Unions and the U.S. Postal Service
September 2, 2010 11:28 A.M.
By Veronique de Rugy
If you ask me, government workers shouldn't be allowed to unionize, but they are; however, federal workers aren't allowed to go on strike. Well, here's the latest evidence that public-sector unions are a bad idea: According to the Washington Post, the U.S. Postal Service is on track to be at least $7 billion in the red this year, so they opened contract talks with its largest union; here's what the USPS wants:
In addition to concessions on wages, health benefits and working conditions, the Postal Service says it must pare its full-time workforce and expand the use of part-timers to stay afloat. Postal officials said that with declining workloads — Americans have sent 20 percent fewer letters and packages since 2007 — they can no longer guarantee eight-hour shifts for clerks, mail handlers, carriers and other workers
That makes sense, considering that labor costs accounts for 78 percent of the Postal Service's budget (that's $56 billion in FY 2009, and it's far more than what the employees of private competitors UPS and FedEx get in wages and benefits). If your business is down and you want to keep the customers you have left and start making a profit again, you have to cut costs. There is no way around it. It's adapt or die.
Well, the union doesn't see it this way.
Union officials said that while they recognize the Postal Service's precarious finances, they will fight to preserve hard-won working conditions and benefits that include the most generous health-care package in the federal government.
As is often the case, it seems that the union is under the impression that the USPS's job is to hire unionized employees, not to deliver mail. I find it unbelievable that the Postal Service can't do what it should do to respond to the lack of demand for its services; it is being held hostage by unions. (Of course, I think the solution to the USPS's problem is privatization.) Considering the mentality of union bosses, it is really scary to think that union membership among public employees is growing.
But not everything is good in the private sector, either. I do understand the role the unions played in the private sector in the past. The modern American movement grew out of an assembly-line culture where every product was identical and workers were viewed in a similar way. Unions, in this context, did help workers increase their bargaining power. However, as that mode of production has declined, so have unions' relevance and power.
But in an increasingly mixed economy in which the government exerts outright or implicit control over large swaths of domestic output, private-sector unions may experience a comeback. That's especially true if the president delivers on his campaign promises. If that happens, we can expect businesses to be treated equally poorly by the government. (A good example of the perverse effect of the marriage between private-sector unions and government can be seen in the recent UPS vs. FedEx battle.) |
