I don't really know a lot about unions apart from their historical aspects. Assuming I haven't gotten mixed up, or otherwise lost my mind, I believe that today's unions trace back to the Industrial Revolution. Unions then were formed to protect workers against employers, to demand better working conditions, wages, etc., and the workers really needed them!
Just think of it, at the time, liberalism was in full force. People really believed that you shouldn't, couldn't interfere with the "unseen hand of supply and demand." They truly thought that the increased wealth of the capitalists would spread down to all levels of society, and that, utlimately, they would live in a utopian world. How that idealism worked with Ricardo's Iron Rule of Wages, I don't know, but people also really believed in that. The Rule basically stated that employers should pay their employees only enough so that they could survive, and no more. If workers could live above subsistence level, they would become lazy--too much "luxury" I suppose. On the other hand, if you gave them just enough to survive, they would have lots of motivation to work hard to earn their pay--do or die, literally. Then too, employers of the time also knew that the number of available workers far surpassed the number of jobs, so even if a worker died, or you fired one, there would be plenty of others to fill the gap.
There's lots more to the story, of course, but the point is, those first unions were necessary to improve the very hard, miserable lives of the industrial workers. I don't really know if the same can be said of unions today. I've never really had anything against unions before; I always thought that they were probably falsely maligned in the media and in society in general. Reading this portion of an article yesterday, however, has forced me to reconsider my opinion: "During negotiations three years ago, the unions won contract language protecting any permanent employee with more than 10 years of service from being laid off. The city is seeking to change that to 17 years."
Now, maybe I'm missing some vital facts, but it strikes me as being absolutely ludicrous to demand, and receive, no less, complete job security after ten years employment. My father worked at his company for 13 years, but that didn't prevent him from being laid off when the company shut its Canadian office. People who work outside of the government aren't guaranteed job security simply because of thier seniority, they're not guaranteed job security at all!
I know *sigh* since I don't have all the facts, I can't really make a solid argument, but merely an emotional one. It just doesn't make sense to me, though. How can they justify their job security in the face of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been laid off as a result of the tech market crash, the minor recession, etc. etc.? Maybe everyone should just work for the city .
