I would agree with thenewgreen in that there is a role for unions (especially historically) with issues such as working conditions, child labor, sub-standard wages (below competitive wage rates for like positions or responsibilities), and management abuses. However, to say that unions exist for the interest of "all" their members is a modern day misnomer. Union leadership, with in many cases mandatory union dues (as opposed to voluntary), represent one particular political party, even when up to 50% of members don't favor that particular political bent, and spent those dues in ways that don't represent those 50% of members. For instance, the retiring General Counsel for the NEA stated that they had influence because of the contribution of their 3.2 million members like they all pay "voluntarily" when we all know they are, many times, "required to pay dues and join the union" in order to work in that field. This is not in the "memberships' interest, but in the interest of centralizing "power" just like many people accuse big business of doing (and many unions are "big business"). They contributed 200 million dollars almost entirely to one political party and most of it "went down the tubes". Why not spend less on "political gains" and return over half of that back to teachers pay! They would never hear of that because they want POWER. In that sense, I can also agree with "thenewgreen" in that unions in the public sector are quite different from unions in the private sector. In the public sector, I (the union) can contribute to a certain candidate (s) and help them get elected. Then we get together and negotiate, not with our own money or private corporate revunes and wages, but with the future income of future generations (none of which we have a contribution towards) Then, we negotiate deals (many times well above the competitive rate of the market and in many cases economically unfeasible), with money that is not generated by the market and profits, but by confiscatory, forcible taxation, that add unrealistic burdens on individuals and states in the future whether they can pay for it or not! This is NOT "collective bargaining"; this is "collective bludgeoning" of citizens and taxpayers. This is the abuse that has been alluded to in other comments. We need to stem the tide of this trend (which I believe is wrong, immoral and abusive) of "negotiating" (which is nothing more that politcal favors) burdensome contracts that confiscate future wage earners' income. By the way, I believe we need to review all the political influence of entities, union and non-union alike, on the policies invoked on the American people. A union can abuse their power just like corporate entities (including Hedge Fund Managers that push for higher taxes, but have most of their assets shielded from income tax by registering them in foreign countires - HYPOCRITES!) I don't have all the answers, but we can work together to make a better system of "statespeople" and not "politicians" on the Federal, State and Local levels.