This is an interesting read from Jonah Goldberg at National Review. I understand why unions exist in some industries, especially considering the lack of decent labor laws early in the industrial revolution. Have you ever been to a coal mine or an iron foundry? The types of work in these places make  you pause and think why the need for a union may  have been or may still be necessary if not managed properly. However, in the public sector, I agree with Goldberg, I don’t see a justifiable purpose.

The argument for public unionization wasn’t moral, economic, or intellectual. It was rankly political.

Traditional organized labor, the backbone of the Democratic party, was beginning to lose ground. As Daniel DiSalvo wrote in “The Trouble with Public Sector Unions,” in the fall issue of National Affairs, JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where public unions were already in place, local liberal pols benefited politically and financially. He took the idea national.

The plan worked perfectly — too perfectly. Public-union membership skyrocketed, and government-union support for the party of government skyrocketed with it. From 1989 to 2004, AFSCME — the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees — gave nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections, with 98.5 percent going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get. Put simply, people in the government business support the party of government. Which is why, as the Manhattan Institute’s Steven Malanga has been chronicling for years, public unions are the country’s foremost advocates for increased taxes at all levels of government.

Read the rest here.

Comments

  • Rusty Shackleford

    Ditto!

  • http://www.politicalderby.com/ Jason Wright, Editor

    I could not agree more.