Federal Intervention in Wisconsin Proves My Point

In a previous post, entitled A Word From Wisconsin, and My Fundamental Problem With Unions, I attempted to make the point that public sector unions and private sector unions were really no different.

Yes, public sector unions occupy both sides of the bargaining table.  Yes, public sector unions’ “agreements” with their employers are nothing more than a giveaway of political spoils.  Yes, striking against the public interest is unjustified.  But the basic brand of corruption remains the same: unions cannot exist in their current form without government intervention on their behalf.  The argument about public sector vs. private sector unions takes place at the far margins of an unjust legal framework.

I suppose it is important to note that I have no philosophical problem with unionism in a free market, but we emphatically do not have a free market.

Instead, the government has its thumb on the union side of the scale, and in return unions of all stripes have become nothing more than political action committees for their most generous benefactors.  In a free market for labor this would be impossible; neither a corporation nor a union would be able to act with the force of law, as the government does when it artificially props up unionism.

And so we see that a recent development in Wisonsin has proven my point, despite attempts by unionistas to portray it as just one more reason why unions are necessary.  It seems that, under federal labor law, the U.S. government can withhold $46.6 million of transportation funds if Wisconsin removes provisions in its laws designed to coddle unions.

The Huffington Post (I know, I know) reports the story:

Budget referees and transportation officials in Wisconsin have informed Gov. Scott Walker (R) that if he were to pass his controversial anti-union legislation into law, he could be forfeiting tens of millions of dollars in federal funds for transportation.

Under an obscure provision of federal labor law, states risk losing federal funds should they eliminate “collective bargaining rights” that existed at the time when federal assistance was first granted.

But wait, there’s more!  And it is scintillating:

The provision, known as “protective arrangements” or “Section 13C arrangements,” is meant as a means of cushioning union (and even some non-union**) members who, while working on local projects, are affected by federal grants.

**(Note that the “non-union” workers referenced above come under union rules, including Project Labor Agreements and Prevailing Wage regulations, and so are no different than their officially-union counterparts.)

What’s that you say?  You’re surprised that the law has manipulated in such a way as to explicitly favor unions, even as against the public interest of an entire state?  Perhaps you have not been paying attention.  Hence, my fundamental problem with unions.

Then again, if I were a Wisconsin voter, I would view the loss of $47 million in transportation funds as a fair trade for removing the threat of billions of dollars in inflated public union wages, ridiculous health care demands, and chronically underfunded pension costs.  Imagine how many potholes you could fill if you didn’t have to pay the salary of the Undersecretary to the Assistant Chief of Staff Pro-Tem to the Adjunct Chairperson of the Department of Education’s Blue-Ribbon Panel on Minority Affairs.

Cutting Only 9% of Spending is “Explosive”? Guess it Depends on What You’re Cutting.

Scott Walker is certainly making a name for himself over in Wisconsin.  The new governor previously dazzled with a plan to rein in the Democratic political machine public sector unions, and now he has proposed an “explosive” new plan to cut spending.  Wherein “explosive” is defined as a cut of only 9% out of a single category.  Talk about your shifting goalposts.

The problem is, Scott Walker has proposed cutting money from education.  $900 million to be exact, which sure sounds like a lot, until you realize that it represents only a small fraction of total spending, and that total spending is far too high anyway.  But predictably, the calls for “Cut Spending Now!” have turned into “Anything But That!”  A plan to cut a piddling 9% off of a single category in a state that expects budget deficits of $3.6 billion in the coming years is anything but explosive.  Unless it’s a sacred cow being slaughtered, I suppose.

Then again, it is worth noting how little effect education spending has had over the years.  In this almost-famous Cato Institute graph, we see that ridiculously massive growth in federal education spending has translated to stagnation and regression in student performance.  Granted, this is federal, and not state, spending, and education is an issue properly left to the states.  But it would be foolish to think that these data are wholly inapplicable based on who is writing the check.  Observe:

It appears as though our country’s public education strategy is “throw enough shit at the wall and some of it will stick.”  Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like anything is sticking.  If you dig deeper, you soon find out how the public education system is being used as a jobs program for the politically favored, with layer upon layer of useless administration drawing crazy salaries and unearned pensions.  (Is it any wonder it’s all unionized?)

In the end, I am not sure if this is one more power play by Scott Walker to dismantle the “New Tammany Hall” that is the organized public sector, but I do not care.  It is a move that makes fiscal sense, educational sense, and moral sense.

A Word from Wisconsin, and My Fundamental Problem with Unions

By now, all of my readers are likely to be apprised of the situation in Wisconsin, vis-a-vis public sector unions.  If not, the brief story is that new governor Scott Walker and the newly Republican state congress are attempting to pass a law outlawing collective bargaining rights for certain public sector workers, except over limited wage increases.  Naturally, this has led to much hissing, spitting, and general venomousness. 

Because when I want a raise at work, the first thing I do is march on the Capitol…

Everyone knows that we are out of money.  Wisconsin is trying to plug a $3+ billion budget shortfall.  And everyone knows that the public sector unions are a huge part of the problem.  They are institutionalized corruption.  First, they collect dues from their members, then they funnel those dues to politicians, then once said politicians are elected, they receive overly generous and completely unsustainable benefits packages, leading to more dues collected, and so on. 

That’s why teachers’ union members cannot be fired, even if they have sex with children; that’s also why police union members cannot be fired, even when they drive drunk and beat their wives; that’s also why so-called public safety officers have run up seven-figure legal bills defending civil suits over their abuse of citizens – with no consequences. 

But really, it’s all about a “living wage.”  Yeah…that’s the ticket.  (And for no good reason, the Wisconsin bill excludes the police!)

Much has been made about the nature of public sector unions, as opposed to their private sector brethren, but I don’t see it.  Yes, I understand how electing the people you are going to “negotiate” with for your next pay raise is the very definition of a conflict of interest, but that obscures the fundamental problem.  In my opinion, there is very little difference.

The reason why I find so little difference between public sector and private sector unions is because neither one operates outside the aegis of the government.  Sure, one group gets their overinflated paychecks signed by the state comptroller, and the other group gets their overinflated paychecks signed by a corporate officer, but both groups’ paychecks got overinflated in the same way.

The union labor movement, public and private, has been amazingly thorough in ensconcing themselves in the highest levels of the power elite.  And that is exactly why unions are not viable without specific governmental intervention.  For example, a majority of states still don’t have right-to-work laws, and thus they allow unions to force membership on anyone unfortunate enough to get a job in a union shop, whether they want to join or not.  In this context, it is simply silly to assume that private sector unions are any different than public sector unions.  After all, the coercion carries the force of law whether you work for the state or not. 

Is there any doubt that Detroit would be better off without such labor laws choking off the auto industry’s competitiveness?  Of course there is no doubt – but the private sector unions have Michigan’s government in a stranglehold, and they are not about to loosen up.  Neither is this some David vs. Goliath fight.  For all the talk about the Chamber of Commerce’s influence on the 2010 elections, the labor movement would prefer you not to know that, when it comes to spending on government lobbying and electioneering, unions are the “big dog,” and it doesn’t matter whether they are public or private.

And the labor movement doesn’t just influence elections – the people they elect often pass laws perpetuating the union’s influence far beyond election day.  And they have been hard at work increasing the labor movement’s scope, to the point of absurdity.  For example, did you know that in the highly publicized “labor” battle between millionaires and billionaires NFL players and team owners, federal labor law forced the taxpayers to pick up the bill for this mediation, simply because these overprivileged millionaires belonged to a union?  I can think of better uses for my tax dollars, thank you.

Did you know that the government can label a company a “sweatshop” for being non-union and thus prevent it from working on county projects?  And to give you an indication of the fairness of the process involved, consider this gem of a quote from your friendly local legislator:

“(Union organizers) would not be sitting there if something wasn’t going on,” Councilman James R. Ellenbogen, D-Banksville, said in announcing his support to an audience filled with union activists and company employees. “This is not a court of law, but I’m a working guy and I believe what they say.”

So slander is totally fine, just as long as you’re “a working guy”?  You can call one of the few remaining steel companies in the United States a sweatshop simply because “something’s got to be going on”?  And then you have the temerity to wonder why there aren’t any sizeable steel companies in the United States anymore?

Of course, none of this changes the overarching principle.  It does not matter whether your union represents government workers or not.  Your union exists because of the government.  Remove the intervention and you’ve removed the problem.

Then again, that is not an acceptable solution to the labor movement – they like their special privileges, thank you very much.  But it would be far more fair to those who are currently on the outside looking in.