Unions Against the Public: The Myth of Public Employee Unions

Yes, one of the evils here is that unions--and the media, including much of Fox News--are doing their best to CONFUSE the issue of public employee unions. Public sector unions and private sector unions are separate in KIND, and you cannot use the accomplishments/justification for private sector unions to support collective bargaining for public sector unions. That was part of what I conclusively showed in my previous article. But the reason for this article is that even I was unable to totally avoid the misleadeing statements you get trapped into making when you address the assertion by public sector unions that the "rights" of public sector unions are/should not be the same as private sector unions. The misleading statements I made, in my previous article, came when I--correctly--asserted that it is absrud for public sector unions to be bargaining away the rights of TAXPAYERS by "collective bargaining" (instead of determining union wages/benefits as part of the political/democratic process, where workers can participate on the same baseis aas all other members of the public).

Where did I go wrong? Well, I failed to make clear that public sector unions are NOT really bargaining just to take money away from taxpayers. Rather, public sector unions are bargaining against ALL of the public (except themselves, although they obviously often adversely affect the ultimate interest of their own members).

How can I say that public sector unioins--in contrast to private sector unions--are bargaining directly against the PUBLEC? Easy. I can say it because it is objectively true (not a matter of opinion). Doubt me? Don't.

Let us look at how government works. Government does NOT have an infinite amount of money--no matter how often our politicians act like they do have such an infinite pool of money. Government has only a limited amount of money, and can only raise a LIMITED amount of money (again, no matter how some politicians and leftists may assume otherwise). Indeed, every effort by government to raise money has COSTWS --not just to taxpayers but to the economy in general. In the end, you can argue about HOW MUCH money is--or shouldbe--available. But you can't argue that the amount is unlimited. it is not.

So what is one of the main functions of POLITICS? Of the democratic process? Right. It is to ALLOCATE the funds available. You NEVER have the money--especiallly on a state level, where the main functions of government deal with the diret needs of the public) to do all that government may WANT to do (or that the public may wwant it to do). For example, we might agree that it would be NICE if ever single teacher, police officer, and firefighter got paid at least $1000,0000 a year. We all might agree that it would be NICE to resurface every road and replace every bridge more than 5 years old (pick any number here)--even when the present ones are acceptable (but not excellent). But MOST of us agree that we CAN'T AFFORD to do everything we might think was a good idea if we had an infinite pool of money.

Thus, there is simply no question that we MUST allocate the LIMITED pool of money that government has. Part of the allocatioin of that limited pool of money is to the PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. But who is interested in this decision? Obviously, it is NOT just the public employees. That is because the rest of the PUBLIC must accept allocation of the REMAINDER of the money left after allocation of public employee salaries. Therefore, it is NOT just the taxpayers that any public emplyee is bargaining against. It is the PUBLIC. See my previous article as to why politicians are not an acceptable substitute for the taxpayers in collective bargaining. However, even if politicians did not have a CONFLICT OF INTERST, it is absurd to sugggest thatpublic employee unions should have more INPUT into this allocation than the rest of the public. You can certainly argue that public employess should be sought out for input, just like all other sectors of the public, but "collective bargaining" gives public workers PREFERENCE in this allocation and input.

For example. What about unemployment benefits. Massachusetts has bery different benefits than Tennessee. What about MEDICAID? What about bus routes and subway routes, and whether more should be added? What about momeless shelters? What about garbage collection? What about SNOW REMOVAL, and how much equipment is available (not to mention employees). What about road repair? The lest is just endless. I disregard HIGH SPEED RAIL, because no one but President Obama and a few extreme leftists care about high speed rail. But you get the point. We MUST ALLOCATE, and public workers should have no more say in that alllocation than the POOR (or their advocates, or than citizens who want more libraries. Every dollar that goes to a public employee is a dollar that does NOT go to a momeliess, person, a candidate for a mediacal transplant, and so on. If you allow collective baraining, you are allowing public employees to bargain AGAINST THE PUBLIC. And you further allow politicians, with a CONFLICT OF INTERST (unioins having input in their ELECTION) to BARGAIN AWAY the interests of the entire public by "negotiation" with only ONE segment of the public (the public employee unions allowed to have collective bargaining). That is absurd.

The decision of how to spend PUBLIC money is a matter of PUBLIC POLICY. Public workers have no more right to determine that policy than any other member of the public, just because they CHOOSE to be public employees. ALL groups within the pubic should have the same right to inupt on this crucial issue of PUBLIC POLICY. Do public employees really have more at stake than a person who can't get a LIVER TRANSPLANT because of state cutbacks to Medicaid--or even more interest than a person whose very comfortable existence may depend on a SUBWAY STOP near where the person lives? More interest than a MOMELSS PERSON who can't find a warm shelter because of a cutback in public shelters? Don't be silly.

Nope. I am NOT saying that public employees do not "deserve" to be adequately paid. What I am saying is that they do not deserve PREFERENCE in the allocation of public money, because they get to "collectively bargain" while the rest of us receiving public services do not. Nope again. Public employuess should NOT have a "right" to BARGAIN AGAINST THE PUBIC for the allocation of the limited pool of public funds. Their right to input should be the same as the rest of us. Again, that is basically the rule on the FEDERAL level, and in most of the SANE states (including Texas, where I live).

This article has nothing at all to do with private unions. You can argue that private unions have hurt the United States of America by making us not be "competitive" in world markets. You can argue that private unions have HURT workers. You can also argue the opposite. And you can make a strong case that the EXISTENCE of private collective bargaining rights helps n-unnioin emplyees , even as union membership has declined in the private sector to the point of disappearing. The point of this article--which unions and the mainstream media are trying to CONFUSE--is that I am taking NO position on private unnions. The worth of private sector unions is a complex subject as to which some of my own feelings are ambiguous. I certainly support the RIGHT of private sector workers to unionize, if they choose. That is entirely a different subject than public employee unions.

As set forth above, the question of ublic employee unions is--viewed correctly-- a SIMPLE question. They sshould NOT be allowed to collectively bargain, because such "bargaining" is AGAINST THE PUBLIC. It UNDERMINES--sabotages--the democratic process. The democratic process, with input from all groups, is how a democratic republic decides questions of public policy. Public employee wages and benefits are a question of public policy--one of lthe main questioins of public policy. That quesdtion is how the limited amount of money availabe to a government--any government entity--should be allocated.