Keep Choice Where It Belongs

MARCH 8, 2010 E-MAIL THIS PRINTER FRIENDLY

In an effort to decrease Baltimore's unemployment rate, councilman Bill Henry is proposing that all contracts worth over $5M and financed by Baltimore City be open at first only to union employees; then extended to the private sector if they cannot be filled after two days.

Perhaps we remember the days of our youth so fondly because we spent so little time paying attention to issues such as this one. Granting Henry the benefit of the doubt (and purging the ugly, gnawing thought from our minds that this is simply another instance of politicians trying to give something back to the unions after having received so very, very much), we must then assume that he honestly believes this is going to work.

The implications of this assumption are both depressing and, unfortunately, so predictable. Leaving aside the argument of whether or not unions are a necessary, if not beneficial, part of "the system," let's look at this proposal a little closer.

Henry's thinking, as I see it, is this:

Baltimore has high unemployment. But we're also funding a large amount of projects in Baltimore. Now, if we could only connect the unemployed workers of Baltimore to these projects. I know! We'll require that all projects done in Baltimore be done by Baltimoreans. But how to do this without discriminating against a group that would be deemed unethical? Simple. We'll discriminate against a group so vast no one will even notice -- by requiring that contracts be given first to unions.

Never mind that the unions were first created (supposedly) to help the private laborers this bill would really stick it to. Never mind that the bill would only require the unions to "exert their best efforts" to recruit local members. And never mind that construction costs would likely increase dramatically, costing the taxpayer yet more of his hard-earned dollars.

These are all great issues with which to ruin your day with blind rage, but let's focus on the 85% of contractors that are nonunion that would be hurt by this. They probably wouldn't exactly find this bill the most effective way to combat unemployment, but they would likely have a lot of time on their hands to contemplate a better solution if it was passed.

Again, assuming this is not just another union power grab (as the Baltimore Sun puts it), Henry is looking at the economic landscape with blinders. He sees the poor, jobless residents of Baltimore and wants to help them, just as each and every local councilman in every community wants to help their poor, jobless residents.

But if we all adopt policies such as this one, that cut the pool of jobs and applicants down to bite-size portions, what we're effectively doing is losing one of the major benefits of a mobile society and a global economy. Sure, unemployment is high right now, but it'd be a lot higher if we all were only allowed to work for firms in our neighborhoods and firms were only allowed to hire employees that lived in a certain area and fulfilled an arbitrary list of government-generated criteria.

The basic lesson is simple: problems of any kind are not solved by reducing the number of viable options open to the decision maker. Remember that by limiting the choices we are not eliminating "wrong answers," but real possibilities. In this case, these possibilities are people vying for work, and to give preferential treatment to one type of group should be just as offensive and odious as looking with favor on someone because of their race.

Let those who wish to argue on behalf of the unions because of their qualifications make them. My response is that this is totally irrelevant. If employers want employees who come pre-qualified by a union they will hire them anyway. And if employees want the benefits that come with joining a union they will join one anyway.

Keep choice where it belongs: with each and every individual.

No comments available

Name *
E-mail *
Response *


* = Required

Keep Choice Where It Belongs

Post Your Comment Here

Policy Blog

View Cart