Tattered union label

Unions exist to give workers greater leverage in negotiating over compensation and working conditions, and to give them some protection from unfair treatment at the hands of management. If union officials are doing their jobs well, workers should be receiving better wages and benefits, and should be more secure in their jobs. But that’s not...

Unions exist to give workers greater leverage in negotiating over compensation and working conditions, and to give them some protection from unfair treatment at the hands of management. If union officials are doing their jobs well, workers should be receiving better wages and benefits, and should be more secure in their jobs.

But that’s not always what workers get.

People and institutions change. Old strategies and alliances do not always match up with new challenges or goals.

The same is true for labor unions.

A string of mass layoffs has given rank-and-file union members reason to question their blind faith in union bosses — and the movement behind big labor in general.

So what are rank-and-file workers getting for their thousands in annual union dues?

At best, unions have proved incapable of providing job protection for thousands of workers throughout the country, Illinois included.

While rank-and-file workers are facing pink slips, union bosses are raking in big salaries.

Illinois Federation of Teachers local staff member Michael McGue pulled in $255,871 in 2011. In the same year, Illinois Education Association President Kenneth Swanson was paid $181,593. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees President Henry Bayer received $140,779 in compensation. And this is just a handful of examples.

On top of earning high salaries, these same union bosses make demands that are simply impossible to deliver, including overly generous defined benefit pensions, which are too unpredictable to hold up over the long haul. Private employers have been moving away from them for decades. Outside of government only 18 percent of workers are in defined benefit pensions, down from 35 percent during the 1990s. Many union plans have failed, leaving union retirees with a fraction of the income they were expecting during their golden years. And yet union officials refuse to consider the lessons of thousands of private workers, or even the example of Detroit, which is close to failing on its pension payments. A lot of government workers throughout Illinois could be left with little to support themselves if government unions continue down the path they are on.

But union officials see their mission in much broader terms than compensation and benefits alone. Rather than representing some workers in the workplace, they present themselves as the champions of the working class and poor. How have they performed in that role?

Unions have shown they can be very cavalier about the concerns of the less-well-off. Last fall’s Chicago teacher strike was perhaps the most blatant example of this: the families Chicago Public Schools serves are predominantly poor, while CPS teachers’ salaries and benefits are well above the median for workers in Chicago. Yet the Chicago Teachers Union was willing to shut down school for many poor children, disrupting their education and leaving many parents scrambling for someone to look after their children.

And in the process, the union did little to improve education in the CPS system. In fact, the union fought against a stronger teacher evaluation process.

CTU’s strike is but one example of unions protecting the well-off at the expense of the less fortunate. Earlier this spring AFSCME was prepared to wage a strike of its own that would disrupt many state services, all to protect a workforce that also already had wages and benefits that are much better than the average in Illinois.

So what have the unions done for Illinois lately? A big part of the answer involves costing workers jobs and creating hardships for the less-well-off.

Unions don’t need more power. Workers need more choices.

Workers should have the choice to join a union — it shouldn’t be mandatory, based on where they are employed. In Illinois, many workers — including nearly all state government employees — are bound to either join a union or pay a fee, regardless of whether or not the union represents their best interests. Illinois can give workers this choice by adopting Right-to-Work legislation.

And Illinois union leaders need to face the harsh reality of the state’s fiscal situation. Nobody wins when expensive contracts bankrupt governments. The Illinois General Assembly should learn from Wisconsin and Michigan and set boundaries on bargaining in government.

If Illinois takes these steps, unions likely will do things that are a lot more positive — and workers and the poor will be much better off.