the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation

When it comes to “getting tough” with unions, leadership’s hands seem to be tied

Posted by Rachel Culbertson - December 23, 2009

As Brett Davis mentioned last week, more than 21,000 state workers are in line to receive longevity raises of up to 5 percent in the next year.  For obvious reasons (ah-hem, did someone say tax hikes to fund the pay bumps?) this isn’t boding well with many.  Yet I’m happy to report that people are willing to say something about it. An op-ed published in last week’s TNT, titled “Past time for state to get tough with unions”, did a great job of highlighting why it is far more dangerous to continue allowing union monopolies to control state policies than it is to make the necessary cuts to inefficient services.
 
Common sense tells us that in tough times, everyone takes a hit. Yet union leaders’ refusal to budge on items including COLA raises and changes to health care premiums could cost the state $225 million.
 
So why isn’t our leadership willing to “get tough”?   The Capital Report notes that in a recent press conference the Governor was asked why state workers, the most expensive part of state government, aren’t being considered for budget cuts.  Her response:
 
 “When you do something that people believe to be illegal, you get sued ... so, if I unilaterally, in violation of contracts, take some of the actions that you just articulated, I am going to get sued."
 
When asked if this was a sign that unions are too powerful, she responded:
 
“This is not about power … we have people now that are doing critical work. You want me to let go of state patrol officers? I am not willing.”
 
I can't say that I'm satisfied with this response.  Considering our state's recent tragic events, letting go of patrol officers is the last thing anyone would ask for.  Yet foregoing pay raises (which aren’t even tied to performance or cost-of-living) and looking into less expensive health care plans for state workers is an entirely different story.  These are just two ways that the state could save money and even avoid lay-offs for those workers who perform critical services (such as keeping our streets safe).
 

The long-term effects that powerful unions can have on a society are serious.  Raising taxes in order to fulfill contract demands by powerful union leaders isn’t merely “inconvenient” for taxpayers. It's dangerous.  If you don’t believe me, look at Detroit. Once called the “City of Champions”, this American metropolis has been pulverized by over-regulation and a government that couldn’t say “no” to union demands that had become unsustainable.

 

Thoughts?   Add Comment -

SouthernRoots said on Dec 23 2009 at 4:18pm
"You want me to let go of state patrol officers?"
...You want me to let go of police officers?...
...You want me to let go of firefighters?...
...You want me to let go of teachers?...
...You want me to let go of 911?...
...You want me to let go of hospitals?...
...You want me to let go of Universities?...
...You want me to let go of schools?...

No, there are many other departments within government that could use reductions before the constitutionally mandated public safety departments.

This dodge is getting so old. Governor, reduce your staff by 10%. Reduce the legislative staff by 10%. Cut programs that aren't working. Delay implementation of programs that havn't started yet. Slow down new programs that have only just been implemented.

Fund to the priorities and can the rest.

Sue Lani said on Dec 24 2009 at 11:55am
Some public employees complain, as one did recently to me, that they gave up higher private sector salaries for job security. Problem - county by county, average public wages are higher than the average private wages for residents of every county except King.

We can't afford to guarantee security for public jobs, which have to be paid for with the wealth created by private jobs. When wealth creation is stifled, whether the pressure is land prices, interest rates or some other shift in the economy, public jobs must be adjusted accordingly. We have to go back to our priorities, and re-budget. Raises are the logical first thing to go (as most of us holding one of those private sector jobs knows this past year).

To do otherwise makes public employees sound like petulant five year olds demanding daddy take them to Disneyland when he just lost his job. They may just have to go camping in the backyard instead.