An Article by Walter Williams (March 4, 2011) begins by stressing that he values freedom of association, and non-association, even in ways that are not always popular and often deemed despicable. He supports a person's right to be a member or not be a member of a labor union. From his view, the only controversy regarding unions is what should they be permitted and not permitted to do. Even the United Methodist Church, which supports collective bargaining rights in paragraph 163B, says that this right includes mutual responsibility "to bargain in good faith within the framework of the public interest." In the current debate in Wisconsin and in many other states, there is a quite real difference concerning the public interest.
Among the difficulties in this discussion is the charge of union busting, attacking public employees, and waging a war on "working people." For me, another is comparing Governor Scott Walker to Mubarak or Hitler, but that is a matter of rhetoric that, I think, strengthens the resolve of the tiny few and is not persuasive to the many who are wrestling with these matters to a place where they are sincerely concerned with the public interest. The religious Left author Diana Butler bass, writing in the Huffington Post, has offered its view that Scott Walker is an evangelical Christian, and therefore has no filters for doing the right thing here. Of course, the United Methodist Bishop, the Episcopal Bishop, the Presbyterian Presbytery, and the state head of the United Church of Christ, unite against Scott Walker as well. In taking this position, these religious leaders paint themselves as defending the weak (workers) against the strong (government). As I will show in just a moment, they are actually protecting the strong (unions) against the weak (tax payers). The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milwaukee had a more nuanced approach.
“It does not follow…that every claim made by workers or their representatives is valid. Every union, like every other economic actor, is called to work for the common good, to make sacrifices when required, and to adjust to new economic realities. However, it is equally a mistake to marginalize or dismiss unions as impediments to economic growth.” He asked “lawmakers carefully [to] consider the implications of [the Governor’s] proposal and evaluate it in terms of its impact on the common good. We also appeal to everyone –lawmakers, citizens, workers, and labor unions – to move beyond divisive words and actions and work together, so that Wisconsin can recover in a humane way from the current fiscal crisis.”
Even the president thought he should weigh in, suggesting that there may be an "assault on unions." He did so, somewhat hypocritically, I think, for federal employees have no such "right." Are federal employees oppressed because of this? Hardly. Federal worker compensation, including wages and benefits, averages $123,000 -- more than double the private-sector average of $61,000. Further, we cannot forget that only about half the states are unions allowed to negotiate labor contracts for most public workers. Other states limit bargaining rights to specific government employees. I should say that the state in which I now live, Indiana, does not allow public employees to bargain collectively. If Wisconsin were to go the way of Indiana, as well as Texas and North Carolina, its public employees would do just fine.
“It does not follow…that every claim made by workers or their representatives is valid. Every union, like every other economic actor, is called to work for the common good, to make sacrifices when required, and to adjust to new economic realities. However, it is equally a mistake to marginalize or dismiss unions as impediments to economic growth.” He asked “lawmakers carefully [to] consider the implications of [the Governor’s] proposal and evaluate it in terms of its impact on the common good. We also appeal to everyone –lawmakers, citizens, workers, and labor unions – to move beyond divisive words and actions and work together, so that Wisconsin can recover in a humane way from the current fiscal crisis.”
Even the president thought he should weigh in, suggesting that there may be an "assault on unions." He did so, somewhat hypocritically, I think, for federal employees have no such "right." Are federal employees oppressed because of this? Hardly. Federal worker compensation, including wages and benefits, averages $123,000 -- more than double the private-sector average of $61,000. Further, we cannot forget that only about half the states are unions allowed to negotiate labor contracts for most public workers. Other states limit bargaining rights to specific government employees. I should say that the state in which I now live, Indiana, does not allow public employees to bargain collectively. If Wisconsin were to go the way of Indiana, as well as Texas and North Carolina, its public employees would do just fine.
I stress, again, that the issue is not over the freedom of "workers" to "associate," as the US Constitution guarantees as a right to all Americans. The difference arises over what Public employees, people whose salary and benefits come from tax payer dollars, have the power to do.
Arnold Zander, the Wisconsin union organizer who became the first president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, wrote in 1940 that AFSCME saw "less value in the use of contracts and agreements in public service than . . . in private employment." Instead of collective bargaining, he explained, "our local unions find promotion and adoption of civil service legislation . . . the more effective way" to serve the interests of government employees. As late as the 1950s, AFSCME considered collective bargaining in the public sector desirable but not essential, and viewed strong civil service laws as the best protection for government workers. As I read it, the primary place civil employees needed protection was from a change in the political party in power, which could then be used to dismiss employees in non-political offices. To put it bluntly, civil service rules are of far greater importance to the public employee for protection from "management" than are wages and benefits.
A legitimate debate in this country is how much power the government grants to the unions in terms of collective bargaining. There is plenty of room for disagreement here.
According to the Department of Labor, most union members today work for state, local and federal government. While union membership has dwindled to just 6.9 percent of the private-sector workforce, among public employees it has grown to more than 36 percent. As such, they represent a powerful political force in elections. If you are a candidate for governor, mayor or city councilman, you surely want the votes and campaign contributions from public employee unions. In the view of Williams, that is no problem. The problem arises after you win office and sit down to bargain over the pay and working conditions with unions who voted for you.
Given the relationship between politicians and public employee unions, we should not be surprised that public employee wages and benefits often average 45 percent higher than their counterparts in the private sector. Often they receive pension and health care benefits making little or no contribution.
How is it that public employee unions have such a leg up on their private-sector brethren? The answer is not rocket science. Employers in the private sector have a bottom line. If they overcompensate their employees, company profits will sink. The company might even face bankruptcy.
With public employees, politicians quickly learned that some job security and expansion of benefits, in exchange for lower salary, were winners politically. However, only in the short term. Eventually, the generous retirement and health care benefits would have to be paid out, and future generations of politicians would have to figure out how to pay for them. We are that future generation. Undoubtedly, we still struggle through with how to do so. I would like to think that we can do so in a civil way, although politicians running away from their responsibility to vote and demonstrators taking over capitol buildings are not good signs.
No comments:
Post a Comment