So when a union fights for and wins safer equipment for fire fighters, I suppose the boss should force non-members to wear substandard gear and put their lives in jeopardy? Not to mention the lives of the other people in that person's crew?
Obviously not.
So non-members will reap the benefits of the union without paying dues. And then everyone at work will see that they can get the same stuff for free and quit the union too. And then suddenly the union will find itself with no resources to fight for this equipment and fire fighters will have to face unnecessary risks in the line of duty. The public will be less safe.
Have you ever opted out of taxes, JCL?
Yes. Maybe it's okay if you were taking the risk on lower-quality equipment just for yourself, but in a field like fire fighting there's no such thing as an individual. You're put on a crew of four (it would be less if unions were not involved) and those four people rely on each other. Two-in, two-out: You send two fire fighters into a burning building and two remain outside in case something happens to the others. If even one of those people has shyte equipment, the entire crew is at risk.
I mean, it's easy to talk all this smack about unions, and I agree that they are not angels, but let's not forget that organized labour doesn't
just stand for inflated wages and pouring money into politics. It's not that easy. Some conservatives like to talk in broad strokes about unions, but the intricacies matter.
