Unions’ success is their failure

Occasionally, something good comes out of a bad experience. For example, our severe economic recession has prompted close examination of aims, policies, and practices in business and government organizations. Appropriately, I think, unions have also been given much more scrutiny than at any time. The larger question is how and why unionized workers, who comprise less than 12 percent of the workforce, have attained such a dominant position in our affairs and in the affections of elected officials?

In the last several decades, union leaders have been very successful and have gained too-generous wages, pensions, and logic-defying work rules for their members. And, largely, these costs are paid for by the 88 percent of the workforce that is not unionized.

While I believe it is very healthy to discuss the pros and cons of union gains, I am very uncomfortable with the heated rhetoric that demeans and demonizes unionized workers. After all, unionized workers are our relatives, friends and neighbors and are well-meaning folks who don’t deserve the rap that they are getting.

Also, don’t forget that any union agreement is signed by two parties: union leaders and corporate leaders; or, union leaders and elected officials. If we are unhappy about wages, pensions, benefits and work rules, these are other folks to speak with.

As noted, the union workers are almost always good folks, but their success is their failure. We just can’t afford to employ them any longer. Companies need workers whose wages won’t make companies noncompetitive in world markets; and governments need a workforce that will not drive such units to the brink of bankruptcy. All of that heat and energy out there should be devoted to making union workers affordable assets that can be effectively deployed in government and business organizations.

Charles F. Falk

Schaumburg