Union busting or self-preservation?

Like so many of my blogs and other essays, this one was inspired by my two-cents-worth I added as part of a larger discussion of the topic of public education (thanks for the inspiration, Jennifer and Josh!). I've added a little more here than where this was originally posted and cleaned-up any typing or grammatical errors that were there, of course.

The legislative battles over collective bargaining for public employees have sparked multiple firestorm debates and discussions. We're seeing this take shape both here in Ohio and in Wisconsin.

What bother me are the notions being spread that public employees are being denied the right to collectively bargain and they will face abusive working conditions.

First of all, no law can deny anyone – whether they are publicly employed or not – the right to affiliate with any labor organization. This is guaranteed by the Freedom of Assembly clause in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

So, that argument is laid to rest pretty quickly.

The key point being deliberately ignored by many people in the broader conversation is to whom the politicians, their appointed and hired administrators, and the publicly employed laborers are supposed to be answerable. We are their bosses, not the governor, state senators, state reps, county commissioners, township trustees, or municipal office-holders. We, the voters and taxpayers are their rightful bosses. And, for decades, we have been steadily pushed right out of the loop on collective-bargaining contract negotiations.

No one is saying workers of any stripe have no right to collective bargaining. But, it is time we returned the service portion to the key old phrase "public service." These jobs were never intended to become tenured, lifelong positions requiring a near-act-of-God in order to terminate an ineffective employee: especially when it comes to education.

Among the new terms Wisconsin's legislators are looking put into law are calling for increases on behalf of all public employees with their own contributions to their retirement plans and health insurance coverage. They are all in an uproar in Madison: but the punch line there is the potential new contribution levels are still well below (in some instances half that of) what the average private sector worker pays into their respective plans out of each paycheck.

But, we're supposed to believe these proposed working conditions constitute abuse of the public sector. Give me a break.

Also, the vast majority of states are facing monstrous unfunded liabilities. According to a study released a year ago by the Pew Center on the States, when you combine the retirement obligations for public employees of all 50 states, they face a grand total $1 trillion shortfall in their ability to meet $3.35 trillion in total liabilities.

Illinois is in the most extreme situation. That state is projected to have $131 billion in such liabilities by the end of the current fiscal year and only $46 billion in available assets (roughly 35%) to cover them.

The majority of states are facing such legacy-cost obligations at varying degrees of severity.

I would contend that if the unions are so adamant they have the support of the people, then they ought to agree to my idea of putting all negotiated contract proposals at the state and local levels up for a public referendum vote. That would require all the terms of each contract to be made available for public scrutiny and evaluation well in advance of the day of the election. If they have that all-important public support they claim, then they should have no problem embracing that "pure democracy" for which they regularly clamor.


A focused discussion on public education

Perhaps the single-greatest point of contention when it comes to America's public sector workforce is education.

While most of the problems with public education in America are the combined result of federal policy (Department of Education) and teachers unions, at the state and local levels dealing with issues of collective bargaining is the area where these governments can have the most significant influence.

Where the unions have had the most intense impact is they have gone beyond merely engaging in collective bargaining for "fair" salaries and other compensation for their vocation. These unions have sought to create work environments where their members enjoy job protection to such a degree (especially once they've "earned" tenure) they cannot be dismissed except under the most extreme circumstances – and even then it depends on where you're examining this condition.

A tenured teacher enjoys a work setting which allows for little to no regard for the basic principle of job performance – half of that is the result of the deliberate dilution of what constitutes job performance while the other component is the set of legal hurdles (enormously expensive ones at that) in place inhibiting the process of getting a defective teacher terminated. The most extreme examples of that are the "Rubber Rooms" in New York's school district.

Human nature being what it is, this opens-up room for a growing number of people in this profession to become perilously comfortable with their station in the workplace – at the expense of our children. It's a problem that has grown pervasive to the point of becoming institutional in nature.

And all that is before you even factor-in the influence within the vocation by its vocal and active members who make up its left-leaning political culture – a culture whose size within the education profession is often debated but whose impact is undeniable.

Getting back to my original point, in this situation there gradually becomes little room for dissenting views among peers. This is why we rarely – if ever – hear of internal reforms coming about in any of the local chapters of whichever union represents a given school district. What usually has to happen is what we're seeing taking shape here in Ohio and in Wisconsin: so-called union-busting proposed legislation.

Until something gives in this process, the good teachers will continue to be overshadowed and even swallowed-up by the education system and the work environment that has evolved within it.

Some thoughts on unions in America

I just finished reading about the 86-year-old gentleman in Wausau, Wisconsin who has been volunteering his time as a crossing guard at the elementary school down from which he lives two-doors.

The local AFSCME representatives have taken exception to a resident volunteering his time to help the local school district and have filed a protest with Wausau's city hall.

Please read about it here before continuing with my blog.

I experienced something like this while attending Ferris State University. I lived in what was known as the "non-trad" dorm (Pickel Hall) for students 23 and older.

There had been remodeling work done in the bottom-floor lounge over the summer (1995) before my freshman year but the lounge remained off-limits because none of the furniture and other decor items had yet been moved back into it.

During one residence hall committee meeting, the topic of when the lounge would finally be ready (this was October or November) came up yet again. I suggested I would be willing to lead a volunteer effort of fellow dorm residents to help finish the job so we could have use of the lounge available again (it was considered by returning residents to be a great location to study outside of one's room).

The assistant hall director (a fellow student) immediately shot the idea down, saying the university's employees union would file a grievance against us for doing so (most likely against him since he was the student responsible for overseeing the goings-on in the dorm) and we were not to take it upon ourselves under any circumstances.

That was my first encounter with union-induced stonewalling.

Now let me be clear. I do not oppose the existence of unions. I agree that without them we would run the risk of returning to some extent to the days of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.

However, with the exception of those who work in the public safety fields I fail to see the need for the unionization of government employees. Municipal, township, county, state, and federal workers on public payrolls are employed by entities which are just that: public. They have access to a built-in open forum for the airing of grievances in the workplace.

If they are being mistreated, underpaid, or subjected to any other kind of adverse conditions in the workplace, they have the opportunity to lead the charge to remove from office those who are ultimately responsible for their work environment. Autoworkers, nurses, and construction workers don't enjoy such a luxury.

One change that would help curtail union excesses and abuses with taxpayer money would be requiring all union contracts with a government entity be approved by a public vote within the respective jurisdiction (local, state, and federal).

Obviously, with the number of employee collective bargaining contracts our federal government has approved that facet of this idea may be unrealistic. But, greater public scrutiny would go far (in the billions far) in curbing waste within America's massive networks of bureaucracy.