The protesting public-school teachers with fake doctor’s notes swarming the capitol building in Madison, Wis., insist that Gov. Scott Walker is hell-bent on “union busting.” Walker denies that his effort to reform public-sector unions in Wisconsin is anything more than an honest attempt at balancing the state’s books.
I hope the protesters are right. Public unions have been a 50-year mistake.
A crucial distinction has been lost in the debate over Walker’s proposals: Government unions are not the same thing as private-sector unions.
Advertisement
Traditional, private-sector unions were born out of an often-bloody adversarial relationship between labor and management. It’s been said that during World War I, U.S. soldiers had better odds of surviving on the front lines than miners did in West Virginia coal mines. Mine disasters were frequent; hazardous conditions were the norm. In 1907, the Monongah mine explosion claimed the lives of 362 West Virginia miners. Day-to-day life often resembled serfdom, with management controlling vast swaths of the miners’ lives. Before unionization and many New Deal–era reforms, Washington had little power to reform conditions by legislation.
Government unions have no such narrative on their side. Do you recall the Great DMV Cave-in of 1959? How about the travails of second-grade teachers recounted in Upton Sinclair’s famous schoolhouse sequel to The Jungle? No? Don’t feel bad, because no such horror stories exist.
Government workers were making good salaries in 1962 when President Kennedy lifted, by executive order (so much for democracy), the federal ban on government unions. Civil-service regulations and similar laws had guaranteed good working conditions for generations.
The argument for public unionization wasn’t moral, economic, or intellectual. It was rankly political.
Traditional organized labor, the backbone of the Democratic party, was beginning to lose ground. As Daniel DiSalvo wrote in “The Trouble with Public Sector Unions,” in the fall issue of National Affairs, JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where public unions were already in place, local liberal pols benefited politically and financially. He took the idea national.
The plan worked perfectly — too perfectly. Public-union membership skyrocketed, and government-union support for the party of government skyrocketed with it. From 1989 to 2004, AFSCME — the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees — gave nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections, with 98.5 percent going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get. Put simply, people in the government business support the party of government. Which is why, as the Manhattan Institute’s Steven Malanga has been chronicling for years, public unions are the country’s foremost advocates for increased taxes at all levels of government.
And this gets to the real insidiousness of government unions. Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they’ve acceded to many of their governor’s specific demands — that workers contribute to their pensions and health-care costs, for example. But they don’t want to lose the right to collective bargaining.
But that is exactly what they need to lose.
Private-sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with friendly politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests, and, as we’ve seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government. California’s pension costs soared 2,000 percent in a decade thanks to the unions.
I realized I was conservative (if not a conservative) when Reagan fired the PATCO strikers. It was the first time I'd seen a politician who wasn't willing to finesse the law. Thanks to Obama's extremism and the consequent rise of the Tea Party, we are seeing a new crop of leaders we can once again be proud of---leaders who will stand up to the public unions.
I live in, and love, Wisconsin - but I had to give up on my business after three years of losses. My wife still works, but my tenants both lost their jobs last winter. I let them barter for rent, because they are good tenants and because in my manufacturing town there was really no one to replace them - except for people plugged into the dole, who don't make for good tenants.
So I'm hanging on - by my fingernails - but the taxes on a modest three unit building I bought in 2000 for $155K are almost $4,000 a year. If public union blackmail is not curtailed, I don't know what I'm going to do. On Long Island, property taxes on old Levitt houses run in the five-figure range - and if the unions here get the same stranglehold on Wisconsin that NY unions have I will neither be able to pay the taxes nor sell the building (which is already impossible because of the last job-killing Wisconsin governor).
The teachers, meanwhile, both don't do their jobs (look up the performance of Wisconsin students) and spend their time indoctrinating their students. E.G. I would bet money that the instruction on the Global Warming fable in public schools doesn't mention the email evidence of fraud nor the fact that every major prediction by Global Warming Religionists has been wrong.
These public sham unions not only bleed my state dry, they work against other workers in Wisconsin (Harley-Davidson, Polaris, etc.) with their leftist indoctrination. They also work against the people with their support of more government regulation - which gives advantage to large corporations who have the resources to make themselves heard by government.
So my financial future depends on Republicans getting their message out and growing a pair. Think I'm nervous? I am - I can't help remembering that this is the party that nominated Grampa McLame.
As a teacher in the great state of Maine, I am entirely in Gov. Walker's corner.
The union here exists only to serve itself and will attempt to foment discontent if contract negotiations are going too well.
Those "teachers" (and I use the word loosely in this case) who were "sick" and procured phony doctors notes should be fired for dereliction of duty.
I took a spectacular cut in pay when I became a teacher, but the trade-off is ten weeks of uninterrupted vacation in the summer and three other week long vacations during the year.
It has been my experience that those teachers who complain the most about working conditions, budgets, salaries, etc. are usually the most uninterested in their jobs. (I actually heard a teacher once state to her class that she would rather be a truck driver than teach.) Perhaps this will provide such people with the impetus to pursue the career of their dreams.
Jonah, thank you for a concise, history packed argument to refute the "for the kids" line we are getting---let's hope this piece is widely shared and dissseminated. It's going to everyone I know.
I think one issue that people are missing is that the Republicans in this case have all the facts on their side, while Democrats have all the emotion on theirs. As is so often the case. Those two rarely ever come together harmoniously.
When is comes to public sector unions, they're the labor and we're the management. If they collectively bargain, the argument goes, they're able to wheedle a deal that we can't afford, but unlike a private company, we can't go out of business.
Yes we can. We can say no thanks -- we'll do without you teachers, cops and firemen.
Oh, you don't like that solution? Well then, perhaps your average teacher is actually worth the $48,745 plus free healthcare plus pension the union wheedles for them. Oh, they're not? You mean you could get a better deal if you could just make one-off deals and not have to deal with a union? Can't blame you! But now we're not arguing principle. We're arguing price. And you know the old joke about that.
Yeah, and I'd also like a law that says anyone without a high school diploma can't be paid more than $2/hour. That would save me some money too!
But it wouldn't be fair!! We would be taking away their rights.. Boohoo! As has been pointed out here and other places, even FDR recognized the folly of unionized gov't. workers. While we know the current administation would never rescind the EO from JFK authorizing unionization of Federal workers, I would suggest anyone running in '12" for the R's be asked their position on the issue. If we were so lucky to take over then I would blackmail the States as has been done in the past by telling them if they don't rescind it from their State, they get cut off the Federal gravy train.
While it is no business of the Fed to tell the States this sort of thing, they shoved it down our throats for speed limits, seatbelts and DWI laws. Let's turn it around. Pipe dream, I know.
Note to Wisconsin Republicans: The sick pay these “teachers” got by fraudulent doctor’s notes was the property of the State of Wisconsin. How about some prosecutions? And when they scream, indict the doctors and their partners in fraud for conspiracy. It’s time to play hardball, just pretend you’re a leftist and you can do it.
Wisconsin statute 943.20(1)(d):
(d) [Whoever does the following may be penalized as provided in sub. 3] - Obtains title to property of another person by intentionally deceiving the person with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. . .
Wisconsin statute 943.20(3)(a):
If the value of the property does not exceed $2,500, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Let them yell and be nasty in jail. Then fire them for their criminal records.
Great post. I wish more Republicans could be as straightforward and forthright and explain the all-important differences between public and private unions. I realize that arguing the short term fiscal issues is easier and may test better in polls, but changing the structure of government union relationships is of far more importance in the long run. Of course, when Obama can insist that a governor is beyond the pale in asking for an end to collective bargaining for some of the government workers in his state and no one points out how a few weeks before he had decreed a freeze on federal workers pay for 2 years, it may be difficult cut through all the willful ignorance on display.
BTW, just one small criticism; Governor Walker has taken pains to point out that in his state, like most, all teachers contracts are negotiated and voted on for each individual district, thus making the claim that union heads have "acceded to many of their governor’s specific demands" essentially meaningless.
Good job, Jonah! The proof that we don't need public worker unions is in these strikes themselves. These are the teachers of children, the public workers who do the daily work of the executive branch (for the most part). Yet we are paying them to stand around in the cold and shrieking ridiculous slogans. I even saw one sign that proudly proclaimed "It's not about the DOE, it's about the HERD." Of course I get the rather juvenile play on words, but taken more literally--A herd of what? It is shameful, disgraceful, and unconscionable to allow this to continue. Give them their pink slips and let them have something to really scream about. They are literally asking for it. There are many young graduates and laid-off older workers who would be more than capable of taking over. And the children would not be harmed.
Good column Jonah- you must have had some good teachers in high school :) I hope the local school boards have the stones to fire the "fake sick" teachers- I doubt it, though, as most school committees, at least here in MA are in the satchel for the teachers' unions. In addition, most principals were union members at one time. When the union and the school committee negotiate about the contract, they are deciding how to spend a third party's dough- that's a huge part of the corruption within the system. I hope Governor Walker succeeds in breaking the unions!
Citizens are "the public". Public school teachers are "public servants". The public has less money and thus cannot pay as much to the public servants. There is no profit motive in the public sphere, thus the union is not in place for public safety but for enrichment of itself and members at the expense of the public.
Voters were given an option in 2010:
Option #1: The Dem/union solution to this dilemma is dump new union members for old and demand more $$ from the public.
Option #2: Wisc GOP ran on fiscal austerity by requiring public servants to pay for some of their benefits.
If the voters felt #1 was a good idea, they would've kept Dems in control in Wisc. Obviously they picked option #2.
"When is comes to public sector unions, they're the labor and we're the management. If they collectively bargain, the argument goes, they're able to wheedle a deal that we can't afford, but unlike a private company, we can't go out of business."
Actually Mike, you've got it wrong. The state executive branch along with the legislature are the management. And unlike private firms, the public institutions (ie government) have to abide by something call the public interest. And for 50 years, local and federal politicians have colluded with public service unions (through massive campaign donations) against the public interest. Hence, some $7 trillion in unfunded public liabilities (mainly pensions and reitree health care). Even that Progressive idol himself -FDR - realized what a rotten idea it was for public servants to unionize.
The public interest is not served by accumulating trillions of dollars in promises that cannot be kept. What you and others do not realize is that the gig is up. Even the progressive citizens of Wisconsin realize this. Without across the board tax increases on property, equity, and sales, thier state will run up over $3.5 billion in new defecits. That is, to afford to pay very generous benefits to a small part of society Wisconsin voters must endure large tax increases. And we all know how much other Rust Belt states have suffered this recession (ie take a gander at Michigan).
Who's WE? Can you not see the conflict inherent with labor unions giving millions of dollars and legions of vote organizers to elect politicians who will return the favor with feather-bedded contracts, and how that negatively affects taxpayers?
Granted, over decades (!) the public hopefully wises up to it, as seems to be the case lately, but I see no defensible reason to allow for public employee unions.
One other thing that is missing in all of this is the fact that Govenor Walker's plan was developed with the intentions of avoiding employee terminations. If the absent Democratic lawmkaers succeed, Walker will be forced to lay-off thousands of public empployees including teachers. And I imagine those lay-offs will be permanent reductions and not furloughs.
I'm not sure if Wisconsin employees realize this. Yes, the Unions will survive to fight another day. But that will be cold comfort for the thousands of public employees who will join the ranks of the long term unemployed. A perfect example of how the unions and the Dems have the best interests of thier members at heart
To Mike B: The point you are missing is that when public sector unions sit down to negotiate with management, they are not in an adversarial position like private sector unions. When you have spent millions of dollars to get "management" elected, the result is a cozy relationship and a blatant conflict of interest. No one is suggesting that teachers, firemen etc. should not be fairly paid, only that the deck should not be stacked against the taxpayer during negotiations.
Jonah is one of the first to say this publicly (that I've seen), but he shouldn't have been the first.
The one gripe protesters have with Walker is that he should be honest that he's really trying to bust the union. I agree completely.
Walker is trying to bust the union - and more power to him. If he would be honest about this and explain why - because public unions cost the state money it doesn't have now and in the future - he'd have even more public support.
By allowing liberals to claim he has a secret agenda, it blunts what he's trying to do a bit. Like Jonah points out, they get to claim they're willing to give in to healthcare and pension demands.
Public employee unions must be limited with respect to collective bargaining rights. If any of us in the private sector acted as these "teachers" have done, we would be fired.
But who will protect the police from the bizarre politics ruling some of our city halls (particularly here on the left coast)?
How many "anti-tax activists" (as the media calls them) have been persecuted by teacher unions?
Follow
