There is no clear right or wrong in the titanic struggle, symbolized by Wisconsin and erupting in other states, to curb government employee unions.
On the side of Republican Gov. Scott Walker and his allies, there’s the reality of the deepest deficits state governments have ever experienced. Arguably it’s any public official’s right (perhaps duty) to look far and wide for savings.
Plus, governors should represent the broad public that pays the taxes to finance government wages and benefits. That public has been hit by a cruel recession. Citizens ask: Why should government workers enjoy more job security, be able to bargain for better pay than me?
Not just Republican governors but Democrats in such states as California, Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts are arguing that current levels of public compensation are unsustainable.
Health care and pension contributions are another factor: typically, government workers put in a substantially smaller share of their pay for health coverage and into retirement funds than private sector workers.
The public can logically lament: My health benefits have diminished rapidly, my defined pension benefits are gone, my 401(k) savings are decimated. Why should my “employees” — government workers — enjoy more security than me?
On top of which there’s an inherent conflict of interest: government employee unions can engage in elections, sometimes sway enough votes to determine who they’ll face across the bargaining table.
It’s fair to ask: Are Gov. Walker and his allies simply trying to curb costs and increase employee accountability? Or are they also driven strongly by a political agenda?
For a litmus test, check Walker’s exact proposal. He would limit collective bargaining for most state and local government workers to wages only, revoking their right to negotiate health care, working hours and vacations. And he’d require workers to contribute more to their pensions.
So far so good, one could argue. But Walker goes further. He’d restrict wage increases to the consumer price index. His bill would limit contract agreements to one year. It would force unions to take annual votes of their members to stay accredited. Union dues would no longer be deducted from paychecks.
And perhaps most questionable of all, the Walker bill applies the new rules to all public employees in Wisconsin except the police and fire unions — unions that supported his election campaign. Fire and police are known nationally for driving some of the highest wage and benefit packages of the entire public sector, and they’re generally conservative in their politics.
The opposite is true of the unions closest to the Democrats — AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. By some estimates, their net contributions to Democrats in last year’s elections were $200 million.
Bottom line: It’s naive to think the campaign to curb the unions’ power isn’t working hand in hand with a strong partisanship. And it comes just a year after the Supreme Court’s stunning 5-4 decision removing practically all restrictions on the rights of corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns.
Talk about judicial activism! With their deep pockets, corporations, typically heavily supportive of Republicans, gain immense added political clout. The clear losers: Democrats and their progressive union allies — often the staunchest supporters not just of public workers but also of progressive federal and state legislation to give a hand to America’s poor and disadvantaged populations and offset some of today’s wild shift of incomes away from the poor and toward the richest Americans.
Barry Bluestone, dean of Northeastern University’s School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, recommends a “grand new bargain.” Unions would give significant ground on work rules, to reducing their health plan costs, agreeing to merit pay, school reform and a major focus on superior work performance. They’d support pension reform and advocate for regional merger of services to save public monies. And in return, they’d get “greater job security and public respect.”
Too rational an idea in the midst of today’s mass rallies and bitter confrontations? Most likely. But the direction we should head in? Yes.
