The growth of public sector unions
This WSJ piece by Daniel Henninger describes an important and little-discussed turning point in American politics:
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy’s order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.
Read the whole thing.
If public sector unions were again prohibited, there would be two benefits. 1. Per Mr Henninger, upward pressure on employee pay and benefits would decrease, allowing government to reallocate resources to more pressing needs. 2. the Democratic party might be able to free itself from the dictatorial power of the public sector unions. As a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, #2 might not be in my interest, but it might be in the general interest.
I stumbled upon Henninger’s article last night, read it and was highly impressed, for both its historical perspective and the insights it provides into one of the Democrat’s highly influential groups.
Despite all of the harm unions do, on principle, I can’t support banning them, that path seems to me to be basically unconstitutional. Yet, their influence is often undeniably pernicious both on the national and state level.
The same of course can be said of corporations and indeed any special interest group. But we all support many special interests. One person’s ‘sacred cow’ is another’s ‘pig-at-the-public-trough’. And that works both ways.
What to do? I’m not sure but I think you start with guiding principles. Government should ensure through laws and regulations that a equitable ‘playing field’ is established and, then get the hell out of the way and let the players, play!
Interesting article. I myself was a member of three different unions in the past; United Steelworkers, SEIU and New York’s DC 37. I can understand why and how unions became a viable option. My mother, and her three sisters were all veterans of New England’s “sweat-shop” Textile Mills. They could tell you stories that would boil your blood. I worked for a number of years before I got into union membership. The first, and probably the most productive was the steelworkers. Wasn’t really there long enough to go in depth. The second was SEIU when I was employed with the Commonwealth. It was fine until I got into it with management and then expected really to be represented. It just wasn’t going to happen I realized when I had to kick the union rep under the table in an attempt to get him to speak on my behalf at a grievance hearing. All the rah-rah-rah solidarity stuff was pure bullshit. The benefits were great, but once you were stuck, you were stuck. The last was DC 37, which was quite simply, outrageous. The “job” for a great many of the employees (not all) was simply a place you went and hung around and every two weeks got a check.
This is the point where I became anti-union. Any one who threatend the status quo, became a target for harassment or worse. Production, even the simplest of tasks were dumbed down and the system gamed to the point of absurdity. I’m sure patients suffered or died because people were sleeping, literally, sleeping on the job. I had to quit, because I refused to slack off. My position required the least amount of effort and accountability of any job I had ever held. Now, I live in the South, where unions are all but non-existant. I just got laid off from one of the worst jobs I’d ever held, working for pay that was embarrasingly poor. Medical bills have put us back in serious debt, and I’m scratching my head as to just what the hell is next. Some balance and common sense would be the answer it seems to me.
Geoffrey wrote, “I can’t support banning them, that path seems to me to be basically unconstitutional.”
I disagee. The laws which govern business behavior in areas like price fixing, collusion etc all include clauses which specifically exempt labor unions. A labor union is a monopoly seeking control of the supply of a product. It’s just that union political power has meant that identical activities that are considered detrimental to society if done by entities with less political power are considered beneficial to society if done by those with more political power.
When I was young, teachers had a special status in the community. They were not well paid, but they seemed to set a standard for attitudes toward learning and proper behaviour. That has changed, and I wonder whether unionization was a contributing factor.
expat, I agree with you about public school teachers unions. my parents are both public school teachers and i have read many of the NEA literature items strewn about the house. their priorities are themselves first and the appearance of helping the kids second.
I work as an engineer and i have been on both sides of the public sector/private sector divide. when I worked for the public sector, there was absolutely nothing to do besides keep your chair warm all day. and of course everyone’s number one priority was keeping their own job with a pay raise every year.
Currently I work in the private sector, where as others in this thread have said, a little balance and common sense is required. i have now gone several years without a pay raise despite having gotten additional education that increased my productivity. its kind of “rage against the Man” which I am usually cautious to engage in but find myself in that position now. I haven’t fully thought through how much worker abuse is all in the worker’s head (myself included) but I do acknowledge that worker abuse can and does happen.
Here is one thing I have been batting around in my head, well 2 things actually.
1) As an engineer, my profession has a stringent ethics code that engineers adhere to by self-regulation. I am grateful that engineers have not taken the ethical hit that so many other professions have (doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc) and for the most part they adhere to the ethics well. On threat of losing their license. I wonder if politicians could be made to adhere to a similar ethics code?
2) recently my state had a referendum on something called the “taxpayer’s bill of rights” which I understand has been considered in other states. it failed at the polls, and I understand that other states measures have not gone well so far. I wonder if there would be such a thing as a taxpayer’s bill of rights that would be effective?
I know its crazy talk but still… if one profession can do it why not others.
I used to teach. My first year on the job there was a strike. I was forced to go out. Hardest week of my professional life.
The unions, do indeed, harm education. One of the reasons I left was because the profession seemed a lot like the communism I was teaching about. I could work 12 hours a day in my room and the 25 year teacher in the room next to me could work less than half that and make twice as much as me just because he/she had been around longer.
I was at a great school yet saw so many BAD teachers who no longer cared. Yet, the district couldn’t get rid of them. Needless to say, our kids are in private school.
I saw this article yesterday in the dead tree edition of the WSJ. It deserves to be spread far and wide.
I think union membership in private industry should be an option (although I believe unions have done more harm than good). I think government unions should be outlawed altogether. Those people work for us, and they should not be allowed to have that kind of clout over the taxpayers. If they don’t like their working conditions, they’re free to get a job in private industry.
Personally, I’ve always worked in the private sector, I’ve never belonged to a union, and I’m doing fine.
So does this mean that unions of federal government employees could be abolished simply by an executive order?
I work in employee and labor relations for the Federal government. While I don’t think the Federal sector unions are helpful and there are already a multitude of layers of statutory protections for federal employees that really obviate the need for a Union, they are not as deleterious as the state unions. Membership dues for Fed employees (currently) are not required and while the Unions can gum up some of the processes, they are generally prevented from interfering in core management decisions. In fact, they cannot bargain over pay rates. Given the size of the Federal budget, the waste in resources due to Union affairs is relatively slight. You might think this assessment self-serving, but I think it’s fairly objective.
But State public sector Unions can bargain over pay; rather than taking a portion of private profit, they are extracting public taxes and as the articles tates, becomes a vicious, self-serving cycle of extraction–>payment for campaigns—>more benefits for the union.
I was a member of ALPA for 25 years. I think a union is a good thing as long as it is run by the members, as ALPA is. Unions can have some good purposes.
1. Negotiating for pay and work rules for large numbers of personnel that are basically doing the same thing saves both the company and the employees time and headaches.
2. Unions provide a way for employees to bring unsafe conditions to management’s attention in a way that insures they get heard. ALPA has been responsible for instituting many safety procedures in the airlines.
3. Unions can defend employees against employer abuse. Line managers sometimes tried to push pilots to fly beyond the daily hourly limits. If the pilots involved felt they were too fatigued to be safe they could say no and know that there would be no repercussions because the union would back them.
The other side of the coin is that unions are like most bureaucracies – unless they are well managed they tend to go off the deep end by:
1. Forgetting that the jobs are there because of the company and whatever good or service it provides. As a result they often try to kill the Golden Goose that lays the eggs because they think the goose is immortal.
2. Putting themselves in a constant anti-management stance. This creates constant tension and ill feelings in a company. I saw this happen at the airline I worked at. It is bad karma for a company. Fortunately, we were able to vote that slate of officers out and get some more reasonable leadership.
3. Unions are ripe to be taken over by “professional union organizers” who do not care about the members and line their pockets with dues. They also are nearly impossible to get rid of.
4. Many union leaders pursue political clout that makes them ever more powerful and opens up new avenues for self-enrichment.
Government employee unions are providing government services. Therefore, they should not be able to strike or perform any other job action (slowdowns, sickouts, etc.) because it is the customers (students, postal customers, etc.) that suffer. If the union and management cannot agree on pay, the negotiation should go to a mediator – period.
Most city, county, and state governments are now in fiscal trouble because of their negotiated pension liabilities as pointed out in the WSJ article. This is an issue that is going to have to be resolved in the next few years. California is already broke because of pension liabilities and its generous social safety net. Somehow these government entities are going to have to renegotiate or renege on those pensions. I predict a lot of strife coming down the road on this issue. Maybe such issues will be a motivator for getting rid of or reducing the power of government unions. I wonder how many politicians are willing to face these unions down?
I’m impressed by numbers. Like, that the number of government employees has grown 492 percent since 1946. But the government isn’t 492 percent better for it.
I’m with ricki. Public employee unions should be illegal. Who is the management against which the public sector employees must be organized? Why, it is us and our elected representatives.
I think if you just replaced Unions with “Just cause” laws for public employees, that would provide the best of all worlds. Yes, more difficult to fire, but pernicious management tactics can be just as present in the public sector as private.
I’m sort of taking for granted that many here think the SCOTUS decision might have been, in part, an act to balance the corporate voice against the unions’. It probably was.
What it also means is that any corporate entity can contribute unlimited amounts of money to any US political campaign. The devil is in the details. Any Chinese, Israeli, Saudi, Yemeni, South African, French, Russian, United Arab Emirates, etc, registered in the US (like that’s real hard to do) can contribute AS MUCH AS THEY FRIGGIN WANT to whatever candidate they choose.
Think they’re not going to take advantage?
Maybe someone here could convince me I’ve misread this situation. Because, if I, troglaman, am correct, then we’re in the final stages of a corporate coup.