> seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.
Serving the interests of the union members - representing them in their negotiations with management, to be precise - is a union's reason for being. They might also hold their members to a standard of professional ethics, depending on the union, and that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal.
> Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?
The example that leaps to mind, in part because the comparison is so easy, is the press. In my town the difference in quality of output between journalists who are members of the guild and those who are not is quite noticeable.
Whether you want to credit that to the union, or the fact that better journalists are also better career strategists or something, is up to you. You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer.
"...that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but
that's not the immediate goal."
"You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions.
They are there for the workers, that might or might not
play out well for the consumer."
Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?
To create another entrenched interest group whose influence I cannot hope to counter, using my already significance-dwindled vote, in a state that is already rife with the influence of such powerful unions?
In California, the biggest special interest donor, the California Teachers Association, spent more than $118 million on campaigns in the state during the past five election cycles.[1]
And what do the "consumers" get for that?
The Golden State's fourth-graders ranked 47th in the nation in both math and reading. Eighth-graders ranked 45th in math and 42nd in reading.[2]
Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle.
As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior?
> Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?
You're welcome to do whatever you like. The way you continue to phrase things is a little odd, though. If you define yourself purely by your role as a consumer an awful lot of stuff in life is going to look pretty odd because it's a limited point of view.
> As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior?
This is such an odd question. I don't think anyone in the world believes it's your job to create unions. In fact, that's what we all decided at the last meeting. "It is absolutely not wozniacki's job, in his role as a consumer or otherwise, to create unions." We didn't tell you because we were worried you might be offended.
> Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle.
Are you claiming that union participation among primary school educators correlates strongly with lack of achievement among students? I'm pretty sure the top achieving states in this regard - Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, and so on - have teacher unions.
I lived in California for years and I'm sympathetic to the fact that government there is completely insane. I think an explanation like "it's because of the unions!" is reductionist and too simple.
> Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?
WUT? Do you play any other role in society than that of consumer? Worker, maybe?
Perhaps you're a Titan of Industry, or a self-employed tinkerer, but society depends on big projects (think about the roads you use...), which require big organizations, which have many more workers than bosses. As consumers, those workers may not support unions, but as workers, I'll bet quite a few do.
Serving the interests of the union members - representing them in their negotiations with management, to be precise - is a union's reason for being. They might also hold their members to a standard of professional ethics, depending on the union, and that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal.
> Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?
The example that leaps to mind, in part because the comparison is so easy, is the press. In my town the difference in quality of output between journalists who are members of the guild and those who are not is quite noticeable.
Whether you want to credit that to the union, or the fact that better journalists are also better career strategists or something, is up to you. You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer.