Jackson445: It is certainly true that in some cases union bargaining has resulted in inefficient or just plain ridiculous workplace rules and practices (as your coal-shoveler example demonstrates, if it is indeed true). That said, is the loss of collective bargaining rights for millions of people worth the relatively tiny uptick in efficiency that would result? A small bit more money would be made by eliminating these inefficiencies, but seemingly at the cost of financial stability for an entire class of people. Given the hardships those in the middle, working, and lower classes are already enduring these days through no fault of their own, is this still the right time to be pushing for union-busting changes in the law? It is universally acknowledged that the 20th century middle class had collective bargaining as its foundation. While this foundation does have some cracks and uneven spots, is the better solution to refurbish it, instead of tearing down the whole structure? Food for thought.

HonestAbe: You mention the average teacher salary being around $60,000 for ten month's work, along with benefits. Not terrible, but does the mention of "10 months" rather than "1 year" distort the amount of time teachers actually spend working? There is homework/paper/test grading, lesson plan prep, tutoring kids during lunch hours and after school, and chaperoning and/or directing extracurricular activities. The school day may be 7 hours long, but a teacher's work day often goes well into the evening or night. Over the course of those 10 months, most teachers probably work more hours than almost any other government employees work in 12. Along with the stress and obvious importance of the job, could it be argued that teachers are in fact part of the "professional class," and should be paid as such? Might higher salaries and better working conditions attract better would-be educators, and is this investment not worth the cost?