I couldn’t agree more that we all bear a responsibility for advocating for quality education, quality healthcare, and other social services. But research on civic participation shows that most people are not very active in pressing their views or advocating for their interests in government service delivery.

Which is why public service unions are so often left holding the bag for protecting our public services. Sure, public service workers are interested in reimbursement — but if money is your primary driver, you’re probably not going to end up as a nurse, educator or social worker. We’re lucky that there are so many people who are willing to forgo the potentially higher earnings of private sector work in order to make a difference in the life of a kid, a patient or a community. And I don’t think they should be embarrassed to ask that the scale of their financial sacrifice — the gap between public- and private-sector wages — be held roughly constant.

But what is striking about the current labour dispute — as with so many public sector labour disputes — is that working conditions are as central as remuneration. Is it self-interest for teachers to want smaller class sizes? Maybe. But teachers’ interest in smaller class sizes is an interest in creating educational conditions that help teachers do their job well. In other words, the self-interest of teachers closely corresponds with the broader public’s interest in educational quality — the kind of correspondence that so often turns public sector unionists into public service advocates.

I couldn’t agree more that we all bear a responsibility for advocating for quality education, quality healthcare, and other social services. But research on civic participation shows that most people are not very active in pressing their views or advocating for their interests in government service delivery.

Which is why public service unions are so often left holding the bag for protecting our public services. Sure, public service workers are interested in reimbursement — but if money is your primary driver, you’re probably not going to end up as a nurse, educator or social worker. We’re lucky that there are so many people who are willing to forgo the potentially higher earnings of private sector work in order to make a difference in the life of a kid, a patient or a community. And I don’t think they should be embarrassed to ask that the scale of their financial sacrifice — the gap between public- and private-sector wages — be held roughly constant.

But what is striking about the current labour dispute — as with so many public sector labour disputes — is that working conditions are as central as remuneration. Is it self-interest for teachers to want smaller class sizes? Maybe. But teachers’ interest in smaller class sizes is an interest in creating educational conditions that help teachers do their job well. In other words, the self-interest of teachers closely corresponds with the broader public’s interest in educational quality — the kind of correspondence that so often turns public sector unionists into public service advocates.

You’re a consumer because you pay (either directly or indirectly through taxes) for your daughter’s daycare services, just as you might pay a plumber or a purchase an iPod. And you’ve hit the nail on the head–you’ve got a stake, while employees largely do not. They are, quite naturally, first and foremost interested in reimbursement–that’s the #1 issue in most labour actions.

Who would I rather have advocating on behalf of consumers? Parents are as much consumers of school as their children, so they’re natural advocates. We’re all consumers of the healthcare system, so we all share a burden to advocate for it. In environmentalism, the trees don’t defend the forests–the nurses shouldn’t defend the medical system.

And before we paint everybody with the same brush, let’s not forget that the majority of unionized workers are not good samaritans, sacrificing for the greater good. They’re loggers, ferry employees, bureaucrats and bus drivers. They’re no more or less heroes than the QA engineer at Microsoft or the dude flipping burders at Mickey-Dees.

You’re a consumer because you pay (either directly or indirectly through taxes) for your daughter’s daycare services, just as you might pay a plumber or a purchase an iPod. And you’ve hit the nail on the head–you’ve got a stake, while employees largely do not. They are, quite naturally, first and foremost interested in reimbursement–that’s the #1 issue in most labour actions.

Who would I rather have advocating on behalf of consumers? Parents are as much consumers of school as their children, so they’re natural advocates. We’re all consumers of the healthcare system, so we all share a burden to advocate for it. In environmentalism, the trees don’t defend the forests–the nurses shouldn’t defend the medical system.

And before we paint everybody with the same brush, let’s not forget that the majority of unionized workers are not good samaritans, sacrificing for the greater good. They’re loggers, ferry employees, bureaucrats and bus drivers. They’re no more or less heroes than the QA engineer at Microsoft or the dude flipping burders at Mickey-Dees.

Of course, you wouldn’t have to dig too far to find a little self-interest at work there — competition from cheap, non-union labour (often people gang-hired and handed hammers) makes it hard for people who make higher (read “livable”) wages to find work. But there’s also a pride in the craft of carpentry, outrage at what was happening, and a recognition that the entire industry was falling into disrepute.

Ultimately, I don’t buy the argument that it’s all about money. If it was, then teachers wouldn’t be putting an average of something like $1,000 a year of their own money into classroom supplies… and I don’t think most would be in teaching in the first place. (Hell, if it was about money, I wouldn’t be working where I am, or where I’m going to be at the beginning of next year; I’d be at an ad firm that sells cigarettes to Third World kids or something.) Issues like class size and specialist teachers have a direct impact on working conditions, but they also profoundly affect teachers’ ability to go home at the end of the day feeling that they made a positive difference in their students’ lives.

Of course, you wouldn’t have to dig too far to find a little self-interest at work there — competition from cheap, non-union labour (often people gang-hired and handed hammers) makes it hard for people who make higher (read “livable”) wages to find work. But there’s also a pride in the craft of carpentry, outrage at what was happening, and a recognition that the entire industry was falling into disrepute.

Ultimately, I don’t buy the argument that it’s all about money. If it was, then teachers wouldn’t be putting an average of something like $1,000 a year of their own money into classroom supplies… and I don’t think most would be in teaching in the first place. (Hell, if it was about money, I wouldn’t be working where I am, or where I’m going to be at the beginning of next year; I’d be at an ad firm that sells cigarettes to Third World kids or something.) Issues like class size and specialist teachers have a direct impact on working conditions, but they also profoundly affect teachers’ ability to go home at the end of the day feeling that they made a positive difference in their students’ lives.

As for the leaky condo example — well it’s an interesting example of just the point I make above. Those condos were built, by-and-large, by un-unionized workers who were specifcally hired as yet another way to take a shortcut and save a dollar — an approach that has done wonders for BC’s previously languishing tarpaulin industry.

But enough nit-picking: let me tackle your core point head-on, that “the best advocates for and defenders of consumer rights…are consumers”. The very examples you choose — children in school and patients in hospital — show why that is so often NOT the case. I don’t expect an eight-year-old to lobby for bigger class sizes; I don’t expect a cancer patient to hop out of bed and picket for better hospital meals. Particularly in the public sector — where the “consumers” of services are often people in need, receiving services from a de-facto monopolist — it’s often up to frontline service providers to serve as the guardians of service quality. I’m thankful that so many take that role so seriously.

As for the leaky condo example — well it’s an interesting example of just the point I make above. Those condos were built, by-and-large, by un-unionized workers who were specifcally hired as yet another way to take a shortcut and save a dollar — an approach that has done wonders for BC’s previously languishing tarpaulin industry.

But enough nit-picking: let me tackle your core point head-on, that “the best advocates for and defenders of consumer rights…are consumers”. The very examples you choose — children in school and patients in hospital — show why that is so often NOT the case. I don’t expect an eight-year-old to lobby for bigger class sizes; I don’t expect a cancer patient to hop out of bed and picket for better hospital meals. Particularly in the public sector — where the “consumers” of services are often people in need, receiving services from a de-facto monopolist — it’s often up to frontline service providers to serve as the guardians of service quality. I’m thankful that so many take that role so seriously.

I think it’s wrong-headed to depend upon employees to defend consumers’ rights. If the 20th century has proven anything, it’s that employees (unionized or not) are under-motivated to improve their employers’ services. After all, did the construction workers’ unions prevent leaky condos? Which rights are ferry workers defending?

Money talks. Everybody in the economic chain–employers, employees (unionized or not) and consumers are motivated first and foremost by money. It seems to me, then, that the best advocates for and defenders of consumer rights (where consumers include children in school and patients in hospitals) are consumers. They can talk with their money and their vote.

I think it’s wrong-headed to depend upon employees to defend consumers’ rights. If the 20th century has proven anything, it’s that employees (unionized or not) are under-motivated to improve their employers’ services. After all, did the construction workers’ unions prevent leaky condos? Which rights are ferry workers defending?

Money talks. Everybody in the economic chain–employers, employees (unionized or not) and consumers are motivated first and foremost by money. It seems to me, then, that the best advocates for and defenders of consumer rights (where consumers include children in school and patients in hospitals) are consumers. They can talk with their money and their vote.