Union Busting or Sound Financial Management?

[Beavah]

Public sector unions are a conflict of interest, plain and simple. Unions negotiate their contracts with the people they help put in office.

 

Yah, yeh know... people seem to keep sayin' this, and I just don't get it.

 

I suppose we could solve it by denying the vote to all police, firefighters, teachers, members of the military and their families, employees of defense contractors, employees of airlines who benefit from FAA service, anybody who flies on airlines, anybody who uses roads paid for by the "government", anybody receiving Social Security or Medicare or gettin' public water or sanitation.

 

Yeh need to understand da difference between "conflict of interest" and just plain old "interest". All of us have an interest in da programs and payments made by the government. Whether we're receiving Social Security or payin' into it, whether we're gettin' a salary through the government or just benefiting in our salary from things like copyright protection or farm subsidies or delivery by government-supported road, rail, or air.

 

Da only "conflict" here is da ordinary one between citizens who have different interests. Citizens who work for the government expect a living wage commensurate with their education and background. Citizens who don't want to get da maximum government service without payin' for it. Especially if it's not a program that they or their friends personally use.

 

I think as good citizens we have to begin by bein' intellectually honest, is all. This is ordinary conflict over collective social policy. It's not "conflict of interest" or any such balderdash.

 

Now let's dispel with da other myths, eh? Payroll deductions are just payroll deductions. They don't come from the taxpayer, they come from da employee being paid. Whether it's for Social Security, Medicare, Federal or State tax withholding, the United Way, your employer's parking sticker, your share of medical insurance or your professional or union dues.

 

And every union employee has had da right to withhold the portion of dues that goes toward political lobbying and the like for years. So the notion that it's goin' for lobbying against da will of the union member is balderdash too. Fact is, it's not that large a fraction of most union dues, because most unions solicit separate contributions to their Political Action Committees which are set up to do most of the lobbying for a number of technical legal reasons. So the notion of "involuntary political contributions" is double nonsense.

 

Now, I get the notion that teachers aren't an unskilled labor force, eh? And traditionally in da U.S. unions have existed primarily to protect the interests of unskilled labor who individually do not have the ability or wherewithal to negotiate on reasonable footing with an employer who can easily replace 'em. If teachers expect to be treated as professionals, then it might help if they acted like 'em, and behaved more like independent contractors able to negotiate for their own salaries and working conditions. I don't think that would be a bad thing.

 

But here's the rub. In da U.S., the State is (almost) a monopoly employer in education. That sort of situation doesn't exist in the other professions. So as long as we continue to protect a virtual state monopoly on education, then educational professionals don't have the ability to do what all other professionals are able to do. So if yeh really don't like da teachers' unions, the way to address that is not to try to run 'em out on a rail, it's to give educators back their profession. Let 'em set up their own schools to compete with each other for both kids and for teachers. Stop regulating and testing 'em to death. Abolish da public school monopoly.

 

Yeh can't have one without the other. Government monopoly education necessitates collective work action by employees to balance the strong incentives for government abuse. If the government were to take over your industry, whatever it happens to be, you'd darn well want a union, too.

 

Beavah

 

[jrush]

Beavah, you don't have to deny them the vote, you simply have to end the public unions' power to levy involuntary dues which are used to elect lawmakers.

 

There's nothing wrong with having a public sector union. There is nothing wrong with having a public sector union in a closed shop state. There is nothing wrong with that union monetarily supporting a politician. There *is* something wrong with a union that has a captive workforce levying mandatory dues to support those politicians.

 

The solution is one of two things: change to a right-to-work state and have union membership be voluntary, or keep the closed shop and make union dues be voluntary.

 

The government does need a monopoly on taxpayer-provided education, though. Any program that uses that many taxpayer dollars should be controlled by elected lawmakers. At what level? That's open for debate...

[Beavah]

Yah, jrush, I reckon yeh didn't quite understand me. That's OK, I talk funny.

 

The portion of union dues "used to elect lawmakers" or do any other kind of lobbying are voluntary and have been voluntary for more than a decade as a matter of law. So what yeh ask for was already in place for the public union members in Wisconsin. What's more, most union activity "to elect lawmakers" or do other lobbying is not done by the union directly, but rather is done by the separately funded Political Action Committee associated with the union. Those PACs are funded exclusively by voluntary contributions.

 

So your argument is a red herring, eh? Everything that you're saying was already in place. This new move is about somethin' different, and someone is just feedin' yeh a line to get you on board, hopin' yeh don't know enough to recognized that it's just a line.

 

The government does need a monopoly on taxpayer-provided education, though. Any program that uses that many taxpayer dollars should be controlled by elected lawmakers. At what level? That's open for debate...

 

And here I thought yeh might be a conservative.

 

As a conservative, I'm in favor of limited government, eh? And especially limited government control. The more yeh expand government, the more yeh endanger freedom for the average fellow, because a big government means that only the big get the ear and the attention. The more yeh expand government control, the stupider it gets. Who do yeh suppose knows more about educating Johnny Beavah? Mr. & Mrs. Beavah and Johnny's teacher, or a bureaucrat in Madison or Washington?

 

We are the only country in the free world that does not provide public support to all education: state-run, religious-run, or private. We use da old Soviet model of economics for our K-12 educational delivery, and as a result, we get results that match those of da old Soviet economy. And yeh know the Soviets hated unions, eh? Banned 'em outright, and shot folks for joinin' when they got the chance. Nice to see we're tryin' to keep up.

 

So I guess you'll have to explain to me how havin' some mediocre attorney who gets elected is supposed to "control" the state's education monopoly. He's got no experience in education or finance. Sure seems to me like we'd be far better off if Mr. & Mrs. Beavah controlled the education of Johnny Beavah, and professional educators were allowed to control their schools in a competitive environment.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

So the money that the government unions use to elect officials (mainly democrats) comes from the union members voluntarily writing a check? My understanding is that the money comes from the contribution that the employer makes to the union. If that is true, that means that the taxpayers are paying for PACs that try to elect almost all democrats. Such a situation is wrong. I should not have to pay tax dollars that go directly to a union to elect someone. Let the union members pay 100% of the money from after tax dollars as most in society must do. That is fair - the current system is not. {Not really a topic for here but the best solution may be to ban all groups from participating the election process and only allow private citizens who are registered to vote to contribute. Also, ban contributions that cross state lines except for the presidential election.}

 

By the way, the real test of who pays for what is if the employer were no longer required to pay the expense, would the employee see an increase in pay equal that which had been 'deducted' from their pay. If the answer is yes, then the employee is paying for it and if no, then the employer is paying. My guess is that the taxpayers are paying the union dues but they are paying for their healthcare - we shall see if the law stands in Wisconsin.

 

I fail to see why it would not be better for all states to be right to work. If the unions are beneficial, then people will join. Allow competing unions. Also, unions should be limited to a single employer. In other words, there should be a GM union, a Ford union, and a Chrysler union but not a union representing employees in all three because it gives the union too much power.

 

Also, I hope that everyone who is touting the virtues of a union are driving a GM, Ford, or Chrysler car and not a non-union Japanese car. (I drive union made cars).

[83Eagle]

@beavah: So as long as we continue to protect a virtual state monopoly on education, then educational professionals don't have the ability to do what all other professionals are able to do. So if yeh really don't like da teachers' unions, the way to address that is not to try to run 'em out on a rail, it's to give educators back their profession. Let 'em set up their own schools to compete with each other for both kids and for teachers. Stop regulating and testing 'em to death. Abolish da public school monopoly.

 

That would be vouchers and charter schools...two things vehemently opposed by any union worth its weight in protectionism...

 

Bust 'em!

[Beavah]

So the money that the government unions use to elect officials (mainly democrats) comes from the union members voluntarily writing a check?

 

Yep, da money used for lobbying or electioneering comes primarily from the PAC affiliated with da union, which is funded by union members (and others) voluntarily writing a check. Particularly for electioneering, the dues-based union activity is negligible by comparison.

 

My understanding is that the money comes from the contribution that the employer makes to the union.

 

That understandin' would be wrong. First, because the employer doesn't make a contribution to the union. The employee pays union dues, which might be paid as a payroll deduction. But that doesn't work like Social Security or medical insurance, eh? There is no employer contribution to union dues. Only the employee pays the union. In exchange for his/her union dues, a typical teacher gets benefits similar to the BSA's: liability coverage for themselves for school-related activities, legal representation and defense for all school and work-related incidents, job placement assistance, contract negotiation by professionals, professional development opportunities and materials, newsletters, etc. Da small amount of lobbying effort that comes from dues is very issue-specific and for the most part generically pro-education. No different than AMA dues for you, and their lobbying efforts. Unions provide a lot of service; dues are generally a pretty good deal for da members.

 

But it's entirely the employee's money goin' to dues, not the employer's or taxpayer's. And for the real electioneering stuff through the PAC, it's direct voluntary contribution by check, not by payroll deduction. Anybody who is tellin' yeh anything different is lying to you for political gain.

 

By the way, the real test of who pays for what is if the employer were no longer required to pay the expense, would the employee see an increase in pay equal that which had been 'deducted' from their pay.

 

Yep, and the answer is "yes."

 

I fail to see why it would not be better for all states to be right to work.

 

Yah, in da modern world I tend to agree with yeh. I don't like closed shops myself, and I have never seen da rationale for the sorta odd across-employer stuff that went on in the auto industry. Now, I don't have a problem with one union representin' folks at a bunch of different shops more generally; that's just good economies of scale.

 

Also, I hope that everyone who is touting the virtues of a union are driving a GM, Ford, or Chrysler car and not a non-union Japanese car. (I drive union made cars).

 

LOL. Yah, well, I believe in spendin' my hard-earned dollars on the best-made car for the money. I think that has the advantage of rewardin' excellence and hard work while also being thrifty in terms of my own resources. When I give to charity, I like to give directly to charity, not do it through purchasing inferior products.

 

Well, except perhaps for popcorn.

 

Beavah

 

[jrush]

Beavah, I didn't misunderstand you...being a lifelong southerner I have a limited understand of unions...I've only recently gotten to the point where I didn't think they should all be labeled treasonous organizations and banned outright, with their leaderership sent to federal big boy prison out of general principle...so I'm learning.

 

Truth, I support limited government as well. That being said, anything I think the government should be responsible for as a matter of Federal Constitutional duty (and IMO education is one of those), it should own 100%. Again, regional prejudice at work...watching the shenannigans of school board down here makes me think that local yokels have absolutely no business whatsover being involved in education. I think we would get better results if the local school boards and the administration buildings full of untrained, uneducated political hacks and nepotistic appointments need to be dissolved and replaced by a leaner federal system using federal standards. We certainly couldn't get any worse results, and the DOD school system already provides a model...

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

I don't think this is entirely accurate Beavah, although I'm not an Xpert on the details of union security agreements these days.

 

The Supreme Court limited the ability of unions to compel union members to pay dues for political purposes in the Beck decision:

 

http://www.mackinac.org/1403

 

However, as the article describes, it's not a very satisfactory decision from the point of view of an employee who desires to actually use such a right.

 

Most unions make political contributions out of dues money and have opportunities for mwembers to make additional voluntary contributions for political purposes.

[Beavah]

I think we would get better results if the local school boards and the administration buildings full of untrained, uneducated political hacks and nepotistic appointments

 

Must be a southern thing.

 

There's no federal constitutional duty with respect to education. Quite da opposite, most legal scholars and conservatives argue that the 10th amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising jurisdiction over education, and quite a few conservatives would like to see da federal education department dissolved. The notion of federalizing education in da way you suggest is almost exclusively a Democrat/liberal one.

 

Now, I do agree with yeh that when yeh look at many rural and most urban districts, yeh get the sort of corruption and nonsense yeh describe. The less well educated a populace is, the less good they do at electing competent people. I reckon that's why yeh get Democrat "elite" types who want to play great white savior and take away local control for the people's own good. And yeh have to admit that when yeh look at D.C. or Detroit or some of da districts you describe, there seems to be merit to that.

 

But there is an alternative, eh? There's what we do for colleges. Let the student and family choose. Provide scholarships that they can use wherever they go, even if it's the University of Notre Dame or Harvard instead of Oklahoma State. There's a reason we have a college and university system that's the envy of da world, eh? It's because we don't use the Soviet Economic Model at that level of education.

 

Beavah

 

[CalicoPenn]

It's pretty rare in school board elections to see candidates running on educational issues these days. For those that do, they tend to be one-issue candidates (abstinence only education, school vouchers, teach creationism in science class, or remove the Harry Potter books from schools).

 

Challengers tend to focus on taxes, incumbents have to defend themselves against charges of wasting taxpayer dollars. For the last 30 years, "teacher's unions" have been a boogieman of choice for the folks trying to manipulate the voter (err, I mean for the folks campaigning).

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

 

In my opinion, a large part of the problem with American public education is the egalirtarian ideal that schools buy into but which is completely inappropriate.

 

 

Far from being equal, children vary enormously in their ability to absorb an education. But public schools are loathe to admit that simple fact, and trying to hide it corrupts schools.

 

Amwerican colleges and universities respect and embrace that huge variation in students ---- with half or so never getting much higher education at all, and the rest being sorted in a wide variety of education programs ranfing from community colleges to MIT.

 

Until public schools kick out the uneducable and those not interested in education, they really can't imnprove much. And instead of encouraging that, we have laws that prohibit it.

 

"Education reform" is a lost cause.

[Lisabob]

To those who want to know: when a union spends dues money on political activity, they must keep very strict records of how much, when, and for what kinds of activities. Further, "political" can be defined to include a rather wide array of activities beyond just the obvious. When we send people to our national union convention and there are presentations about political matters, a portion of the cost of that convention becomes "political." The IRS is not kind to unions who fail to keep accurate records on this (and yes, unions have to get their books audited or reviewed by an outside firm). This is all in federal law, and in most places, also in state law. Woe and harsh penalties be unto the union that ignores it.

 

In addition to keeping very strict records, unions in closed shop or agency fee environments are obligated (again, by federal & state law) to provide a reimbursement to any member who wants it, for the portion of their dues spent on political causes. All the member needs to do is ask by whatever the deadline is, usually in writing.

 

I am an administrator for a union. We do typically have a few folks who request this reimbursement. In a typical year, they might get less than $30 back because my union is not terribly active in political matters. Some years, and this will probably be one of them, we are more active. This year, given the current legislative proposals being floated in my state and the incredible harm that we (our union) believe these proposals will cause to our members, the University where we work, our students, and the state as a whole, yes we are more active on these fronts. That means those members who seek reimbursements will probably receive more money back this year. Still, it will likely come to less than $50.

 

The bottom line is that it is illegal for a union to force members to make political contributions that they do not wish to make, either through outright coercion, or through dues. These laws are very scrupulously enforced. Unions pay attention to this and most are diligent about staying on the right side of the law.

 

There is a lot of mis-information about this matter "out there."

 

[Lisabob]

PS: I still don't understand who these "uneducable" people that Seattle Pioneer wants kicked out of the public school system are. But I think maybe that discussion should be held in one of the threads on education so as not to further muddy the waters here.

 

 

[packsaddle]

To follow up on Lisa's suggestion, I've restarted that previous thread on vouchers and homeschooling that should serve nicely for SeattlePioneer to answer Lisa's question.

 

[packsaddle]

Hello, hello, calling Rangoon.......

SeattlePioneer, please answer the questions about 'uneducables', who they are, how we identify them, etc.