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
