Hard Bargaining
As this is written, Madison, Wisconsin, is convulsed in the biggest protests since the Dow riots of September, 1967. (1) The issue is Governor Scott Walker's proposal that public employee unions (except for police and firefighters) be denied the right to bargain over anything but wages. Although Walker has linked the issue to his demand that state workers pay more for their retirement and health insurance, it is the bargaining question that has brought angry mobs to the Capitol, including a minority who support the Governor. But is he right?
Wisconsin law permits collective bargaining by employees of state and local governments, and requires binding arbitration in cases of deadlock. In today's economy, public sector unions are the only ones that are still growing; the percentage of unionized business employees peaked in 1956, and has been declining ever since. Some argue that public officials who won their offices with labor support face a conflict-of-interest in bargaining with the unions that helped elect them.
There can be no doubt that unionization of public employees has led to higher labor costs for state and local governments. But if you accept the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively (which has been enshrined in federal labor law since the 1930's), it is hard to justify excluding government employees. Walker's plan, which would allow unlimited bargaining by police and firefighters (the two unions in Milwaukee that endorsed him, coincidentally) is especially unfair to other groups of public employees, such as teachers, librarians, lawyers and so on.
Even if public employees have better pay, benefits and job security than similar workers in the private sector, the arbitration rule (which settles disputes in accordance with prevailing wages) prevents drastic disparities.
Also, in those fields where governments and private entities compete for the best employees (such as doctors, nurses, accountants and such) the advantages of public employment will attract the most capable applicants to public service jobs, so market forces serve the public interest.
Labor support is a significant factor in many elections, including the one I am in right now. Public employee unions, like the Realtors, florists, bankers, undertakers, and military contractors are self-interest groups, all of whom seek favorable actions by government officials. Right-wing critics single out the unions, but all these groups make campaign contributions to candidates (usually incumbents) who are sympathetic to their causes. Conscientious public officials should not favor groups that have helped them get elected, but as long as contributions are properly reported and spent only for political purposes, there is no practical way to prevent them from affecting the judgment of elected officials. (2) Voters who don't like unions are free to vote against politicians who have accepted their support.
The political atmosphere inside the Capitol is just as ugly as that in the streets. Democratic state senators are holed-up in Illinois to prevent a vote on Walker's bill, in a state version of the filibuster. There is talk of recalling senators for their stands on this issue. If we ever needed cooler heads to prevail, we need them now.
---------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The issue then was recruiting on the UW campus by Dow Chemical Co., which made the napalm used in the Vietnam War.
(2) It is illegal, however, for an official to promise to vote or take any other action in exchange for a contribution, which is known as "quid pro quo", Latin for "this for that." It is a hard claim to prove, and very few politicians are ever prosecuted for it.
Wisconsin law permits collective bargaining by employees of state and local governments, and requires binding arbitration in cases of deadlock. In today's economy, public sector unions are the only ones that are still growing; the percentage of unionized business employees peaked in 1956, and has been declining ever since. Some argue that public officials who won their offices with labor support face a conflict-of-interest in bargaining with the unions that helped elect them.
There can be no doubt that unionization of public employees has led to higher labor costs for state and local governments. But if you accept the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively (which has been enshrined in federal labor law since the 1930's), it is hard to justify excluding government employees. Walker's plan, which would allow unlimited bargaining by police and firefighters (the two unions in Milwaukee that endorsed him, coincidentally) is especially unfair to other groups of public employees, such as teachers, librarians, lawyers and so on.
Even if public employees have better pay, benefits and job security than similar workers in the private sector, the arbitration rule (which settles disputes in accordance with prevailing wages) prevents drastic disparities.
Also, in those fields where governments and private entities compete for the best employees (such as doctors, nurses, accountants and such) the advantages of public employment will attract the most capable applicants to public service jobs, so market forces serve the public interest.
Labor support is a significant factor in many elections, including the one I am in right now. Public employee unions, like the Realtors, florists, bankers, undertakers, and military contractors are self-interest groups, all of whom seek favorable actions by government officials. Right-wing critics single out the unions, but all these groups make campaign contributions to candidates (usually incumbents) who are sympathetic to their causes. Conscientious public officials should not favor groups that have helped them get elected, but as long as contributions are properly reported and spent only for political purposes, there is no practical way to prevent them from affecting the judgment of elected officials. (2) Voters who don't like unions are free to vote against politicians who have accepted their support.
The political atmosphere inside the Capitol is just as ugly as that in the streets. Democratic state senators are holed-up in Illinois to prevent a vote on Walker's bill, in a state version of the filibuster. There is talk of recalling senators for their stands on this issue. If we ever needed cooler heads to prevail, we need them now.
---------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The issue then was recruiting on the UW campus by Dow Chemical Co., which made the napalm used in the Vietnam War.
(2) It is illegal, however, for an official to promise to vote or take any other action in exchange for a contribution, which is known as "quid pro quo", Latin for "this for that." It is a hard claim to prove, and very few politicians are ever prosecuted for it.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:31 AM
2 Comments:
One would have to conclude from this blog that Mr.Glazer does not have a private sector job, he simply does not understand the issues. For those of us who do have a real job, this is all about fairness.
The following are the special priveledges that public employees get that we pivate employees do not get and it is extremely unfair
1. I have pay for a large part of my health care insurance.
2. I have to pay at least 50% of my retirement benefits.
3. I cannot bargain for my benefits only my salary
There is absolutely no reason why public sector employees should get all of this and prvate sector employees do not.
What I do not understand is how Mr. Glazer can so easily ignore the primary issue here: the blatant anarchy by our Democratic state senators. There has not been a more blatant and clear case of anarchy in WI. Here we have every Democrat in the senate flee ths state in order to shut down government. What could be more anti-Democratic than that?
The other isues here are that these senators are paid by us and they are taking their salaries to in order to shut down government and therefore not do their job. If we private sector employees did this, we would be fired.
The insane thing here and the main reason why the public sector unions and the Democrats will lose, is because both are paid for by US, by the private sector empoyees and employers.
Here is the best solution FIRE every public employee and Democratic senator and start over.
The biggest problem is indeed the unions. The USA is in trouble largely because of the unions. We do not have a garment industry anymore because of unions. We don't have a steel industry anymore because of unions. We have a bankrupt car industry because of the unions and we have no manufacturing anymore because of unions.
As a college student I worked every summer at various jobs from bottling company, construction, steel industry, as well as my father's delicattesen. All of the jobs were non-union but at the steel company
My first taste of a union was at Bethlehem Steel. I was a worker on the steel rolling line as a slag shoveler. What I noticed quite rapidly was that union policies created a mediocre work force, and my first thought then was that this could not survive. I could not understand how they made any money given the behavior of the workers.
The biggest problem was seniority. I saw older workers get promoted over much better younger workers and the result was that NO ONE worked very hard. They all did as little as they could get away with, because there was no reward for working hard or well. This did not and could not happen in any other non-union job I have ever had.
Of course my first reaction was that this could not survive, and it did not. The entire industry failed I am sure for the very same reason. It is simply impossible to compete with foreign companies that do not have these destructive unions. Our steel industry was far more technologically advanced but it was killed by unions because the cost of labor was far more expensive due to the effect of unions on workers: the workers cost more and did less.
The crazy thing is that when you look at the facts the biggest enemy of the workers are the unions themselves The unions put the garment, steel, auto, and manufacturing workers out of jobs. The unions killed their jobs.
Unions had a fine purpose 100 years ago, but today unions are killing the productivity of the USA andn the public unions are crippling and bankrupting our governments.
The best thing Walker could do for Wisconsin and the USA is to BUST THE UNION.
Post a Comment
<< Home