Public union laborers around the country are gathering in state capitols to fight proposed salary and benefit cuts. Wisconsin is ground zero for this debate, but protests have broken out in Indiana, Virginia, Nevada, New Jersey, and Ohio to name a few. In Wisconsin and other states, many union workers have agreed to both pay and benefit cuts and therefore, the real argument has shifted over union rights. Most state legislative proposals include provisions to limit the power of unions from collective bargaining on behalf of its members. In Wisconsin, for instance, the new proposed law would postpone union’s right to collectively bargain for benefits (not salary) for two years.
Other union arguments against the proposed legislation include that public unions, and in particular teacher unions, are being singled out while other private and public unions get a pass. First of all, private unions are not contributing to the state debt (36.2% of all public workers are in unions whereas; only 6.9% of private workers are in unions). Secondly, most of the debt and unfunded liabilities are from teacher unions. There are over 6 teacher union members for every fireman and police officer. Besides, teachers are paid, on average, over 20% higher salary and benefits than firemen and policemen.
But the real legislative provision that has union leaders scared is the one that allows union employees to opt out of paying their 1,000 (plus) dollar annual dues – so they can offset their higher benefits cost. In this country, political power is defined by dollars, and lost revenue for unions would decrease Democratic power and influence. Yes, the same liberals that are calling foul over the Supreme Court Citizens United decision that gives groups and corporations the right to contribute as much as they want to election campaigns are crying foul here. They claim money is not free speech except, of course, when money is being taken from their support groups. Unfortunately, liberal judicial activism over the past few decades has expanded the power of the first amendment to also include freedom of expression (case in point, ruling it is constitutional to burn the American Flag). Thus, money is free speech because people use it more than any material object to express themselves. An Associated Press article said the loss of power (money) and influence if public unions are marginalized is equivalent to the Republicans losing the power and influence of the Church.
I do not buy that argument. First of all, and most importantly, the Church is not putting the U.S. into debt. Secondly, union membership and power has been on the decline for years. For example, from 2009 to 2010 the percentage of union membership dropped by over 1% in merely a year. Maybe the recession is part of the reason, but that trend has been going on for years. Less than one in eight people belong to a union, this does not even pale in comparison to 4 out of 5 Americans belonging to a church.
In the states were protests are high, it is not surprising they have high union membership. Also, the reading proficiency rate of eighth grade students is low and the high school dropout rate is going up drastically from 2000 to 2010 in heavily unionized states. Indiana, which has a lower ratio of debt to its 2011 fiscal budget also has a lower than average union membership and therefore, pays teachers less and its costs per student are much lower. On the other hand, New Jersey and New York have very high union membership and it follows they also have a very high state debt. They also pay the highest teacher salaries and therefore, they have the highest costs per student, What did all this money buy them? Their reading proficiency is just a little higher than normal but high school dropout rates are well above the national average. Paying more does not mean a better education, but higher union membership means higher costs, more debt, and more mediocrity.
The bottom line is that unions must change how they function if they want to keep their collective bargaining powers and consequently keep receiving their membership dues. They should give teachers pay raises (and benefit increases) based on performance, not tenure. They should weed out and fire bad teachers. They should only support initiatives that deal with education. For instance, a teacher’s union should not be spending money to lobby on behalf of gay marriage or green energy. Let’s face facts, unions are not helping education, but they are making it more expensive with mediocre results. Besides, I just cannot imagine that in the 21st century that any group of workers needs someone else to advocate or to think and act for them. Unions certainly are not the only cause to rising costs and a poor education, but they are a leading candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment