’s level the playing field and ban all unions, including chamber of commerce groups (unions of shared business interests), the Republican and Democratic parties (unions of shared political interests), all corporations (a union of capital and means of production) and marriage, the most sacred union of all. They are all unions, organizations to represent and promote shared interests.

Unions have no place in the public sector? Be careful what you wish for.

Kurt Haberl

Hoffman Estates