As Wisconsin flips its wig, there has been a great deal of dishonest, ill-informed, and indeed knavish commentary on the relationship between public-sector unions and the fiscal conditions of the states. The thrust of these unenlightening analyses has been that public-sector unions are not to blame for the dire fiscal situation facing Wisconsin and many other states. The general shape of the Left’s argument here has been that of a compound error with two distinct components: 1) the inability to distinguish between the short-term problems facing states as a result of the recent recession and their long-term fiscal problems; 2) the much more serious conflation of collective-bargaining rights with unions’ political power.
Advertisement
Public-sector unions are enormously important political players, including in those states where their collective-bargaining rights are limited or nonexistent. That fact makes nonsense out of arguments such as the one put forward by Joseph McCartin of The New Republic: “Contrary to [Gov. Scott] Walker’s assertion, there is no direct correlation between public-sector collective bargaining and yawning state budget deficits.”Collective bargaining is not the operative factor; Mr. McCartin is providing an answer to a meaningless question. Likewise, Dick Polman is entirely off track in making a related argument: “Yes, a lot of public unions have good wages and benefits. But blaming these unions for the states’ red ink is a serious overreach. North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada currently have budget deficits far deeper than Wisconsin’s — and none of those states allow their public employees to bargain collectively.” These arguments ignore the fact that unions do a lot more than engage in collective bargaining, and that their most important and influential work is done not at the negotiating table, but on the campaign trail. Collective bargaining is not the only way, or even the main way, that public-sector unions shape public policy.
Nearly 90 percent of government employees in the United States are employed at the state and local level. A very large number of them, many millions, belong to public-sector unions. State and local bureaucrats are much more likely to be unionized than federal bureaucrats — more than twice as likely, in fact; 19 percent of federal workers are unionized, but 30 percent of state workers are, and 43 percent of local workers. These are very high levels of unionization across the board — only 8 percent of private-sector workers are union members — but much, much higher at the state and local level. That is significant because, contra Polman, McCartin, and the bulk of the Democratic commentariat, these unions do not influence public policy mainly through engaging in collective bargaining. They influence it by determining the outcome of elections.
And “determining the outcome” is no overstatement. Many union critics in the past few days have referenced Stanford professor Terry M. Moe’s fascinating paper “Political Control and the Power of the Agent,” published by the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization in 2005, citing a single extraordinary fact: In the elections Professor Moe studied, union support was as valuable as incumbency in determining winners. That fact is, in and of itself, sobering: Incumbency is generally the most powerful factor in elections — short of a major scandal or similar political catastrophe, incumbents most often are relatively secure in their reelections. The fact that union support turns out to be not only as powerful a factor but, in fact, a slightly more powerful factor in the most significant contests demands a reevaluation of our fundamental thinking about who is really in charge of our state and local governments. Professor Moe found that in the school-board races he researched, incumbency boosted a candidate’s reelection chances by 47 percent. Union support boosted the odds by 56 percent. The combination of union support and incumbency boosted the odds by 76 percent — an important factor, since many of those incumbents became incumbents on the strength of earlier union support, meaning that the unions are compounding the effectiveness of their electoral efforts over time, stocking the incumbent pipeline with their favored candidates.
And, it is rather natural for public school employees, including support staff, to be more knowledgeable about elections that affect local schools at which they work. It is thus not surprising that they are more likely to vote in such elections than average. In contrast, a teacher or school employee is less likely to know about issues at schools that they do not work. Hence, less participation.
Your complaint about teachers having "too much influence" over schools merely because they bother to vote rings awfully hollow. That is democracy in action. I would say that teachers, in their role as citizens and not just as employees, should have an important voice in matters affecting schools. Especially since they have more knowledge and expertise than the average voter.
I don't hear you complaining that affluent voters vote with a higher probability than the less affluent. So why are you complaining about teachers and other school employees having a higher probability of voting?
People who don't vote have to live with the consequences. This is illustrated by the 2010 election, where Congressional Republicans received FAR FEWER votes than did Obama in 2008. The difference? People who voted for Obama didn't bother to show up to the polls to support Democratic candidates who would support Obama's agenda in a non-Presidential election year. That decision had consequences, but I don't hear you complaining about it.
I think the real issue you seem to have is not that some groups participate in elections more than others, but that you prefer only the "right sort" of people to vote disproportionately in a way that advances your personal policy preferences. That is an understandable preference, we all wish our own policy preferences would prevail, but it hardly constitutes a principled argument.
Or to put it another way, if Republicans don't care enough about school board elections to outvote the teachers and school employees (who represent a much smaller percentage of the population than Republicans) then they justly must face whatever outcome arises from their decision not to vote! Just as Obama supporters who decided to sit out the election must face the consequences of not supporting politicians who would further Obama's election in 2010.
Your attempt to make teachers and school employees voting disproportionately on issues that they have a reason to know more about than average is simply an epic fail. You aren't really making a principled argument here.
Federal workers are paid more than State workers and State workers are paid more than Local workers. It seems odd to me that the level of Unionization is the reverse. Also keep in mind that whatever the State debt problem, it pales in comparison to the Federal one.
I am a Conservative Paramedic/Firefighter who contributes to Republicans and belongs to a Union. I understand the concern over Union influence and I understand the concern over government debt. I am willing to make a little less going forward in order to ‘right the ship.’ I live a modest lifestyle on a decent salary. I never fell into the trap of demonizing Wall Street and I wish National Review wouldn’t demonize Public Employees. Half of us support the Conservative Cause.
People have the right to support whichever party they choose. If the public sector needs to tighten the belt in order to keep Local, State and Federal Governments afloat, so be it but, we are not the Devil.
I have said repeatedly:the real problem is not public sector compensation but the scope and breadth of government. Fire some workers, close some agencies, remove silly regulations and the problems solve themselves. Fewer workers mean less political power and it can be done without limiting anyone's speech.
The american people have to realize that all the goodies we ask for costs money.
Listening to a retired mayor of 44 years talk about public service unions, I have no doubt about an underestimated political influence which increases as the level becomes localized. Their jobs expose them to local government more than the general public, so for example, it is more likely to see teachers appearing at zoning hearings and that they will believe their concerns are the most important. It is the degree of uniformity of position that is astonishing. Part of that uniformity comes from the desire for power by acting as a group. That need for power both produces and rationalizes group think.
In terms of influence, teachers have the most and this article only describes a partial scene. It is also turning that group think outward on children (everything from global warming to what is good and bad about us to an evengelical need for activism on the "right" issues). And it is as personal and potent as a parent - more so at adolescence.
Yes, public sector employees are citizens and should vote. The problem is the influence of their vote. Here in Shelby County, Alabama, we recently had a vote on property taxes for funding the schools. The school lobby wanted to extend the "temporary tax rate" for 30-years! The vote was a stand-alone issue, no other items on the ballot. Nobody (but the school lobby) in the general public even knew about the vote until a couple of days prior to the election! Of course the school lobby shows up to vote. They are the only folks that knew about it! The talk radio stations did a good job of publicizing the vote (2-days before the vote).
The fact that they didn't even publicize the vote ought to tell you that something is wrong with the system. Why aren't these issues combined on general election ballots, where there is the greatest participation? They don't want you to know or to participate!
Any guesses who won? Our taxes were extended another 30-years!
I would say that if collective bargaining "rights" are eliminated, then at least the unions will have to win elections, which right now they don't.
Right now, if voters elect a school board which takes a stand, that school board's stand can and will be overridden under "binding arbitration". Ah, democracy.
Anecdotally the arbitrators look at what other districts are doing-ie, the ones that DID cave to the union.
Decentralized Power.
Whether in governments, voting blocks, or elsewhere.
We have a policy of one man, one vote to achieve this very purpose. Now if a group has similar interests and choose to vote in the same way, so be it. It is when a group has similar interests and coerces another to vote in the same way, it becomes illegal; be that through union dues and open ballots, through packs of smokes and alcohol, or through promises of earmarks or a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
The problem is not that union members vote (or that they are allowed to vote, pace Derb), it's the sort of things that get put up to a vote, and the size of the bureaucratic class.
In my view, certain fiscal restraints ought to be constitutional, norms that do not deviate much with the outcomes of elections.
And we need a radical headcount reduction in the bureaucracies.
Another great article!
Now, please figure out a way to get the story out to the public. I watch many of the shows and the Conservative message & rationale is not getting across - way too much talking. Help them get it down to 3-5 bullet comments; something that can go on a white board.
Here are some salient ones that are not getting emphasized:
1. Look at the signs the protesters are using in terms of the organizations supporting the public unions - communists, socialists, etc. - does the public really want them involved?
2. Find a way to succinctly state the negative impact of the Democrat exodus from their duties as representatives of their constituents - how about "it is cowardice, not bravery" for starters?
The Left is doing a better job on message right now.
We gotta win this.
The problem with voting, which everyone should do, is that not everyone does. If everyone did, and a given initiative passed, it passed because a majority of people wanted it, not because a majority of voters wanted it.
Apparently voting isn't covered by the Commerce clasue and so cannot be compelled.
All things considered, I don't object to unions so long as membership is voluntary and behavior is non-violent. The rude behavior of the WI protestors inclines me to shut off the air/heating/fans in the building and turn off the water. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the unionized police won't remove the union supporters, but I would have thought the job would take precedence. It isn't as though they are being asked to cross picket lines.
Basically, yes. We would hope that [insert favorite free-market and/or libertarian entity] would make liberty/prosperity maximizing choices. However, a lack of effective counter balance could just as easly lead to rent-seeking without effective means to resist. What we're seeing here is a basic failing of the democratic process. I'd argue its the political equivilent of a market failure.
We place far too much emphasis on "democratic process". The relevent words are "a Republic, if they can keep it."
When I was in college, I took a microecon class in which the professor used an analogy that I really like regarding inefficiencies.
If you imagine any organization (business, government, etc.) as a stream or river. The water flowing through is like cash flow or budget. Stones or boulders are like inefficiencies. If you have enough water coming through, if the water level is high enough, it will cover up the inefficiencies. If you drop the water level (budget), the inefficiencies can be exposed, because they'll start to become visible obstructions.
I'm sure my prof didn't come up with it, but as much as people want to blame the economy for our debt crises, all it has done is expose the underlying, more fundamental problems with the way we run government.
Why do you think every big city in this country is dominated by Democrats? Because towns like NYC, Chicago and San Fran (and Madison) are dominated by unions.
The question is whether the Dems control the unions or the other way around -- or perhaps they're more like parasitic collaborators, and the question is a distinction without a difference.
The Madison Unrest is starting to make this clear to the whole country (there is no daylight between the 14 Dems Who Ran Away and the public unions -- who are being supported by AFL-CIO, SEIU, DNC, Organize For America, and all the usual suspects.)
I think Gov. Walker has shown great restraint so far -- he could have brought the hammer down by now, which is actually what the protesters want (I live in Madison -- a union member told me last week he was hoping the police try to remove the demonstrators by force, thus allowing for a telegenic incident to get this story back on top of the news cycle. They also keep hoping Obama will come to town to join them . . . and rumours fly about Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan and other iconic lefty rockstars coming to town to give free concerts. None of which is likely to happen.)
The momentum is not going Demunion's way -- polls already show teachers unions are significantly less popular than they were 1 year ago. I think Walker believes that the Demunions will blink first, and he is probably right. There are a few things he can do to increase the pressure on the Dem 14 to return, but not much the protestors can do to ramp things up (the crowds get smaller every day, it's mostly just college students and "professional activists" banging on bongo drums by now. There are also a lot more coach buses from out of town lately, presumably sent by the Chicago unions. Early on it really was dominated by "working folks from Wisconsin", but um, they had to go back to work!!)
I think living in a big city also breeds a "collectivist" mindset, that's another part of it. (See George Will's fine recent column on "why liberals love trains".)
"The level of ambient union rapacity...(100%››)"
Great article! Love the wording above, and hat tip to commenter HoyaDomer for the micro-econ metaphor.
Lord Acton declared that freedom is only secured by citizens resisting against those who would arrogated power to themselves, although he put it down with more panache than I can. If the silent majority keeps showing up at the polls as they did in 2010, they can stem the dark tide of history, if not, we may as well chant the prophetic words of King Louis XV, "Apres Moi, Le Deluge."
"If instead the Chamber of Commerce or the Koch Brothers had a 'large and prevailing' influence, would that be a bad thing?"
No one should be able to influence elections by using money. However, the unfortunate truth is that they can. Money talks.
Because the public unions wield their influence using money they confiscate from the paychecks of public employees, it's probably easier to go after them.
Favorite part of the legislation that governor Walker has proposed, and perhaps the most powerful:
-> Union dues paid directly by union members, rather than withheld from paychecks automatically. When the members have to dig into their own pockets to take out their bills, and put them into the hands of the union bosses, they may begin to ask, "Hello, what exactly am I getting in exchange for my hard earned cash?" (yes, I believe most teachers, police, firefighters etc. are, by-and-large, hard workers). The state and local governments have no reason to collect the money, unless of course it's in the interest of assuring the cash flow continues to prop up their party and their powerbase.
