Governor Scott Walker has already achieved something significant in Wisconsin—by focusing on both the level of government-worker benefits and their power to bargain collectively for those benefits, he has brought union officials and (apparently) many public employees in his state to say that they would accept benefit cuts. They are taking their stand, instead, on the power to bargain collectively for future benefits (rather than only for wages). This, union officials (as well as many observers around the country, including President Obama) insist is a basic right, and the effort to curtail it is (in Obama’s words) “an assault on unions” that would leave workers unprotected. And anyway, they argue, collective-bargaining rights have nothing to do with the problems confronting Wisconsin and other states.
But this ignores the crucial differences between public and private workers—differences that give public employees enormous advantages over both their employers and their private-sector counterparts, and that argue against collective bargaining in the public sector. Daniel DiSalvo very ably and thoroughly explains some of those differences
here.
Put simply, public employees (even when they are not organized, let alone able to bargain collectively) have some major advantages over their private-sector counterparts. They are guarded by generous civil-service protections—the most significant of which predate public-sector unionism, having been put in place, ironically, to combat the inclination of urban political machines to use the public sector as a powerbase. And most government employees work in non-competitive fields where their employer has a monopoly, so their jobs are not threatened by competitors, and are not dependent on their ability to work efficiently and so keep their employer competitive.
When they organize—merely as an interest group, quite apart from formal collective bargaining—they have several more immense advantages. By leveraging their numbers and resources, their organizations can become major players in politics. At election time, public employees can therefore play a large role in choosing their own employers or bosses (by getting certain people elected and not others), which of course no private-sector union can do. At all levels of government today, public-worker unions are among the biggest political donors. Between elections, they can use that political power to influence those elected officials and the political process more generally to improve their pay, benefits, or conditions, and also to increase demand for their services through legislation that increases the size or role of government (as the California prison guards union was instrumental in passing the state’s three-strikes law, for instance) or that prevents competition (as the teachers’ unions do in opposing school-choice programs). In all these ways, public workers have enormous powers that private workers could not dream of, and all without actual formal collective bargaining.
When you add collective bargaining to that mix, the unions gain the power to make in private negotiations decisions that should be made in public deliberations—decisions about public priorities and public budgets. And they turn public employees into a formal procedural adversary of the public they serve. This presents some serious problems to our democratic system, problems that traditionally kept even the biggest advocates of unionism from supporting collective bargaining with the government. This is why Franklin Roosevelt said that “collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” It is why George Meany (the first president of the AFL-CIO) said it was “impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
Public employees in many states (and to a limited extent also at the federal level) are nonetheless permitted to bargain collectively for precisely the reasons above: They gained that permission as their unions gained political power over the years. And they have often used their collective bargaining powers to increase not only their members’ pay (an increase which shows up rather directly and immediately in public budgets) but also their benefits, and especially retirement benefits (which often do not show up on the books for years and so are easier to get from cash-strapped public officials). As DiSalvo notes in his essay:
Since 2002, for every $1-an-hour pay increase, public employees have gotten $1.17 in new benefits; private-sector workers, meanwhile, have received just 58 cents in added benefits. Of special interest to the unions has been health care: Across the nation, 86% of state- and local-government workers have access to employer-provided health insurance, while only 45% of private-sector workers do. In many cases, these plans involve meager contributions from employees, or none at all — in New Jersey, for instance, 88% of public-school teachers pay nothing toward their insurance premiums.
And many of these benefits continue to be provided to retired employees, not only current ones. This is why many governors eager to get their finances under control have had to start by confronting public employees, and it is why Wisconsin’s governor has targeted his efforts on one important cause of the problem—collective bargaining for benefits. Walker would not even strip state employees of the power to bargain collectively for wages, only for benefits which are easier to hide from the public. And he would not, of course, strip them of their other great advantages over private-sector workers, which are functions of their rights as citizens who also happen to be employed by the government they elect, and so could not be taken from them.
The notion that this involves an assault on some inalienable right to collective bargaining with the public is preposterous. Such collective bargaining is a privilege public workers have obtained by exercising their political muscle, and state officials around the country are right to try to roll it back to the extent they can.
In the long run, the real solution to the growing conflict between public employees and the public they work for is to limit the government’s size and reach and to contract out more of its remaining functions to the private sector, so as not only to increase the government’s efficiency but also to minimize the conflict between its obligations to the people it serves and its obligations to the people it employs. But in the meantime, it is also necessary and appropriate to pare back some of the enormous power built up by public workers over the past few decades.
I'm no great fan of labor unions, but they have their place in the private sector. However, labor unions in the government are another thing entirely.
We live in a democratic republic. EVERYONE who serves in government should be considered to work at the pleasure of the citizens. Elected officials can be booted out at the next election. Cabinet members can be fired by the President for weak performance. In California, judges can be dismissed by the voters. It may be appropriate to protect lower-level employees with the civil service system to avoid their dismissal simply for partisan reasons. But is is simply wrong to permit labor unions to exist for government workers. There should be NO tenure for such people if they work in government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe injection of the President and his private political arm into Wisconsin politics create a perception problem for him. As I stated last Friday, he can no longer triangulate or push himself off as a moderate. This kind of political gamesmanship, if anything will wake up voters.
Yet, it has also become obvious how dependent the President and his party are to union campaign cash (the corrupting influence of collective bargaining are now on high display). Otherwise, this drama in Madison Wisconsin makes no sense. Govenor Walker also may be playing a game of high stakes poker. His ultimate goals afterall could have been only to get his public service employees to accept cuts in benefits. By demanding an end to collective bargaining, he is getting the unions to accept pay cuts they would have never otherwise accept. If that's the case, his move was a stroke of genius.
The President cannot continue to deploy his "Blackshirts" to every state that has union "troubles". His approval ratings are again moving down. And it will become impossible for him to continue to jump on and off the Bill Clinton-Dick Morris moderation train. With crisis developing everywhere in North Afica and the Middle East who knows where oil will be this summer. If pump prices climbt to the $5 dollar range, we can all forget about the continuation of the current bull market. And raising union money next year will be the least of his problems. The President is squandering whatever political capital his has left faster than he is borrowing money from the CHICOMs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe contract negotiated by the teachers union in Indiana requires that teachers be allowd to decide what color the walls in their lounges must be painted. If they lost their collective bargaining rights for salaries and benefits, they would still be able to demand that the walls in the lounge be painted taupe rather than white. The President's claim that the absence of collective bargaining rights for salaries and benefits will leave union workers open to misuse and abuse is false - and he knows it. Even without union protection, public workers have access to the same labor protections private sector workers have. Given the litigious society we live in and thousands of pages of federal, state and local government rules and regulations, the idea that union representation is all that stands between public employees and abuse by their employers is laughable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy not simply prohibit public-sector unions from donating to campaigns? Clearly there's a conflict of interest in public employee unions donating campaign cash to the people who will affect their salaries, etc. Individual citizens would still be able to donate.
Mind you, I'm all for opening up the power for people, corporations, etc. to donate money to politicians they support, but it's telling that the left in totally disinterested in restricting union contributions to politicians, even as they argue corporations and the wealthy must be so limited.
And with the public unions, unlike other cases, there is a real conflict of interest, an opportunity for direct pro-quid-pro types of agreements that violate the public trust.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of the most important facets of this event is the idea raised that the Wisconsin government will not collect union dues.
Think about this for a while and you'll understand how powerful this little detail is for the union as well as how completely indefensible it is to continue the practice.
If you run an organization who's revenue stream is guaranteed to BE DELIVERED you have a phenomenal leg up in power over other organizations. Why? Every other organization has to do SOMETHING to make its customers or members WILLING pay up. They can't be completely unresponsive and venal because they still have to court their revenue providers. And how many organizations have this freedom? This enormous power? Only governments and unions. Is there any wonder both become unresponsive and arrogant over time?
Now, take the guarantee stream away. Certainly fewer members will, willingly, write the same $500-$1,000 check to the union.....at least not without some kind of accountability being shown. Arguably, it is unfair to union workers to withhold these dues because it interferes with a union member's ability to influence union behavior through the withholding of dues.
By what reasoning should the state act on behalf of union leadership (and they are certainly the beneficiaries of this) in this manner? Its not fair to workers nor does it promote union leadership accountability.
Republicans, everywhere, should seize on this issue and raise it for debate. If nothing else, it will prove union management and their Democratic bedfellows have no interest in the "little guy" when their power supply might be endangered.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere should be more attention to the claims that collective bargaining is a non-fiscal issue. It's my understanding that the bargaining rules often impose arbitration in a negotiation impasse, shifting fiscal policy decisions from elected officials to arbitrators. And bargaining affects work rules, which obviously affect productivity and morale.
It's also worth noting that the unions are insisting on mandatory dues collection and resisting annual re-certification votes. If the members are so enthusiastic, what's the problem with these changes? Yeah, mandatory dues address free-riders, but they also establish factional control by giving unchecked authority to whomever wins a majority. And that leadership is then motivated to make deals and external alliances that reinforce its internal electoral position, rather than directly pursuing the members' interests. The structure diverts attention from the interests of the membership to internal union politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe demonstrators in Wisconsin are their own worst enemies and it's too bad they're not reasonable enough to realize that. Their stubborn, and sometimes threatening, insistence that they should have their way regardless of the consequences to others makes the case for why they shouldn't have the right to employ these same tactics in order to get the salaries and benefits they want, regardless of the taxpayers' financial ability to provide them.
Some teacher are now agreeing to compromise this time around on salary and benefits, but that's no guarantee they'll be as amenable in the future. I remember my local school district bargaining with the teachers union to accept a lesser pay raise in the current year by promising to make up for the "lost income" in the next.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs anyone else getting as tired of the unionists trotting out the “We need unions because my great-grandpappy was forced to work 80 hours a week at the sorghum mill for two-cents a day and died of the black lung” rationale? How obtuse does one have to be to ignore that unions have become coercive, corrupt, and anti-democratic and are sorely in need of reform?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's the answer - "The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Act of 2010" no public sector unions period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's very simple: in the private sector, workers needed to organize to protect themselves from unfair labor practices and to extract a greater share of ownership's profits. Today, we have more than ample statutory and regulatory protection for workers. And, in the case of public workers, not only does "ownership" not generate profits, labor makes more money on average than management. Break the public unions!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem with collective bargaining for public employees is that the legislatures are constitutionally mandated to set both spending and tax policies. A judge cannot force a legislature to increase pay and benefits, as those items are entirely up to elected politicans,. Not even FDR himself was for collective bargaining.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInsightful post (and comments). I've been trying to think through this collective bargaining issue since the situation in Wisconsin unfolded and this has been a help. I'd venture that if asked why they are entitled to comprehensive collective bargaining, 9 out 10 protestors in Madison couldn't offer a cogent response.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBill Kristol said it perfectly yesterday ... collective bargaining is corrupt. It's not like the unions will bargain with a company president who has something to lose. In fact, it's the opposite - the dems get union backing so they just give them what they want.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps the Governors should take a position that the negotiations with the Unions are Public Business, and all sessions involving the public dollar will be televised. No private meeting will be allowed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would make engaging TV to see the logic by which Unions make their excessive demands.
Up the ante. WFB used to argue (citing John Stuart Mill) that government employees should not have the vote.
Try putting THAT on the table.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the unions are as entrenched on CB as they say, Walker ought to extract 10 pounds of flesh on pensions and health premiums and let them keep that right. Unions will crow about "rights of organizing" and other lame platitudes, but this will let Wisc. reset the floor on compensating public employees.
Walker says he won't let go of the CB issue, but there's no shame in going after the other pernicious issues like the ponzi scheme pensions and run away health care costs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose of us in Wisconsin already know that Walker has won, and the unions are only helping by acting out. WI will be a red state for some time to come.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe support Governor Walker in all his proposals, including ending the union control at the bargaining table. For years, the burgeoning government has demanded more and more of our income even denying us the right to deduct our health premiums. And, now, President Obama is proposing that we won't be able to subtract our state taxes from our Federal tax.
We have little sympathy for teachers who have not even had to PAY health care PREMIUMs!! Add to that their work schedule of only 9 months with all major holidays off, and it is no wonder many of us are sick and tired of the stranglehold that unions and teachers exert on our state and communities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse02/19/11 07:47
Posted elsewhere on this sight
Report Abuse
Excellent article. I believe that to properly analyze this question it is necessary to have labels that allow for a concise distinction between unions that represent government workers and unions that represent workers in the private sector.
There are two fundamentally different and inherently incompatible factions among unionized workers.
There is a LABOR movement that is comprised largely of blue collar workers that has sought to level the playing field in negotiations with private owners of capital, who may have bargaining advantages that stem from better information, deeper pockets and industrial concentration. These unions are in an adversarial position with the management of the capital, who serve at the pleasure of the owners of that capital. LABOR unions concentrate on maximizing the pay of their workers, for given amount of labor.
All of the recent growth in unions has come from the faction that I refer to as the LEISURE movement. These unions, such as the SEIU,NEA, AFSCME (the Union that works for you) work by colluding with, rather than bargaining against management, which in this case are elected politicians. The power of a LEISURE union Comes not so much from the threat of a strike, but from the ability of a LEISURE union to deliver political victory (or defeat) at the polls to the politicians they are "bargaining" with. Because of this it is essential for the LEISURE leader to maximize the number of public employees along with the number of public pension recipients. They therefore push to minimize the work done for a given amount of pay, in contrast to LABOR unions which try to maximize pay for a given amount of work. This is seen in the constant demands for smaller class size, earlier and earlier retirement, etc etc . They also benefit in two ways from government subsidies for idleness, (which is itself a leisure-intense activity). First the more people on the dole, the more government workers are needed to administer the dole, and secondly the recipients of the dole do not vote like taxpayers do, in fact they automatically vote exactly the way LEISURE leaders would want them to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnions are businesses like any other business. Like other businesses, among their problems are an agency problem.
There's no obvious reason why a teacher should prefer a massive Cadillac "health" plan and a salary of $40,000 a year, over a health plan comparable to the best private sector plans and a salary of $50,000. But there's a huge reason why the union leadership prefers this: the health insurance is bought from the union.
Yep, you read that right: In an amazing coincidence, the union has determined that the best available health care plan comes from..the union.
Such blatant conflicts of interest will be drastically reduced through the elimination of the ability to bargain for benefits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse