It is no secret that I believe their is an alarming conflict of interest in government employee unions. I have pointed out in other posts how the government employee unions funnel their dues to the campaign coffers of politicians who will vote for more government employees. The increase in government employees gives the Unions more money to spend on influencing politicians. Which gives us more government employees making more money and better benefits than the private sector employees.

It is clear that in the Obama administration there are three classes of workers. At the top of the hill are the lucky members of the various government employee unions. Next in line for Obama's largess are members of the private sector employee unions. At the bottom of the hill fighting for the scraps are everyone else. This can clearly be seen when you look at how much of Obama's stimulus package went to propping up government jobs (the infamous jobs saved). You can also see this in the way Obama stepped in with the Chrysler and GM bailout. One condition of the bailout was to protect the UAW workers. If GM had gone through a normal bankruptcy they would still be doing business today but they could have broken their UAW contract and hire workers back as non-union laborers. Much like the Japanese car companies do in America.

The double edge sword of employee unions is that their purpose for existence is to make life better for their members. Yes they have provided better wages and benefits for their members. But at the same time they have hurt the industries they work in. Stifling rules discourage workers from striving to do better and a near total regard for economic conditions have caused as much harm for their industries and communities, as they have helped their members. In any discussion about Unions it is fair to point out the good they have done for workers and workers rights. But to be fair, open minded, and honest you also need to acknowledge the bad.

Federal, State, and Local governments are bending under the burden of high benefits and salaries of Union employees. These government employees in the past have enjoyed annual raises well above inflation and the private work force. What makes this so onerous is the insistence by the Unions that the private sector should spend more and more money to maintain the high living standard of government employees. That is why you hear so much about governments forced to furlough employees, or governments trying to restrict the collection bargaining agreements of the Unions. The politicians have no choice. Either put the rest of the work force under crushing taxes or reduce pay and benefit for the government employees.

Which brings me to my point. What if laws were enacted that tied government employee raises and benefits to an economic index of the greater economy? Last year overall American workers salary dropped by about 1%. What if that meant an automatic drop in government employee wages and benefits by 1%? Two years ago I believe the average wage went up by 2%. In that year government employees could then get a 2% rise in there wage/benefits package. Not fair you say? Why not? After all the laws enacted by politicians can have a big impact on the working conditions of all Americans.

If the Unions wages and benefits were tied to an economic index, then maybe the Unions would support laws that improved the wages of all Americans. Maybe they would promote politicians and laws that would encourage business. In other words, in order to improve wages for their members, they would have to work to improve wages for all workers.

Technorati Tags: improve the economy, controlling government unions, union benefits, union influence, wages