We have seen over the last few weeks an incredible amount of union outrage, fervor, and bussed in agitation and rhetoric aimed not at some mean nasty corporation BUT AT THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN. The issue is the union supporters' unwillingness to allow any changes to collective bargaining for government employees.
First a bit of history. As the industrial revolution began to spread about the country, there was a need for some effective mechanism to protect worker interests (including health, safety and working conditions). Thus, private sectors unions were born and filled this role. Using collective bargaining agreements, various working conditions, pay issues, and safety concerns were addressed. Over the years however, many of these original drivers for union representation have been supplanted by state and federal statutes and regulations. Among these are State & Federal Fair Labor Laws, OSHA (Safety), Civil Rights Act, and Employee Retirement Income Security Laws (ERISA). Reflecting these legal protections the need for and attendance in private sector unions has been dropping steadily. Another aspect of this drop is the consistent willingness of union management to back democratic candidates with the arbitrary use of the workers dues regardless of the political predilections of the workers themselves.
But why government sector unions and the related application of collective bargaining? None other than progressive icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke against this avenue of union expansion when he said:
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.“ FDR [Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service August 16, 1937]
Despite FDR's guidance, public sector unions began in NY City in the late 50s and have grown ever since. As Wikipedia summarizes, In general they [public sector unions] have shown robust growth rates, for wages and working conditions are set through negotiations with elected local and state officials. The unions' political power thus comes into play, and of course the local government cannot threaten to move elsewhere, nor is there any threat from foreign competition. This happens over and over because the discovery of a poor (or unsustainable) fiscal decision only occurs after a passage of time when the original players (who benefited from the initial decision) have moved off the stage.
In fact, beginning in 2009, there was more public sector union membership than private for the first time in US history.
The problem stems from the creation of a public sector union structure that has no effective checks and balances. It moves in only one direction - like a ratchet. Unions support those who in turn award them more benefits. Too bad about the taxpayer. Too bad that services, competency, and efficiency decline. The cycle continues without correction kicking the rock down the road into the future.
As can be seen in the attached chart, there are factors that check or mediate the wages and benefits of private sector workers. These factors must be effectively factored into private sector union bargaining agreements otherwise stagnant, unproductive, and non-competitive industries result (re: US automobile industry).
Public sector unions have used their collective bargaining ability to systematically reduce and eliminate the impact of costs, merit, and productivity measures on their salaries and benefits. Revenues(taxes) aren't directly related to union performance and there is generally no competition to public sector unions. This results in the upward spiral of wages and benefits (reflected in the rapid growth rates in public sector unions) and an unsustainable and undesirable mismatch between the pay and benefits of these workers vs. the private sector employees that pay their benefits (through taxes).
It is exactly this non-wage related collective bargaining (and the ineffective check-and-balances that stem from it) that the legislation in Wisconsin proposes to address. In response, union teachers have essentially gone on strike to protest in the capitol. Democratic lawmaker's have simply left the state to disallow the democratic process from occurring (in effect taking the process hostage). The current public sector union arrangement doesn't serve the taxpayer or the state but does serve to increase and consolidate union political power in an unreasonable and unbalanced manner. It must change.
Even FDR got this one right. Too bad our current president doesn't.
Links:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/02/illustrated-history-of-public-sector.html
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 60
There is a time and place for unions, like the building trades. Whenever I feel I'm not getting the benefit of the union, I have a CHOICE to go somewhere else. With government unions, I don't have a choice who fills my potholes, issues my building permits, and where I get my drivers license.
Yes, my rights are God given, your rights are too, whether you like them or want to use them.
As to why, they now mostly support Democrats, well you can thank Uncle Reagan for this. Uncle Reagan went after the Unions and that forced the Unions to turn to Democrats for support.
As you point out, Unions weren't always for Democrats.
Unions are for protecting workers rights and the guys who feel they can trust to protect their rights they get their support just as any business has the right to do!
Sorry you have a double standard.
Corporate Executives can decide for every one in the company, stock holders too and Coops of workers can't!
Scott Walker is a prime example why folks working for the States need to have collective bargaining.
Not one single government position creates 1 single dollar of wealth. They provide services that are funded by those that create wealth. The day the people decide the service is not longer needed, that position goes away. Call it what you want guy, your foul mouth and mental midgetry cannot be altered. But 1+1 will always =2
Some of these services can be dangerous, which is why there is larger pay, and money put aside to cover family benefits as well. In the military they call it hazard pay.
No civil servant in the federal government has the right to dictate pay, and/or benefits. This went away under the Carter administration. It was done so, because people who serve the public and are funded by the public, should not have the right to dictate wages. Wages are determined through what is considered market value of the job, and the current status of the economy.
No individual should ever have the right to determine who will decide their wages. No member of the private sector, gets to dictate who their boss will be, and no one can determine how much taxes they will get back at the end of the year. This is a conflict opf interest. We do not allow criminals to decide on who the judge and jury will be for a reason.
Public sector workers sometimes work to provide essential public services. Government unions work for democratically elected officials representing the will of the people. Since public servants work for the people, any strike by them would be a strike against the people. However, this tactic cannot negatively affect profits because governments cannot be driven out of business and do not work to make a profit; therefore, government unions cannot be driven out of business either. They gain their revenue forcibly through taxes. As a result, there is no market limit to how much such unions can take from the public through increases in taxes.
Moreover, government unions themselves can choose who negotiates with them on behalf of the people, through their votes and political support. Collective bargaining for government unions enable them to essentially bargain with themselves for a desired pay, benefits, and working conditions. In return for not resisting to sometimes excessive union demands and/or providing public sector workers with their desired pay and benefits, the government unions provide campaign contributions to their political benefactors, financed by taxpayers who had little to no say in the bargaining decision. "This inherent conflict of interest involved in government unions leads to oppressive political corruption, where there is no political limit as well as no market limit to the plunder of the public by government unions
That is why it is called a "DEADLY SIN" When, we get bamboozled we need to learn.
As I recall when I was with the electric utility, we got sick days off so long as you were really sick (and they didn't accrue). You either had to take your vacation days or you lost them. Too bad we weren't a municipal utility.
The study also found that from 1977 through 2007 there was "a very strong and highly statistically significant relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth." Right-to-work states experienced a 23% faster rise in per capita income over that period. The two regions that have lost the most jobs in recent years, the once-industrial Northeast and Midwest, are mostly forced-union states.
The level of representation in all sectors is being eroded by legislation sponsored, supported, and sometime written by special interests.
WORKERS ARE NOT A SPECIAL INTEREST, THEY ARE US.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but even when Walker's legislation is passed, the unions will still be able to collectively bargain on pay. What exactly is wrong with that? Pretty much everything can be put in terms of wages. If a county wants it's teachers to wear tuu-tuus to class, they can negotiate more pay for the embarrassment (or seek another position in another school system especially if they are a quality teacher).
The real problem is that you want them to be able to negotiate on charter schools, teacher tenure, merit systems, etc. regardless of how such affects the students.
"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations."
As I address in the article subsequent legislation makes unions less necessary (not more).
Unions negotiate for fair wages and fair working conditions. They have power but they do not have control. I'm in favor of their goal. I am not in favor of blaming American workers for wanting a fair wage and fair working conditions. And if you want to blame someone for an outcome that doesn't please you, I think you need to look at those who have control. Unions may have some power but they do not have control.
Evidence of imbalance:
http://educationnext.org/teacher-retirement-benefits/
I call that an American Right to vote for my own representation.
(From Wikipedia) According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, Tenth Edition, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons."
Note that since the Republicans have a sizable elected majority, the concern as stated in "Robert's" is not in play. The Dems are misusing the quorum rule.
In New York, hundreds of teachers were laid off, and the unions were proud. In California, thousands of teachers will be laid off, and the unions are content. In WI, IN, NV etc...union members will be allowed to opt out of union dues, and will pay concessions towards their own benefits, and the unions say this kills jobs. The unions are peeved. This actually saves the jobs of the teachers and allows them to use forced union dues to help compensate for increased concessions passed on to them to balance the budget. The only loser here is the anual budget of the unions, not the employees. After the smoke clears, will the union bosses cut their own incomes, to continue the massive contributions to Democratic nominees? That will be a question in 2012. The unions get whatever they want, once they get a Democratic nominee elected that promised them whatever they want; but in 20125, the lump sum of funds will be considerably less. The union bosses will have to figure out where all the money will be coming from.
In the public sector, when a union forces wages and benefits to exceed what is actually brought in, Democratic officials and legislators, use emotional rhetoric to sell the people on raising taxes on the rich to compensate the red ink. The Democrats were elected because the unions spend hundreds of thousands smearing their oppnants. Unions will say anything about anyone that runs against their candidate. Truth has no relevance in campaigning. Say what you want to dupe the public. This is the cycle of state and federal elections. This is why the unions heavily support Democrats. Because the Dems will promise anything to the unions, just to get elected. And the people that believe these Dems are working for them, are convinced that somehow their life got better because of it. Irony!!!!
In 2011, the tables have turned. The Assembly has 60 Republicans to 38 Democrats, and the state Senate is weighted 19 Repubs to 14 Dems. GOP Gov. Scott Walker has inherited a budget shortfall that is expected to grow to $3.6 billion over the next two-year budget. He has presented a budget-repair plan that would require most public employees to pay 5.8 percent of their salaries toward their (very generous by private standards) pensions and pay 12.6 percent of their health care premiums. The state is broke, and by essentially cutting workers' compensation by 7 percent, he hopes to avoid layoffs.
Walker had the votes to pass his budget-repair bill. The Dems did not. So, rather than lose in a fair vote, 14 Democratic senators fled the state in order to prevent the quorum necessary to pass Walker's package.
I read all your comments on this post. Carrying all that anger and hatred around inside is unhealthy.
What would Buddah do?