Report Inappropriate Comments

I disagree that we dont need unions. In fact we may need them more today, as labor trends shift and powerful executives have more opportunities than ever to drive down the standard of living for employees.

As to municipal unions, they are needed for the simple reason to prevent patronage decisions. Dont like your ignorant, low class, nasty council member? If he/she is like that? Imagine if they had the power to hire and fire without due process! Imagine his/her petty criminal brother in law getting hired into the police while a worthy officer is let go to make the space. These are hypothetical examples but totally exist in history which is why municipal unions convened to provide some level of protection in the form of due process. We have police and fire exams and competition, and things like seniority rights that add respect to that workforce. All because of collective bargaining.

As to the main complaint that "the unions" in a city drive up costs with unreasonable wage and benefit packages, even with unions, if the public REALLY was pissed off about that, they would elect a mayor and council of fiscal conservatives to renegotiate contracts at renewal time, and they be able to do it, with enough of the public behind them. So what we have for costs is the public's responsibility rather than the unions, who are doing what they are supposed to, advocating for themselves.

Anyone who thinks "the unions" are controlling the voters is delusional. I could post examples where the residents rolled back wages and benefits when needed and the unions had no choice. That's drastic but it does happen, whether the union members like it or not. But at least the proper hiring/firing and job integrity is still in place to maintain a stable and professional workforce. Fortunately, Warwick is not there yet, hopefully not ever but we'll see. But we do need the unions especially in government workforces.