Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Government-Union Reform Spreads Beyond Wisconsin

The fight in Wisconsin is about who controls government: the voters, through their elected representatives, or government unions? Collective bargaining means the government cannot employ workers except on terms the union accepts. Government unions also politicize the civil service — the money they collect through the state payroll system makes them major political players. Unsurprisingly, unions want government to serve their interests instead of the public’s.

Fortunately, other states are following Governor Walker’s lead. Many states across the country have passed or are moving to pass legislation restoring voter control over their government:

Alabama: Alabama recently passed legislation prohibiting the use of the state payroll system to transfer money to political organizations — including government unions. The Alabama Education Association contends this will cost them millions in lost dues and is challenging the law in court. Since the Supreme Court already upheld a similar law in Idaho, they will probably fail.

Idaho: The state legislature passed a bill limiting school-district collective bargaining to just salary and wages. The legislation eliminates tenure and seniority-based layoffs. Elected school districts will now have the power to reward good teachers and remove bad ones.

Florida: Committees in both the state house and the state senate have taken important steps toward restoring a nonpartisan civil service. They have passed legislation prohibiting the state and local governments from collecting union dues through their payroll systems. If passed by the full legislature this would end a major taxpayer subsidy for union political fundraising.

Kansas: The Kansas House of Representatives passed a paycheck protection bill. The legislation prohibits government unions from collecting money used for political purposes through the state payroll system. Instead, the union would have to persuade workers to write a separate check to cover political expenses. Unions are predictably apoplectic, but the legislation recently passed a state senate committee.

Oklahoma: A state house committee passed a bill allowing large cities to choose whether or not to give unions a monopoly over municipal work forces. The Oklahoma senate also passed a bill reforming binding arbitration. Like many other states, Oklahoma prohibits government employees from striking against the public. Instead binding arbitration resolves contract disputes. With arbitration, an outside official listens to both sides and hands down a binding contract, taking spending decisions out of the hands of elected officials. The reforms change the standards arbitrators use to make them fairer to taxpayers.

Ohio: By a one-vote margin, the Ohio senate passed a bill preventing government employees from striking against the public, requiring government employees to pay more of the cost of their benefits, and taking the “binding” out of binding arbitration. Contract disputes would go to arbitrators, but local elected officials would have the final say on whether or not to accept the proposed contract. The state house is currently conducting hearings on the bill.

Nebraska: Nebraska governor Dave Heineman and many prominent legislators are pushing for a complete overhaul of government unions. One proposal would make arbitrators’ decisions purely advisory. Another ends binding arbitration altogether. Either proposal would return control over government to the voters and their elected representatives.

Tennessee: A state senate committee passed a bill restoring voter control over education policy. The legislation prohibits school districts from giving education unions a monopoly over their teaching workforces. A state house committee just passed a weaker version of the bill that gives school districts control over merit pay and firing decisions, but retains union influence over the wages and benefits taxpayers pay. A companion bill would stop subsidizing union fundraising with payroll deductions of dues.

Government unions drive up costs for taxpayers and prevent elected officials from implementing needed reforms. They are the reason the government does not fire failing teachers or abusive social workers. Now is the time to restore a nonpartisan civil service and voter control over their government.

James Sherk is senior policy analyst in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   19

EXPAND  

   03/17/11 13:23

Someday, I would love to hear a cogent explanation of why the government, which is supposed to be the arbiter of all things good in employment practices, needs a union at all. But these are welcome steps, and show clearly why the Left blew up in Wisconsin. Sure, union dues turned into political contributions are big money in WI. But it is the aggregate effect across 50 states that gives the unions their political power. Law of Large Numbers.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 13:46

I wouldn't mind a law that states that anyone who works for the govt doesn't get to vote.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 13:48

You left poor Indiana off the list. Their fleebaggers must be wondering why the national media doesn't love them, too.

Missouri also introduced their own right-to-work legislation this week, though it has been shelved until the next session (later this month). Passage may be difficult in spite of significant majorities in the House and Senate, since the Governor is a Democrat and a sizeable number of Republicans are shaky on the proposition.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Ochiee
   03/17/11 14:13

"..this would end a major taxpayer subsidy for union political fundraising"

Union dues are not a 'taxpayer subsidy'. The dues are paid by the employees from money they earned for work they provided. Once earned, *everyone* should have the right to spead their own money as they see fit. Making it difficult for certain people to contribute to a legal organization is not something that should be legislated. Unless, of course, it's a group you don't like ... then it should absolutely be disallowed.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 14:33

Some scam the unions have, forcing the taxpayers(government) to collect their dues, dues they use to punish taxpayers.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 14:35

But where is California? (We're dying out here.....)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 14:41

Great roundup. More, Faster!

Captcha bites.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 14:44

Ochiee... None of these initiatives prevent any union member from freely donating however much the want to whatever cause they want.

But you knew that, right?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 14:50

I see a lot of red states on that list...

Is it me, or is there an inverse relationship between the states where we produce things, and the presence of strong unions in the state?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
JackOfClubs
   03/17/11 15:06

I'm guessing the wave will break before it gets out here to CA.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 15:24

@ Ochiee - Forgive me, but I don't get it. You said: "the right to spead their own money as they see fit". Does a right exist for one to not join a union and pay dues in a manditory union state like Wisconsin - no right to work - and, to not pay dues when they are automatically deducted from pay? Liberty is lost when it is mandated by law that you have to join a union and have to pay dues.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 15:34

This is probably the best news I have heard all year.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   03/17/11 15:54

@Ochiee: Then you agree with all of us. The "right" to choose to join a union and pay dues presumes the right to not join a union and to choose not to pay dues. There is absolutely nothing difficult about the act of writing a check to the union on a monthly basis. What are they going to get, writer's cramp?

The 'difficulty' lies in the fact that across America, roughly 93% of citizens reject union membership. Rejection hurts.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Lgbpop
   03/17/11 23:58

I have been asking this question on many forums, and have yet to get a straight answer from any union booster. It has to do with the philosophical question of why public unions exist in the first place. Leftists in general believe that more government is better, and that big government is good. Unions purport to exist for the protection of the "workers." Unions also tend to be most supported by the left. Why, then, do public workers need a union to protect them from that which they believe is good?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Weekend Cowboy
   03/18/11 08:33

All of this discussion begs the question: Why not a national Right-To-Work Law? No one should be forced to join a union in order to get or hold a job. Forced unionism is a form of slavery and should be considered immoral! I urge you to support a Right-To-Work Law in your state and across the country.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Lisa from Ca
   03/18/11 09:56

BUT, BUT THEY DO FORCE PEOPLE TO PAY UNION DUES AS WELL AS THEY FORCE MEMBERS TO VOTE WHO THEY SAY TO VOTE FOR ! You see it's all about their agenda. They lie to the workers. They use the people as their puppets for their agenda and Obama/ SEIU are pals ! You see what is really going on here ? We need to get rid of the Unions all together ! Take their high priced buildings they build with tax payers money and action it off to pay down our debt. After all it was the tax payers dollars that paid for it... UNIONS MUST GO AND NEVER BE ALLOWED BACK ! THEY ARE A HACK JOB FOR WASHINGTONG DEMOCRATS/RHINO'S They are stealimng your money as gov as well gives union funding to continue to help them cheat steal and do voters fraud.

Workers blow whistle on SEIU election fraud
External Link 

Fresno homecare providers tell how SEIU staff threatened them and changed their ballots to secure a razor-thin advantage in a controversial union election this June.
External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Markod
   03/18/11 10:06

Union Dues are from tax payers dollars as Gov funds and give Unions money. And the Union then turn and takes from the Union member and as well as the tax payers. See it's a scam from Union and gov... They make them pay for dues and tax payers pays taxes on what the gov gave the unions and their bosses. They are funded by the gov ...

It's a ring around the circle money. Tax payers who are not in the Union or a member is paying Unions anyways by what the gov gives them as is taking from the tax payers.

NO UNIONS ..NO WAY ..NEVER THEY NEED TO GO AND BE DEFUNDED AS WELL !

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John21
   03/18/11 10:56

Dreams, Dreams the union thugs will come out in force. Do you really think that each of the governments / governor mentioned have the willpower of Walker? Do you really think the people in those states will withstand the pressure from the unions and their media tools?
The further this goes they more desperate the unions and DNC will get, and the more dirty tricks.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Alix
   03/21/11 08:56

Teachers should know they have a choice in a nonunion professional association for teachers called the Association of American Educators. They have members in all 50 states and provide professional benefits, like liability insurance, without collective bargaining or the stigmas of the union. www.aaeteachers.org

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact