Researchers at Cornell have discovered that, aside from raising the cost of education, the existence of teachers' unions and collective bargaining for teachers in any state reduces overall economic output and incomes, specifically the incomes of men.
Eh? How does that work? Aren't unions supposed to raise incomes?
First off, logically enough, unionization restricts hiring, and makes each hire more expensive. It stands to reason, then, that in this one sector, at least, there are fewer jobs available. And yes, the data do show lower employment rates, and lower labour force participation.
A valuable warning for those who want, like Ontario currently, to raise the minimum wage. Raise the cost of labour across the board, and, logically enough, you will have fewer jobs across the board. This study suggests that the losses for the poor will be grater thn the gains.
Don't believe a minimum wage would work that way? Then what again is the point of hiking taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, or calling for a carbon tax? Isn't it our automatic assumption that making something more expensive reduces the demand? Why would the basic laws of human nature be suspended in this one instance?
But this cannot by itself explain the economic harm detected. The teaching profession is by itself just not large enough to make this much difference. In any case, teachers' unions have also usually made demands for smaller class sizes and fewer teaching hours, which should offset this effect by forcing the hiring of more teachers. Here's another factor, and certainly a far larger factor: teachers' unions and collective bargaining, it turns out, leads to "reductions in measured cognitive and non-cognitive skills among young adults."
In other words, unionizing teachers means they do not teach as well. The quality of the work declines, and students suffer directly.
Unions, and self-regulating professions, mean things are done for the benefit of the employee or professional, no longer for the benefit of the customer.