I believe that having an elected official doing the negotiating for the taxpayers is a mistake. Every elected official is very aware, shall we say, of the power (and votes) that the unions bring to the ballot box and everyone must be aware, by now, of how generous the county is in continuing to pay officials who have been suspended from their jobs for whatever reason, with overtime, no less, that they “might” have earned during that same period. Pretty good gig. Find me a private sector job, anywhere, that has those kinds of benefits.
Unions are kind of a necessary evil, so to speak, they have done much good for the working man but public sector union membership is at 35.7 percent and private sector membership at 6.6 percent, and been falling for decades, for a reason. In short, private sector employers have to be very concerned of the costs of doing business. They have competitors and the government does not. Public officials also have budgets, but they don’t have to make a profit to keep their job.
Plenty of elected officials do a good job. It’s just that firing a public employee can be a wearying and time-consuming process and the incentive and the time is just not there and neither is the idea of fighting with the union if you want to keep your job. Current negotiations between the county executive and the union are a great example.
Taxpayers need a voice in negotiations, someone with no skin in the game, an ombudsman, between themselves and government employees. How can we expect public officials to do a good job negotiating a contract that puts them at odds with either their employers (the taxpayers), or their employees?
Don Curtis
Clinton
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
