Can We Talk? Public-Sector Unions...

Let’s have a frank discussion about public-sector unions.

It is, of course, no surprise that I am against public-sector unions, and especially the collective bargaining rights of said unions. But perhaps it will come as a surprise to some that no less a liberal luminary than Franklin Delano Roosevelt was also against the collective bargaining rights of public-sector unions.

In a letter written to Luther Steward, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, on August 16, 1937, FDR said the following:

“The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

(Full text of this letter can be found HERE, just so you don't think I'm making stuff up.)

Remember, it was FDR who forever hitched the Democratic Party’s wagon to private-sector unions (a point which becomes important later in this discussion) with the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935 (that act protected the rights of private-sector unions to organize and bargain collectively).

So it’s not like FDR was against unions.

To emphasize this point, in 1943, a New York Supreme Court judge held: “To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.”

And FDR was not the only liberal against collective bargaining for public-sector unions. George Meany, the former president of the AFL-CIO said the following in New York Magazine article on December 4, 1955:

“Certain business leaders may consider "big government" or socialism more of an immediate threat to their interests than communism. Are they allowing themselves to be deluded by their own propaganda to the effect that organized labor in this country is in favor of big government or the nationalization of industry?

“Nothing could be further from the truth. The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare...”

In essence, what these quotes illustrate is the inherently undemocratic nature of public-sector unions with collective bargaining rights. We have government employees (public-sector union members), in a fight against government employees (politicians – who if Democrats are supported by public unions), to win concessions from those government employees (politicians) in exchange for backing and organizing for those government employees (politicians).

It is an incestuous relationship and it is violently anti-taxpayer in its outcome. So much so that states are on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of billions in unfunded liabilities represented by insanely generous health care and pension benefits won by government employees collectively bargaining with government employees who rely on union money to retain their offices and power.

Now I don’t believe that there is anyone here, no matter how liberal, who would deny that public-sector unions are nearly 100% on the side of Democrats. If that is not true for the their membership (which it is not necessarily), it is certainly true for their leadership. Public-sector unions funnel countless millions into Democratic campaign coffers every year. And clearly it is not for nothing as their union members make about twice what their private-sector counterparts make in terms of wages and benefits. Again, this incestuous relationship works to the advantage of “public servants” and to the great disadvantage of those who pay them – private-sector taxpayers.

Look at it like this. These government employees and politicians are all paid by taxpayers who do not work for the government. Were it not for private-sector taxpayers, public-sector employees would have no jobs.

Normally, it is the politician who is supposed to represent those private-sector taxpayers – theoretically, that is why they are in office. BUT, if they are Democrats (or RINO’s in some cases), the people who most contribute to their election (through union dues going into their campaign coffers, and members mobilizing get-out-the-vote and other organizing activities) are the public-sector unions. These unions take their union members dues and devote millions to elect or re-elect those politicians who, when bargaining time comes around (for wages or benefits) will be beholden to those unions for their position in public office (whether the individual union members are Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians – union members have little or no say in these matters).

So, imagine the outrage one might feel as a private-sector taxpayer, when they realize that their hard-earned money was going to pay for campaign ads for Democrats, when they themselves are Republicans or Libertarians, or conservatives. These taxpayers have no control over this abuse of their tax dollars.

Now, I would love for someone to tell me how anyone could see this as “fair” to the very people who pay for ALL the wages and salaries paid to public-sector employees and politicians – including health care and pension benefits, benefits these private-sector taxpayers don’t have at nearly the level of their “public servants.”

Honestly, how can this even be remotely justified?

Really? No one is even going to comment on this?

I went through the trouble of creating an original piece of work here, not a copy-and-paste of an article or editorial, and no one is going to respond?

So no one wishes to even attempt to dispute the facts above?

I would at least expect a defense of public-sector union's ability to collectively bargain, no matter how one-sided such "bargaining" actually is.

I mean, who are these public servants theoretically bargaining against? Just think about it for moment. Who pays these "public servants?" And who pays the people they are "bargaining" against?

Honestly people... do you not see the massive injustice of having people who are paid by private sector taxpayers (public sector union members via their bosses, public sector union leaders), bargaining with other people who are paid by public sector taxpayers (the politicians who are supposed to be representing the best interests of their private sector constituents - but whose campaigns are fully supported by public sector unions) - leaving no real representation of those private sector taxpayers who are footing the bill for all of this nonsense?

Please, someone just attempt to justify this absolute insanity for me. Explain to me why FDR, George Meany and others on the left felt that private bargaining rights were inconsistent with the fundamental principles of constitutional republicanism.

Nobody is going to answer you apparently.

TexasBlue wrote:Nobody is going to answer you apparently.

You know, I honestly believe it is because when it is laid out as I have here, there can be no justification for public sector unions - local, state or federal - having collective bargaining rights.

How do you feel about the right of private sector unions to exist? Of course, that has nothing to do with the issue in Wisconsin despite it being heaped onto the debate

TexasBlue wrote:How do you feel about the right of private sector unions to exist? Of course, that has nothing to do with the issue in Wisconsin despite it being heaped onto the debate

What the private sector does is entirely up to them. Truth be told, there was a time when private sector unions were a real necessity and a value to private sector employees. My father was a union man all his working life. In fact, he was a union representative for the bookbinders union.

And while I believe that private sector unions are an anachronism in the 21st century (a fact made clear by shrinking private sector union roles for the last several decades), if those in the private sector truly want to unionize, then I say more power to them.

But the public sector is an entirely different thing altogether. WE pay public sector employees. They have no money but that which we give to them through taxes. Anything that they purchase is purchased at the private sector's expense via taxes. Their homes, food, goods, taxes and union dues are all provided by private sector taxes - their money is actually OUR money.

How can their behavior in Wisconsin even be justified?

In my mind, they are all selfish, narrow-minded extremists. With them, it is the union or nothing - private sector benefactors or no. No one is reporting on the busing in of union members from other states to boost the numbers on the streets in Wisconsin... the mainstream media are not calling these bused in mobs "astroturf" mobs (though they are)... even though they made this same false claim about Tea Party members who gathered to oppose Obama's attempted government takeover of our health care system.

Let's face it... the mainstream media has long ago chosen sides. They are staunchly behind public sector unions and their coverage reflects that.

So no one on the opposite side of this issue wishes to debate the legitimacy of public-sector unions with collective bargaining rights?

I have not given up on this debate yet. I am still waiting for the opposition's response.

Perhaps nobody here disagrees with you on this?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Perhaps nobody here disagrees with you on this?

That cannot possibly be true...