Do we prefer a flawed system that, at its worst, leaves most of the workforce at the whims of the "market" and creates a culture of fear? Or would we prefer a flawed system that, at its worst, provides for job security while potentially fostering complacency and lower productivity?

Professor Moglen's comments about unions the other day got me thinking that I have a natural aversion to praise for unions. In particular I have a deep-seated aversion to the notion of seniority for seniority's sake rather than performance-based pay. There are numerous benefits to unions, perhaps most importantly a stronger negotiating position when discussing pay and benefits for employees. But on the flip side, it also seems to create hierarchies based on seniority that prevent younger/newer members from rising through the ranks based on "merit". I can understand and sympathize with the job security concerns that were the basis of Moglen's comments, but am I missing some other valuable benefits to the seniority system? In high school I spent 3 years working at a supermarket where the members were unionized. I liked the marginally better pay than the minimum wage that other stores paid, but I also remember a lot of jaded, unproductive older employees. Unions are human organizations too and are just as vulnerable to the selfish manipulation of those at the top as other organizations are.

This is not to say that I am opposed to unions, I just found it odd that even though I have shifted far far left of my originally super conservative upbringing I was still caught off guard by the rhapsody for unions. Are there any built-in corrections for older members who take advantage of their seniority? Don't most of the complaints about teachers' unions revolve around this issue?

-- MichaelDignan - 11 Mar 2009