It’s clear from the recent poll purporting to show that the general population overwhelmingly supports collective bargaining, as well as from a recent article in Slate, that even informed people don’t really have a grasp on what collective bargaining is. Either that, or they’re misleading the public.
The poll defines the concept thus: “negotiations between an employer and a labor union’s members to determine the conditions of employment.” Slate wonders, “How can Wisconsin stop employees from bargaining collectively?” and answers, “By refusing to talk to their leaders.”
Both of these fail to make clear the coercion inherent in “collective bargaining” as it actually operates under the law. In reality, “collective bargaining” is when a majority of employees vote to unionize, and then the union has the legal right to represent all the employees. In other words, it forces workers to accept unions as their bargaining agents, and it forbids employers to negotiate with non-union workers on an individual basis.
In a right-to-work state, private-sector workers can refuse to pay union dues, but even then they are still bound by the union contract; elsewhere, they can be forced to pay dues. Public-sector policies vary state by state. In Wisconsin, public-sector employees can be forced to contribute to their unions, whether they want to or not.
In other words, Wisconsin doesn’t really have to “stop employees from bargaining collectively”; it just has to stop forcing employees to bargain collectively (in the guise of protecting a “right”), and to pay for it.
American politics thrives on the misinformed. This situation is stikingly similar to the polls showing support for repeal of Obamacare: opinions based on a nonstop chorus of opponents who haven't read and who don't understand the law but claim to understand its factual implications, led by those who really don't want them to understand it or to have an informed opinion of it to serve their political purposes.
Frustrating, isn't it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCollective bargaining is what we call price-fixing when it's done by people selling their products. Yet when it's done by people selling their labor, suddenly it's admirable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMish said it best:
'Collective bargaining' is not what its name indicates. In fact, it means exactly the opposite of what you'd guess. Collective bargaining refers to the obligation of an employer to recognize the elected representatives of a group of workers and his further obligation to negotiate with those representatives. This last part is what makes 'collective bargaining' extortion.
Under collective bargaining laws, employers have to recognize an elected union and have to negotiate with them.
Imagine if the tables were turned and employers had the right to 'employer bargaining', under which the employer could demand whatever pay reductions or workday increases he wanted, the employees had to negotiate with the employer, and employees couldn't quit!
Such an arrangement could only be classified as slavery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin: What a great point you make. What's most discouraging to me is when people who know the truth - like the Harvard-trained lawyer who inhabits the Oval Office - intentionally mislead in order to incite conflict and score political points. They know they're taking advantage of vulnerable people and they don't care. So much for the inspiring speech in Tucson. I never bought the public discourse rhetoric because we've been there, done that before, but I know some folks at NRO took the bait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith so much of the Dem platform based on forced collectivization maybe conservatives are being served up a useful "teachable moment." No, not necessarily the Stalin-era histories of collectivization. I mean remind Americans of what they already know, that association rights are like property rights: you have them as an individual. Yes, you can pool your money, join a co-op, lend your name to a group effort. But that has to be voluntary. And if it's not voluntary... well, then we have to dust off the old histories to explain where that leads.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna,
Have you read the Health Care law? If not your post only proves my point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHave you read the constitution? If you have, but still choose to reject its limits to federal power, then that proves the larger point.
And if you believe in an individual's right of association, but still deny people the right to opt out of a union, then you're probably the same guy who proved the point above.
Forced collectivization is central-planning's ugly half-brother. Pox on both.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRobert, agree with your comment. I think most people don't 'get' how collective bargaining works. I have been in the business world for 25 years and until I started working for a large telecom company with a large unionized work force, I didn't understand how it works (and perhaps I still don't have a full understanding).
For friends and family, I describe the collective bargaining process using a simple buying analogy that most people are familiar with. I want to buy a used car. The unionized seller is offering his car for $13K. I tell him that I am willing to pay $10K and there are plenty of similar used cars available in the market for $10K or less. He says he will not take less than $13K. I look around and find a non-unionized seller willing to sell the exact same car to me for $9K. As I walk away from the unionized seller to purchase the automobile for $9K from the non-unionized seller, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) steps in and tells me I am not allowed to purchase the car outside the bargaining unit and I MUST come to agreement on a fair price with the unionized seller.
Hence, you have no negotiating leverage and you must somehow come up with price even though there are other cheaper alternatives that you are not allowed to purchase. This is why you end up in strike situations. The only remaining tool in the management tool box is to staff the labor positions and let them strike and lose enough wages until they soften their position (i.e. price). Seeking a lower cost alternative from third parties is not allowed.
This concept is completely antithetical to me and most Americans. I think most people think 'collective bargaining' is when labor attempts to negotiate the price as a group and do not realize that 'management' is held hostage to the negotiation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Have you read the Health Care law?"
If that's the standard for being informed on and being allowed to comment on Obamacare, then you should be really torqued at all those folks who voted for it without reading it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne question I have may be answered from this august group.
Gov. Walker (who I think needs to do a much better job explaining these concepts but that is another post) brings up the need for flexibility across the various entities (e.g. Milwaukee school district vs. Sheboygan vs. Eau Claire vs. Beloit, etc.).
Here's the question - under existing WI law, if a union negotiates a lucrative contract with say a big (lefty dominated) Milwaukee school district, are other entities (e.g. Sheboygan) bound to that contract? In other words does the "bargaining" not only span across all employees but across negotiating entities? [Hope that question makes sense...]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy the way, when one is a part of a union or guild and collective bargaining, one loses individual rights to sue or otherwise redress grievances. Often the collective bargaining unit makes a decision in "your" case that "you" do not agree with or like, for "the good of the contract" and you have no recourse. The loud protests of the lefties in Madison about "rights" ignore that fact. It may very well be, especially with some of the one-sided consumer laws and employee laws now on the books in such long-progressive places, that the teachers and others in Wisconsin will have MORE right to fight against perceived injustices in the workplace without collective bargaining than they do now with it--and more control over their own lives in the process. THAT, of course, is what the unions (and the pols they're in bed with) fear most.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMike M, great post and description of "collective bargaining".
As far as reading Obamacare, I didn't, won't and don't have to. The Federal government has no business being in the healthcare business. My younger brother and I were debating the bill prior to passage. He said that the Feds should be able to regulate it because they were providing so much of it (Medicare and Medicaid). I stated that the real question is "Why is the Federal government in the healthcare business (actually the insurance business)?". He became a "convert".
The Feds have no business competing with private industry, whether it is PBS (broadcasting), Health Insurance (Medicare/Medicaid), Banking (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), Education (the States/private industry should handle it), Automotive Industry (GM/chrysler bailout).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou wanna give workers some serious economic power? Then end the tax and regulatory burdens that prevent job-creation in the private economy. Every worker worth his salt should be able to say, at any given moment: "treat me right, reward my success, or I'm start looking for a new job."
In a free-market economy we'd all have that power. Without the need to empower union bosses (and corrupt politicians).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe other aspect of collective bargaining is that the labor and management side negotiate as equals and if no agreement is reached it goes to arbiter agreed upon by both sides.
What that means with public unions is that the union reps have equal power with the duly elected representatives of the people in determining issues regarding the budget and public policy. What it means for me, is that I can work day and night to get my candidates elected, and my vote can be nullified by a union rep who disagrees with the election results and wants to hold out for his own view of "justice" and how he wants to spend MY TAX DOLLARS.
In a democracy, the final say about these issues should reside only with the executive branch, legislative branch, or the judicial branch and no other party should be able to control those decisions.
Unions are NOT the 4th branch of government, but with collective bargaining they have become so. And an unelected, unaccountable branch at that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne thing I find amusing is to listen to union workers brag about how their union has increased their pay, and gotten them gold plated benefits packages.
Then in the next breath they complain about companies that move "their" jobs overseas.
They don't get it. They never will get it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePolls like this demonstrate why a republic (as designed) is preferable to a democracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Imagine if the tables were turned and employers had the right to 'employer bargaining', under which the employer could demand whatever pay reductions or workday increases he wanted, the employees had to negotiate with the employer, and employees couldn't quit!
Such an arrangement could only be classified as slavery"
Mr. Sandmich,
I agree with your first paragraph but will point out the danger in the second. A union sympathizer could point out that scenario and say yes, and that is what was happening in sweatshops before unions. The catch is in the definition of "couldn't quit"
Some people cannot or think they cannot quit despite the fact that they can walk up to the boss and say, "I quit". A person in abject poverty with no forseeable change in his future (think sweatshop of the past)would say he "couldn't quit" because the only other choice is starvation. A father with kids doing well in school, spouse doing well in a job she loves, extended family in same town and desperately needed for help with child care might say he couldn't quit because quitting would mean moving and it would be ludicrous and probably detrimental to his loved ones to do so. Someone outside those households might disagree with the use of the term "couldn't" in these situations and point out options he thinks acceptable. But making a hard decision is always easier for one who won't have to live with the consequences.
In an ideal world the employer and employee would both be rational, considerate and live by the Golden Rule and legislators couldn't be bought. Reality doesn't give us that.
Someone who owns a business should have the ability to set all conditions as he chooses, simply because he owns
the business with all risks and possibilities. As taxpayers we "own" the business of government and choose others to make decisions for us.
As stated, the problem lies in the fact that the employer is forced to negotiate. Forced to and Freedom do not co-exist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Julie K: Thank you. Exactly.
@ Sandmich: Actually, it is as if all the employers in an industry could get together and set wages and benefits, with no recourse by the employees except to go look for jobs in other industries.
@South: Exactly. Government should set the pay and benefits (as the elected representatives of the people), and if they can't fill the necessary positions at that level, then they go back and change the compensation until they do fill those positions. Or, they decide that is best left to another level of government or to the private sector and eliminate the job positions entirely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin Moriarty no, I haven't read Obamacare because it is written in legalese or Madam Sebelius hasn't deemed it into print yet.
I rely on the writers of NRO to read it and then translate it for me.
Did you read it? And if you did, could you read what was in Madam Sebelius' mind because she is still deeming much of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDanoand-il asked:
"Here's the question - under existing WI law, if a union negotiates a lucrative contract with say a big (lefty dominated) Milwaukee school district, are other entities (e.g. Sheboygan) bound to that contract?"
The limit of my experience is being the son of a former school board member in a Milwaukee suburb.
From that perspective: The answer is technically no. But if Sheboygan and the union don't come to an agreement, it goes to "binding arbitration". The arbitrator will make his decision based on..what other area districts are doing! So..yeah. This is assuming WEAC doesn't control the arbitrators.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse