Liberty is No War on Women – Pages 57-67
By NeW Intern Nicole
Lukas and Schaeffer make a great case for the private sector economy. While our public sector continues to increase its economic debt, the private sector has shown time and time again that
those who use resources best and most efficiently tend to get the most resources. Money flows to those who will use it well, and this process helps our economy grow (59).
They use the ethanol industry as an example of how the government’s discretion on spending does not make sense and furthers our debt crisis. The government funnels money into the
ethanol industry, even though the fuel is far less efficient than other competing energy sources and its production harms the environment(60).
Most of the government’s spending decisions come from powerful lobbyists, and the ethanol industry’s lobbying is strengthened by Iowa’s frontloading during elections.
Liberal politicians, and a few republicans,
are being generous with other peoples’—taxpayers’—money” and further increase our debt every second of the day (61).
Government is being wasteful. When our economy suffers, our citizens suffer. When our citizens suffer, women especially suffer.
Public sector unions take government lobbying to an extreme. The first time I really researched public unions was after one of my favorite conservative comedians, Steven Crowder, was punched in the face by a union member at a Michigan rally in 2012. Public sector unions are majorly responsible for The Stimulus and all of its wasteful spending. These unions are well connected with government officials because they often support liberal politicians with major funding. They receive their funding in unionized states by forcing professionals in certain job sectors to pay union dues.
In return, the government officials funnel money into unionized job sectors to help them survive. This is where Lukas and Schaeffer have an issue. They believe that,
it is not, and should not be, the prerogative of government officials to determine which industries live and die; that should be up to the free market (64).
Unions mean certain things for women in the workplace. Women in unionized jobs have “less freedom to create schedules that make sense for them” and they
deter women from entering or switching professions” because, ultimately, “unions function as labor cartels (66).
Lukas and Schaeffer also bring up interesting thoughts on union’s seniority benefits.
Union contracts tend to make it hard to fire or demote less productive workers (66).
In education, union
rules about certification and seniority benefit union members at the expense of other potential workers and students who would benefit from a more diverse, higher quality teaching force (67).
When bad teachers are protected by union seniority rules, our students’ education suffers tremendously.
What are your thoughts on unionized verse right-to-work states? Would you be more apt to working in a right-to-work state over a unionized one based on the evidence Lukas and Schaeffer present?
See you next week!