The recent political turmoil in Wisconsin arising out of Governor Walker’s efforts to limit the powers of the state’s government employee unions was an event of multifaceted impact. It was an interesting spectacle of political maneuvering by the two political
The recent political turmoil in Wisconsin arising out of Governor Walker’s efforts to limit the powers of the state’s government employee unions was an event of multifaceted impact. It was an interesting spectacle of political maneuvering by the two political parties, but perhaps it was more intriguing as a philosophical struggle as to the role government employee unions should have in our society.
The heat of the political combat could well be measured by the rancorous rhetoric that was employed by both sides and which was extremely overblown. Undaunted by President Obama’s Tucson pleas for a more civil discourse, opponents of Governor Walker’s program accused him of being a dictator on a mission of union busting while advocates of the program argued that the state was broke and extreme measures were required.
The futile exodus from the state of the Democrat state senators seeking to prevent a quorum for the enactment by the Senate of the Walker measures added a quixotic element to the controversy.
Although other aspects of the episode are much more entertaining, in my view, its most fascinating element is the analysis of the position that government employee unions should have in our society.
It is a generally accepted proposition that non-management and non-professional employees of an organization in the private sector should have the right to have, if they wish, their compensation and benefits determined by collective rather than individual bargaining. Ancillary to this concept is that the costs of employee representation should be shared by all who benefit from it. This is the rationale for union dues. Having union representation in the public sector is in broad use, but some restrictions have historically been applicable such as restricting the right to strike for “essential” workers such as police and firemen.
It is the aspiration of most unions, however, to use the leverage enjoyed from the number of persons they represent to engage in advocacy for causes supported by the management of the union. Although this proclivity typically involves expressions of views not held by the entire membership and displeasure by the minority about having their dues used for purpose they do not support, this difficulty can be at least partially mitigated by permitting such employees to be relieved of the associated costs of the advocacy.
Collective bargaining should be an arms length negotiation. In the case of trade unions for employees in commercial enterprises, the union’s political power does not extend to any control over the determination of the identity of the persons with whom they must negotiate. Rarely do such unions have the right to elect the corporate boards of directors or management with which they must deal.
However, in the case of unions representing government employees where the union seeks to use its political power to elect the government official — mayor or governor — of their choice a different position is presented (Note: Due to right to federal work laws employee union members constitute less than half of our federal government employees. It appears that most of such employees feel secure in their positions without union representation.) Where the union’s efforts have been successful and the executive with whom they deal in collective bargaining negotiations is one whose election may be owed to the support by the union the situation is altered. No longer does a purely arms length relationship prevail.
It is the contention of those that find this “cozy” relationship disturbing that it results in unjustified levels of wages and (particularly) benefits. Surveys have shown that total compensation of state and local government employees has risen from being lower than comparable jobs in the private sector to as much as 20 percent higher. This factor is arguably partially responsible for the fiscal problems facing most local and state governments. In some cases such as Kaua‘i the costs associated with employees constitutes as much as 80 percent of the total costs of the governmental unit.
It should be observed that prohibiting expenditure by unions of members funds for candidates or their parties is not a restriction that prevents collective bargaining which is the primary purpose of the union. It cannot responsibly be said that ending a union’s power to make political contributions is union busting as some of the Wisconsin partisans asserted.
Although it may well be logical that government employee unions should not be allowed to expend members funds for political purposes, at present such a limitation is clearly adverse to the Democrat party as the great preponderance of union moneys is given in support of Democrats. For Democrats seeking to level the political playing field a rational balance could be found by limiting political contributions by business corporations. In politics there are few constants.
The law has now been enacted and signed by the Governor. The scene for the issue will doubtless now shift to other jurisdictions and to the public forum. It remains to be seen whether the action in Wisconsin has been the prelude to a trend or whether it will be non-ambulatory or even reversed.
Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
