When Congress returns after Labor Day the Democratic majority
will return to the business of paying off its campaign debts to
organized labor, which spent lavishly to elect Democrats in 2006.
That means helping unions and hurting workers.
So far the House has approved a measure to recognize unions
without elections and cut funding for the Office of Management
Labor Standards, which enforces transparency for unions. The Senate
has not been quite as hospitable: the former legislation was
blocked by a filibuster, while the latter measure awaits action in
committee.
Also on the Senate agenda will be the Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, which passed the House
with bipartisan support. Even Republicans don’t want to appear to
be against “employer-employee cooperation.”
Of course, in the wonderland of Capitol Hill titles disguise the
true purpose of legislation. So it is in the case of H.R. 980,
which would effectively mandate unionization of emergency medical
technicians, firefighters, and policemen across America. States and
localities which refused to recognize public sector unions would
face a federal override, with Washington setting labor rules.
Union representation in the work force has been falling — down
from 24 percent in 1973 to just 12 percent last year. Only seven
percent of private sector workers now are unionized. Whatever the
value to workers of labor unions in the early years of
industrialization, unions are an anachronism today. In almost every
industry and every country unions stand athwart efforts to
modernize and invigorate economic practices.
Globalization has enlarged the circle of exchange and expanded
wealth creation: organized labor has responded by lobbying to
exclude foreign products, limit outside investment, and close
borders. If many unions had their way, we would still be living in
the horse and buggy age.
Of course, efficiency and productivity have only limited
relevance to government, so in that sector union membership has
jumped to 36 percent. Many public safety departments, too, are
unionized, with about half the states agreeing to union “exclusive
representation.”
The consequences may not always be negative, but there’s no
evidence that unionization improves local safety. Observes James
Sherk of the Heritage Foundation: “The collective bargaining
framework pits employers and employees against each other.
Sometimes it leads to greater cooperation, but other times it
creates conflict and strife.”
He points to illegal strikes by unionized teachers and transit
workers as examples, adding that “Even unions representing
extremely well paid government workers fight continuously for even
more.”
The reason why public sector unionization so often has
deleterious consequences is two-fold. One is that government is a
monopoly, so if unions capture control of the local or state
authority, they can impose their agendas on the public. Real
monopolies are essentially nonexistent in the private sector. If
the workers at one company go on strike or win an expensive
contract, customers can turn elsewhere. Not so for fire and police
protection, for instance.
Moreover, politics amplifies the power of well-organized
interest groups. As Public Choice economists have pointed out,
concentrated interests have an incentive to spend lavishly to win
elections and influence government decisions. The public, for whom
the costs are much more diffuse, is far less able to organize in
opposition. From which stems the tendency towards lavish public
sector contracts.
Thus, it’s no surprise that with both House and Senate in
Democratic hands organized labor is attempting to get through
politics what it cannot win in the marketplace. And to do so at the
national level, since citizens across the country continue to say
no in state and local elections.
Today only state and local governments are free to set the terms
of negotiation with employees. In a free market that liberty should
be protected for all private firms as well, but succumbed to the
New Deal juggernaut. In contrast, the federal government limited
mandates on states, which enjoy special constitutional
recognition.
But H.R. 980 would shift oversight of state and local labor
relations with public safety employees to the Federal Labor
Relations Authority. State and local rules found to be out of
compliance with the measure’s “core provisions”—namely, monopoly
bargaining by unions — would be supplanted by federal diktat.
Uncle Sam would preempt 26 state and untold local laws.
The likely result would be an upsurge in wage expenses with no
countervailing benefits. To the contrary, states and localities
would pay substantially more to compensate workers as well as to
comply with debilitating work rules. Maryland’s Department of
Fiscal Services warns that adding 12 “bargaining units” under the
law would cost $1.3 million to $1.4 million for processing costs
alone.
Equally serious is the likely increase in strikes, which have
typically increased four-fold after states approved monopoly union
bargaining. Although the bill includes a strike ban, such laws
rarely work since unions typically demand an amnesty before
ordering members to return to work. Former Rep. William Clay, Sr.
(D-Mo.), co-sponsor of a previous version of H.R. 980,
acknowledged: “Most states now have legislation prohibiting strikes
but, in effect, in reality, they have not stopped strikes.”
H.R. 980 also would preclude state and local governments from
placing critical issues beyond negotiation. Under the proposed
legislation, public employers would have to negotiate on every
topic other than state “right-to-work” laws and pension
benefits.
Yet public safety work raises unique issues. For instance,
Michigan and Wisconsin deal with public employee unions, but the
former requires merit-based promotions for police officers; the
latter applies that principle to most of its workforce. Notes James
Sherk: “Unions strongly support seniority systems and insist on
them in negotiations, but police officers and other public safety
employees ought to earn their raises.”
Another pernicious impact of H.R. 980 would be to virtually end
the practice of professional firefighters also serving as
volunteers. Although professionals typically take the lead in more
urbanized areas, they are a minority: only 12 percent of the
nation’s 30,000 fire departments are made up entirely or primarily
of professionals. Many areas continue to rely heavily on
volunteers, who make up nearly three-quarters of all firefighters.
About half of the latter are professionals who volunteer as well,
saving their fellow citizens an estimated $37 billion annually.
Notes Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work
Committee: “officers of the International Association of
Firefighters (IAFF) union locals have an extensive track record of
exploiting their monopoly power to punish ‘two-hatters,’
professional firefighters who serve their own local communities as
volunteer firefighters when they aren’t on the job.” Indeed,
professionals who volunteer often are subject to union discipline,
including firing.
Moreover, when possible, the IAFF negotiates contracts which ban
volunteering by professionals, even on their own time. Federalizing
local labor relations would assist IAFF in its prohibition
efforts.
H.R. 980 would have another pernicious impact, effectively
opening the wallets of hundreds of thousands of public employees to
union officials for use in political campaigns from city hall to
the White House. Public employees are theoretically guaranteed the
right to withhold dues devoted to partisan purposes. In practice
unions impede workers from exercising this right at every turn.
Expanding forced union representation across the nation would
create yet another employee piggy bank for organized labor.
Ironically, while federal legislators are considering ordering
states and localities to accept monopoly public employee unions,
the federal government does not do so. There are no unions for the
armed services, CIA, DIA, FBI, Secret Service or related security
agencies. Nor are employees of the Transportation Safety
Administration unionized, though the Democrats have been pressing
to overturn that ban. Most everyone recognizes that there are good
reasons to keep security positions free from union politics.
If employees want to join a union, they should be free to do so.
But they should not be free to force their union on other workers
or employers, especially in sensitive public safety positions. Even
more so, the federal government should not decide labor policy for
every city, county, and state in America. It is time for Washington
to mind its own business.
