Posted March 1st, 2011 at 1:00pm in Ongoing Priorities
For government workers, collective bargaining gives unions a monopoly on the government’s workforce. The government may not hire non-union workers. In the 28 non-right-to-work states (which includes Wisconsin), this means that unions can force government employees to pay union dues or get fired.
There are major differences in collective bargaining for government workers and private sector workers. In the private sector, unions bargain with owners to redistribute the profits created by the company. Governments make no profit. The only thing government workers bargain for is more tax dollars.
It wasn’t always this way. Collective bargaining with the government is a relatively new concept. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned us about the dangers of a government strike which he called “unthinkable and intolerable.” The president of the AFL-CIO, in 1955, said it was “impossible to collectively bargain with the government”.
What is happening in Wisconsin is that Governor Walker (R-WI) is trying to reform collective bargaining. He wants to give the voters more influence on where money is being spent. He is not eliminating collective bargaining or “busting” the unions. This is an important battle to fight because there are lots of states are facing large budget shortfalls. This is simply a measure to balance the budget and avoid layoffs.
You can download the pdf of this fact sheet here.
GOVERNMENT UNIONS 101
What Public-Sector Unions Won’t Tell You
What Is Government Collective Bargaining?
•
Legal Monopoly: Government collective bargaining gives unions a monopoly on the government’s workforce. The
government must employ workers on the terms the union negotiates. It may not hire competing workers.
•
Private vs. Public-Sector: Unions operate differently in government than in the private sector. Private-sector unions
bargain over limited profits. Competition from other businesses moderates wage demands. Governments earn no
profits and have no competition. Government unions negotiate for more tax dollars.
•
Risking Public Services: When government unions strike, they can deprive citizens of essential services—such as
education for children—until demands are met.
History of Government Collective Bargaining
•
Unions Once Rejected: Early labor leaders didn’t believe unions
belonged in government. In 1955, George Meany, then-president
of the AFL-CIO, said, “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” In 1959 the AFL-CIO Executive Council declared,“In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress—aright available to every citizen.”
•
FDR: President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) gave unions extensive powers
to bargain collectively in the private sector but excluded them from
government. FDR believed collective bargaining had no place in public
service and that a government strike was “unthinkable and intolerable.”
2,000
•
A Change of Heart: Union membership peaked in the private sector
in the 1950s. Unions came to see government employees as valuable
new dues-paying members. Some states, like VA and NC, still do not
negotiate public spending with government unions. 52% of union members in the U.S. now work for a government.
The Consequences of Government Collective Bargaining
•
Leverage over Government: Granting unions a monopoly over work done in government gives unions enormous
leverage over budgets and taxes. Unions use this power to raise taxes and get more of the budget spent on them.
•
Inflated Government Pay: Government unions win above-market compensation for their members. The average
government employee enjoys better health benefits, better pensions, better job security, and an earlier retirement than
the average private-sector worker, although cash wages are typically not inflated at the state or local level.
•
Forced Union Dues: In the 28 non-right-to-work states, unions negotiate provisions that force government employees
to pay union dues or get fired. This brings government unions billions of dollars.
•
Politicized Civil Service: Government unions have the power to elect the management they negotiate with, so they
spend heavily to elect politicians who promise them concessions. Government unions were the top political spenders,
outside the two major parties, in the 2010 election cycle.
What about Wisconsin?
•
In Wisconsin: Governor Scott Walker (R) is reforming collective bargaining. His proposal restores voter control over
most spending decisions but does not completely eliminate collective bargaining.
•
Reforms: Walker’s proposal restricts government unions to negotiating over wages only, and not benefits or work rules
(such as job guarantees for failing teachers). Voters would have to approve any wage increase beyond inflation. Unions
would have to demonstrate that they have the support of a majority of members through an annual secret ballot.
Wisconsin would stop subsidizing union fundraising by collecting union dues through its payroll system, and would
no longer fire workers who choose not to pay union dues.
•
Is This Union Busting? A union is only “busted” if its members are forced to quit the union. Giving employees the
choice to pay or not pay expensive dues is hardly union busting. Under Walker’s plan, Wisconsin unions would still
have considerably more negotiating power than even federal employee unions.
For more information, please visit: www.heritage.org
Fact Sheet #79
February 28, 2011
Let’s go with the mantra. The boss has a company which makes a widget that people are willing to pay high prices for. In return the boss provides very little pay to his employees for their work.
Just want to note that these people decided to work for the company when they were hired, knowing what they were getting paid. In addition, I would like to point out that there might be employment alternatives a disgruntled low paid employee could seek out for higher pay. But that is beside the point.
The bosses employee’s decide they want a bigger cut of the profits so they organize and force their way. The boss either will end up with less cash or he will raise the price. To maintain his personal incentive to keep the business going, he will probably raise his prices to compensate. Because of the higher prices, less people buy the widget so profits decline and the higher paid employees are laid off. Then less widgets can be made so even less can be sold. The boss ends up with fewer profits and maybe even no profits – or worse, debt. All his workers are laid off. . . but I digress again.
The idea is that the employees unionize to collectively bargain for more pay or whatever. But regardless how you feel about the boss, the company and the boss is answerable to the volunteer actions of the customers. Ideally, the boss or the company should do better than their employees.
An enterprise exists out of incentive for the owners to get more in life. But never the less, the “give and take” is within an intimate relationship between the employees and a single entity.
Unionizing against the taxpayers on the other hand can be damaging. Going too far a privae sector union will only kill a single company, but nothing else. Also the boss usually does have a financial reserve to work through or has control to make adjustments either by increasing efficiencies, raising prices, closing shop or so on.
When public employees go too far, they bankrupt the ENTIRE NATION/STATE or TOWN! The taxpayers are on fixed incomes, they have no reserves. They have no administrative ability to increase efficiencies, reduce cost or even go so far as to shut it down. The agreements with union public workers are made by other public workers (namely elected officials). We the boss – the people – have no rights to make adjustments to compensate. Look at congress, they refuse to listen to the people! What have they cut so far?? Nothing! They only have proposals. (I guess the current CR has effectively reduced $4 billion – so yea! We have $1.596 trillion to go!)
Worse even, the boss has the advantage to “bail-out” if his incentive goes away. Public unions with their evil grab for our money cannot be avoided. We are thrown in jail or have our property taken away if we do not pay them. Private sector unions – as bad as they are – at least have a small impact if they end up destroying the hand that feeds them. Public employee unions destroy all. The boss is usually richer than his employees. The taxpayer earns half of what most public sector employees are paid (especially the feds!). It is clear that when you look around, we are being destroyed.