Video: Why collective bargaining with government unions is a bad idea

I’ve referred to it as collective collusion instead of collective bargaining. When unions support political candidates with huge political contributions and politicians return that support in the form of union contracts that are simply unsustainable in years to come, that’s collusion.

The Heritage Foundation has a simple video explaining the situation. Hat tip to John Schulenburg at Gateway Pundit who points us to Heritage.

Our new video is a helpful primer on the rise government unions and the monopoly power given to them through collective bargaining. Along with our helpful factsheet on the subject, they form a powerful tool to combat misinformation and educate friends and family about what is at stake in Wisconsin.



Posted in ,

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. NH-Jim on March 4, 2011 at 11:26 am

    It's time to reform government, restore fiscal sanity, and return POWER TO THE PEOPLE

    Ironic how a 60's socialist motto has been turned on its axis to now become the motto for the conservative, tax-payer protection movement.

  2. RoBrDona on March 5, 2011 at 6:08 am

    It just boils down to disproportionate political influence. It is long past time the pendulum swung the other way.       

  3. RJ on March 5, 2011 at 6:10 am

    The only bad thing is when big business lobbies the government for corporate welfare. STOP THIS AND THEN  MAYBE the likes of the georgia pacific, toilet paper makers,Koch bros. will stop corrupting our system. The american people can change government at the ballot box if they don't like collective bargaining. But the corrupt big business hides behind the curtain of conservatism and bribes. Lets flush the Koch bros. with some of their georgia pacific paper down the american standard toilet, and the USA will be cleansed of this evil greed called  me, myself, and I. AND THE REST OF US CAN GO????? think about it.

  4. David R on March 5, 2011 at 6:49 am

    Let's not kid ourselves, given competition from low wage nations, American corporations will fight to significantly reduce US worker wages and benefits. Unions are essentially conservative organizations, whose primary function is to protect members from caprcious acts by employers, including governments. We undermine them at our peril. Without unions, employers and entire industries can and will peel back living wages and benefits.  I think most Americans would like to see reductions in the political influence of special interests, but don't want to single out one particular group such as unions. Americans always want a level playing field. Crippling unions will achieve the opposite.

  5. Dimsdale on March 5, 2011 at 7:02 am

    That's where "right to work" comes in: unionize or not.  When unions are corrupt as they are now, opt out.  If the pendulum swings the other way, opt it.  Forced membership is no better than communism, and far from conservative.

  6. RoBrDona on March 5, 2011 at 11:13 am

    There is not a single thing conservative about unions. They are one of the original progressive groups thought up in the 1800's (by Marxists).

    You can rail all you want about big business, but private sector businesses are the only real engine of growth in America. The Liberal agenda is to further undermine them by overtaxation and abusive practices. It is that simple, and that is what ivory-tower Marxists from the top down are trying their hardest to do right now – destroy the way of life that made us the preeminent country in the world.

    The public sector should function solely as a local/regional steward on a modest scale. Currently, with virtually no opposition, at massive expense, it creates nothing except increased taxation and red tape creating further restrictions upon both corporations and individuals. All this does is stifle creativity and growth. Ever wonder why the majority of our yearly in-state college graduates leave to work elsewhere?? 

    Capricious acts against labor??? Please. Grow up. This is not 1913.   

  7. David R on March 5, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    We are working a 40 hour week, have decent working conditions, have child labor laws, etc because of the labor movement, which has workers' right to organize at its foundation. These rights were fought for for decades and didn't become the law of the land until FDR came along. Everyone has benefited but for some reason, we have forgotten labor history. It's in the history books, and can be researched on-line. Having seen both sides of the fence as labor and management, I can tell you that management forgets what it's like to be a worker, and does behave capriciously, for all kinds of reasons including a sense of superiority. I agree with RoBrDona that it is not 1913, but we better be damn sure that messing with collective bargaining rights doesn't push us farther in that direction. It makes little sense when average workers are getting poorer to take away one of the few tools they have to protect their interests.

  8. RoBrDona on March 6, 2011 at 7:22 am

    Let's agree that unions have a right to exist and protect workers from eggregious employer predations. However, let's address the elephant in the room, which is the unfair political advantage that wealthy PUBLIC SECTOR Union PACs have spending fortunes to seat candidates that return the complement by rubber stamping contracts that are 1) relics of the past in a world-based economy 2) Way out of wack with private sector contracts 3) Bankrupting states and towns.  

  9. David R on March 6, 2011 at 8:46 am

    My fear is that decent wages in the US are relic of the past in a world economy.  I believe further assaults on unions removes a protection and counter force. Re. political influence of unions: all political influence by private organizations/corporations needs to reigned in. Reigning in only the unions creates an unfair playing field, that I am certain will be detrimental to the two party system. Re. public sector employee contracts: I agree that abuses need to be adressed, I am just not in favor of doing away with collective bargaining to do it. And I don't think we need to in order to create compensation and benefit schemes that benefit both government (tax payers) and workers.

  10. Steve M on March 6, 2011 at 9:02 am

    @David R: Why is political influence an issue at all? You're not looking to solve the disease, rather treat the symptoms. How about if we get the government completely out of the situation (as much as possible) then you don't have to worry about political influence!

    Again, those of you who are OK or want collective bargaining for government employees completely disregard my actual post. What about the facts we've presented? It's not collective bargaining, it's collective collusion and you ignore that.

  11. Dimsdale on March 8, 2011 at 5:08 am

    One has to wonder why a contract negotiated in the high times doesn't have provisions for corrective actions for the inevitable low times.  Economies are cyclic, so should contracts.  Why should only the employer (well, really the consumer) feel the pain?


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.