On the question of public-sector collective bargaining, FDR has been proven right.
Labor unions are all about two things: money and control. The problem is that they go about achieving their aims through coercive means, often political, sometimes violence.
In New York, for example, the union bigwigs have contrived to get their allies in the legislature to enact a bill designed to keep workers from learning about their right to opt out of paying dues to public-sector unions under the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision. I discussed that bit of skullduggery here.
In Vermont, the same political alliance has placed on the ballot a proposed amendment to the state constitution, a Right to Collective Bargaining amendment. If enacted, the state legislature would be forbidden from passing any law that “interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to collectively bargain with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety.”
Does Big Labor have anything to worry about in Vermont? It is not a Right to Work state and has embraced public-sector collective bargaining, but what if enough residents came to realize that they would be better off with worker freedom of choice and without the added tax burdens that public unionism entails? Even if they did, the state constitution would stand in the way.
(A Right to Work statute does not, in fact, interfere with collective bargaining, but you never know how a court might rule.)
But even in a “progressive” state where the voters like Bernie Sanders, compulsory unionism skates on thin ice. If people start to think seriously about the consequences rather than the glittering rhetoric, they might sour on Big Labor’s project.
Consider public-sector unionism. Is it a good idea to have unions negotiating with government officials over the terms and conditions of work done by government employees?
You might be surprised to learn that President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a fervent supporter of collective bargaining in the private sector, thought it was not compatible with public-sector work. As we read here, FDR thought that public-sector workers could join unions, but that collective bargaining was contrary to the public interest.
Big Labor, however, is not concerned with the public interest. It is concerned only with its own interests. And what could be better than reeling in large numbers of federal, state, and local employees as dues payers? Unlike private-sector workers, whose employers must face competition, government employees have no competitors and won’t be laid off if their wages are excessive.
And that is exactly what happens when unions negotiate with politicians they have helped elect. Union officials pour much of the dues money the collect into the campaigns of friendly politicians who will return the favor. Law professor John O. McGinnis observes, “Public-employee unions have wielded huge influence to gain perquisites for themselves at the expense of the public. Early retirement, job tenure, high wages, and generous defined-benefit pension plans have gained increasing attention from commentators and voters.”
As Jason Sorens points out in this recent AIER article, public-sector collective bargaining has a host of adverse effects for the people, besides raising their taxes, including poorer education in public schools, lowered accountability among workers, and reduced public safety. Although unions are adept at sounding the usual “progressive” themes, the individuals who are most harmed by their actions are those they profess to care so much about.
On the question of public-sector collective bargaining, FDR has been proven right.
Will Vermont voters be so foolish as to approve this measure, thereby making it more difficult for state legislators to ever back away from their blunder of falling for the Big Labor agenda?