They need to address the question of what purpose they serve, and be honest about it.
There is really no need for “collective bargaining”, other than enriching the union heads.
On the job safety is no longer an issue.
Unions have become, basically, a protection racket...”you do what we say or we’ll strike, or sue!”.
Job safety was a thing that COULD have been and absolutely SHOULD have been addressed by legislation. Legislation, however, would not have enriched the democrat party with union dues.
Private sector Unions really only serve one legitimate function these days: protection from corrupt management. Most other functions have been subsumed into the business environment created by the government.
"Collective bargaining" seems to be the procedural price for that protection.
They're the hardest left of the left.
They cannot be honest. That's why I chuckle about unions somehow becoming entrepreneurial.
You can elect Putin in fair elections, but you'll still have the KGB mindset. Same thing.
They need to address the question of what purpose they serve, and be honest about it.
It is observable elsewhere what happens without them.
There is really no need for “collective bargaining”, other than enriching the union heads.
Actually, collective bargaining can lower costs of negotiation with goodness knows how many individual employees. It depends upon the situation.
On the job safety is no longer an issue.
If you were a hospital worker handling ebola patients or their waste products, I'd bet you wouldn't think this was true. There are lots of jobs, from tree climbers to fishermen, or mining that are still very dangerous and do benefit from new equipment cash-strapped employers are otherwise loath to buy.