Union leaders don’t like favoritism. When one worker gets a $60,000 raise and the rest of the workers get 1% or 2% raises and she’s not a particularly stellar performer, it’s their job to ask questions about favoritism. Somehow, Riza, with no unusual merit, managed to score $60,000 extra in her pay packet just because of whom she was sleeping with. You can see why the others would be resentful, they thought they were bankers, not hookers.
Union leaders like accountability less. Is there some fact in the WSJ article which is incorrect, which contradicts the thesis? Is there some unmentioned fact which does?
You're starting to sound like a World Bank propagandist. Do you have any connection with the WB?