Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Have we ever had a gubernatorial candidate as anti-union as Charlie Baker?

By

This piece on the Fox 25 News Website has me scratching my head:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker is blaming the influence of unions for the Legislature’s failure to address issues he says could help the state reduce its budget deficit.

Baker told reporters Thursday that unions “control Beacon Hill” and Governor Deval Patrick and legislative leaders have failed to adequately stand up to them.

Now, there is no question but that Charlie Baker is completely wrong on this issue.  Look at how many hits unions have taken in the past few years — flaggers, the Quinn Bill, education reform, transportation reform, state worker layoffs and wage cuts, and the failure to enact legislation for destination resort casinos.  It’s  pretty obvious that unions have taken some serious hits, and they have certainly done their part, and more, in sharing the sacrifices that we have all been called on to take in this Great Recession.

But Charlie Baker is not just wrong, he is making his anti-union perspective the centerpiece of his campaign.  I’m pretty sure that Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci (with the exception of the Carmen’s Union), Jane Swift, and Mitt Romney were no fans of unions, but I don’t remember any of those Republicans taking such a strong anti-union position in their campaigns or terms in office.  Does this reflect some polling data that the Baker Campaign has on public sentiment toward unions?  Or is it just something personal, some personal antipathy that Charlie Baker has toward unions?  I’m just asking.  Any opinions?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. But I don’t think he did when running for governor.  (I’m guessing he was the #1 fan of unions when he was running as the candidate to the left of Ted Kennedy.)

    <

    p>Baker’s pandering to the crazy-right, and it might work to get Republicans out in force come election day.  Hopefully it will also get union voters out in force, too.

  2. where its 100% common sense to the point where we are 1 out of 50 states who do cops instead of flaggers —

    <

    p>When we end the practice and enact flagging, are we supposed to thank the police unions and respect their loss and benevolence?  I feel like they take the hit because that’s common sense.  Does that make me anti-union?

    • You really miss my point.  Don’t take this so personal.  I agree with Governor Patrick and you on civilian flaggers, and that doesn’t make any of us, in my opinion, anti-union.

      <

      p>But it’s undeniable that unions have taken hits over the past few years, whether justified or not, and many unions, as a result, are not supporting Gov. Patrick’s re-election.  As a result, it’s absurd for Charlie Baker to say that unions are running Beacon Hill.  If that were the case, there’d be no civilian flaggers, full funding for the Quinn Bill, no ed reform, no transportation reform, no pension reform, no furloughs for state workers, and destination resort casinos would be up and running.

      <

      p>So how can Charlie Baker claim that unions are running Beacon Hill?  It just doesn’t make sense.  Why is he saying that?  Are his pollsters finding anti-union feelings among the voters?  Is it a personal thing with him?  Is he carrying a grudge from his days at A&F?  Or did he just blow up in frustration because his campaign isn’t getting traction?

      • What percentage of Massachusetts voters are members of a union, anyway? Rich owner and managerial types, a lot of white-collar professionals, artists, the self-employed, and blue-collar people who are not union members could all be receptive to anti-union rhetoric. Some degree of anti-union sentiment can be found among progressives as well as traditional, pro-business conservatives. Dislike of public-sector unions is particularly prevalent around here, for a variety of reasons. People from all walks of life, and with varying opinions on other issues (such as gay marriage or legalized gambling) could potentially be unified by this convenient common enemy. If union members are a small enough proportion of the electorate, then we might have a successful strategy.
        Of course you’re right that Patrick hasn’t been a union pushover or anything, and Baker seems pretty short on specifics.

        • Albeit I admit I am disgusted with union support of crack (casinos and slots) rather than honest revenue.

          <

          p>Just look at the way Hyatt treated its housekeepers for an explanation of why unions are appealing.

          <

          p>There is, among some in power and leadership such as in the CEOs suite, a tendency to see the “mere worker” as a cog, a serf, not as a valued employee…not that this attitude is anything new, which is why there was a Triangle Fire – and the birth of the Garment Workers Union.  My mother, who was born in 1918 in Detroit knew some of the survivors and I met a couple “back in the day” in Detroit.

          <

          p>When I was a union member back in Michigan, I had support, fellowship, and backup when I ran into a Supervisor from Hell when I was that I did not have before, or since.

          <

          p>But maybe, the hatred of unions is really all about power and control.  Unions limit management power and control, after all.  

    • to negotiate with their employers; that doesn’t mean unions necessarily get to win the negotiations.

  3.  He is gutting the rank-and-file membership of the SEIU with his cuts to home care programs.

    <

    p>$118.70 for 10 hours of home care a week: or
    $356.00 A DAY for a medicare nursing home.

    <

    p> Scary stuff huh? And the SEIU union management supports this travesty! The old fable about democrats “supporting” working people is just that, fantasy.

  4. Oh, please, the “Unions-oooga-boooga-boooga!” approach is getting old. If unions REALLY ran Beacon Hill, all of those state and local workers wouldn’t be getting creamed with copay increases and unpaid furloughs (i.e., PAY CUTS) and such.

    <

    p>Besides, those “unions-oooga-boooga-boooga!” (henceforth referred to as UOBB) types always seem awfully happy when the scary evil unionized public employees are delivering services that THEY give a rat’s patootie about:

    <

    p>Plenty of teachers in Sean and Caitlin’s classrooms, because my special special snowflakes deserve the best. Home health care aids to take care of Mom so that someone doesn’t have to quit a job and become a full-time caretaker, because nobody can afford the nursing home. Shame on those cops for milking me with their details (except that taxpayers aren’t funding those), but they’d better be there when I call 911. And that water main near my office has been broken for an hour now; why isn’t it fixed yet?

    <

    p>All of those things that make life livable in civilization? They’re PUBLIC services, kept up by PUBLIC employees who, in these parts, belong to unions. Those unions have fought for the things that make the UOBB crowd happy, once they can see beyond the UOBB rhetoric. The fact that unions have compromised on as much as they have just to keep members employed and services viable is proof that Chuck’s got a slight problem with reality, and perhaps we should call attention to that whenever possible.

  5. I just posted this the other day. Deval agreed to make the %750 Million (that’s right, Million) UMASS renovation project a PLA meaning only Union laborers can be used. This in spite of the fact that 80% of the construction workers in MA are Non-union. That in spite of the fact that MA residents overwhelmingly disapprove of contracts excluding non-union laborers. This is the quintessential Beacon Hill/Union deal that we hate and that exemplifies the power and control unions have over our legislators.

    <

    p>

    Gov Patrick approves a 10-year master plan for at least $750 million in new construction and renovation projects. On June 14, the University of Massachusetts Building Authority had voted to proceed under a Project Labor Agreement (PLA), meaning that only workers who pay dues to a union will be hired for one of the largest building projects now in the offing. Since roughly 80 percent of the construction workforce in Massachusetts is open-shop (non-union), the PLA amounts to naked political favoritism for organized labor — and a raw deal for everyone else. (Using non-union workers would employ 12-15% more workers and reduce the unemployed)

    When Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute analyzed the costs of building126 Boston-area schools, it found that PLAs inflated the winning bids for construction projects by almost 14 percent, and added an extra 12 percent to the actual construction costs. When it comes to public construction, PLAs all but guarantee that taxpayers will be overcharged.

    As The Wall Street Journal observed wryly in April: “Boston’s Big Dig, Seattle’s Safeco Field, Los Angeles’s Eastside Reservoir project, the San Francisco airport, Detroit’s Comerica Park — all were built under PLAs marked by embarrassing cost overruns.”

    According to a statewide Suffolk University-7 News survey taken in March, Massachusetts residents have no use for PLAs either. Asked whether private contractors working on public projects should be compelled to hire exclusively through union hiring halls, 69 percent said No. Opposition to excluding non-union laborers from work that their taxes help fund was expressed by clear majorities of both men (77 percent) and women (61 percent); of Democrats (52 percent), Republicans (88 percent), and independents (76 percent); of whites (69 percent) and minorities (67 percent). The same was true when respondents were sorted by age or geography — strong majorities were against union-only mandates. Even among union households, 59 percent were opposed.

    <

    p>Lastly, the flagger deal was a bone thrown to the frustrated electorate and OBTW, it had so many caveats it has eliminated a morsel of the actual flagging/detail costs. A complete elimination of police details for road work would have been a notable example of unions not having power on Beacon Hill.

    • …take our collective business to contractors whom we know pay good wages and treat their workers fairly?  I would say it’s not just the right, but the obligation of the state to take these things into consideration and not just go with the cheapest option.  Of course I’m sure you realize by now I have no use for your citing public opinion on the matter.

  6. thing for this election and the economic downturn. The GOP is always anti-union, but right now, they’re using their tried-and-true tactic of resentment: you have crappy, low-paying jobs or worse no jobs and few or any benefits; unions have good pay and good benefits.

    <

    p>The pension crisis, which is being touted by the business lobyy, is largely, but not completely manufactured, but it’s part of the anti-union drive to lower benefits for workers. Didn’t one of our Righties post the Chris Christie video trashing unions?

    <

    p>And though I hate to agree with JohnD, the flagger thing was mostly smoke and mirrors. That’s according to my police department sources.

    • But you get projects built without various unions arguing whose job its is to bring the electrical freight in.

      • When unions have effective power in a local labor market, they drive up wages in non-unionized jobs in the same sector, as employers compete for workers. Construction jobs in anti-union North Carolina don’t pay well.

        • Research on the effects of unions runs the risk union-bias, so consider the methodological limitations (as opposed just the source) of this study:

          It should come as no surprise that unions raise wages, since this has always been one of the main goals of unions and a major reason that workers seek collective bargaining. How much unions raise wages, for whom, and the consequences of unionization for workers, firms, and the economy have been studied by economists and other researchers for over a century (for example, the work of Alfred Marshall). This section presents evidence from the 1990s that unions raise the wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise total compensation by about 28%.

          The research literature generally finds that unionized workers’ earnings exceed those of comparable nonunion workers by about 15%, a phenomenon known as the “union wage premium.”

          H. Gregg Lewis found the union wage premium to be 10% to 20% in his two well-known assessments,the first in the early 1960s (Lewis 1963) and the second more than 20 years later (Lewis 1986). Freeman and Medoff (1984) in their classic analysis, What Do Unions Do?, arrived at a similar conclusion.

          • Independent of union or non-union – State projects are prevailing wage so  the hourly rates are very high. An electrician in Lawrence (I can’t find Boston) makes $63.50/hour union or non-union,  this is 132K a year a very good salary.

            <

            p>The PLA agreements (which essentially means only union contractors can bid on the project) makes public construction more expensive and limits the number of contractors who will bid on the project. A Beacon Hill Institute study (sorry pdf) found that the PLA raise winning bids for school construction projects 14%.

            <

            p>Why should we spend more money on our public projects than we really need to?

            <

            p>

            • Because it results in workers making more money?

              <

              p>Is that a bad thing? Only if you count the costs of the prevailing wage and ignore the possibility of benefits. The issue is one of comparative advantage, though the comparison itself is never made. Lower costs result in lower taxes, but by how much? A significant amount? Do the benefits of lower taxes outweigh the benefits of prevailing wage?

              <

              p>I would argue there are benefits to paying the prevailing wage. There are direct benefits to electricians as you point out. It’s probably good for a lot of construction workers, though a lot of these guys don’t work a full 12 months a year. Unions tend to put upward pressure on wages for non-union workers. That sounds good. It means more blue collar people in the middle class. Higher wages also translates to more tax revenue (higher salaries–> more tax revenue).  

              • We shouldn’t waste money, our bridges obviously need to be fixed and so does a lot of public infrastructure, higher costs mean less gets done. From what I’ve seen union and non-union public construction model stinks, the quality is poor and the projects take twice as long and cost twice as much as private construction.

                <

                p>I think the union construction lends itself to their being no loyalty between the company and the workers  and vice-versa (at least what I’ve seen in NYC), most of the guys don’t work 12 months a year and they get bounced from job to job and company to company. I’ve  worked on a project where they sent a different electrician ever day – just to even the work out, this wasn’t fair to the workers or the owner.

                <

                p>I this might be a gross generalization but I think most of the non-union contractors keep a core staff 12 month a year and the union contractors just draw for the union hall.

                • their are benefits to union workers and the prevailing wage. You only focus on the costs.

                  <

                  p>If you don’t believe there are any benefits, that’s fine. But I’d like to see you try to refute it and show me how they outweigh the benefits.

                • All the PLA agreement do is prevent non-union contractors from bidding on projects and therefore limit the number of bidders, fewer  bidders higher prices.

                  <

                  p>A simple example would be a town being able to only renovate one school and not two because the PLA bids are higher.

                  <

                  p>

                • I understand the costs. I’ve been involved in decision-making in municipal building for 10 years. As selectman, I’m dealing with a school building proposal right now. I understand the costs of the prevailing wage.

                  <

                  p>My question to you is, what are the benefits, if any? Are you saying that the prevailing wage applying to non-union workers is the only other benefit?

                • I’m not sure of the question.

                  <

                  p>Are you asking what is the benefit of union construction over non-union. I don’t see any, and the work rules with union contractors certainly drive costs up. Why not allow the other 75% of construction workers bid on the project, their families are just as hungry and they pay taxes too.

                  <

                  p>Good luck on the school construction, it’s going to be painful even if it’s well run. But it’s a great time to build, construction costs are lower, subcontractors are available and interest rates are close to zero. But taxpayers are strapped which can make an override problematic.

                  <

                  p>

                • The school building process is a pain in the butt. My town has 6,300 residents (50,000 dollars in industrial tax revenue, 300,000 in commercial tax revenue) and three schools that need serious work. At best we’re looking at a 10% tax increase for one building to accomdate 6-12.

                • If the building could be built for 1/2 the price – you would be only looking at a 5% tax increase – which would be certainly more palatable.

                  <

                  p>The state house over the past 100 years has completely messed up public construction law and made all public buildings much more expensive then they should be.

                  <

                  p>

            • I’d like to know how your cited hourly rate for electricians ($63.50/hr) compares to the effective hourly rate for architects. In my view, the positive impact of getting top-quality electrical work (and plumbing, and carpentry, and concrete, and all the other trades) is easily as valuable — perhaps more so — than the difference between top-of-the-heap and bottom-of-the-heap architects.

              <

              p>When an incompetent electrician does shoddy work, a building burns. When an incompetent architect does shoddy work, people cluck their tongues at how ugly the building is. Which is worse?

              <

              p>You ask “Why should we spend more money on our public projects than we really need to?”

              <

              p>I fear that your implied assumptions about what we do and do not “need” to spend say more about your attitudes towards workers than about the realities of what is and is not necessary public spending.

  7. Union support may be critical to Democratic, but not Republicans. And unions are particularly out of favor among voters.

    <

    p>Baker isn’t about to draw any union endorsements. Coming out strong against them will appeal to his base and a lot of moderate independent voters.

    <

    p>People are pretty upset about the legislature’s failure to act on a huge number of important issues this year. Unions are not the sole cause of this – but they are an important factor in that failure equation.

  8. Here we go again.

    <

    p>Baker and his rich cronies want to use the depression to attack unions so they can have union members replaced by those who must work for slave wages.

    <

    p>That people lap this up is ridiculous.

    <

    p>He’s also “gaming the ref’s” here, talking about how high the union pay is, so that the uninformed will demand that it come down. Just like the right wing does with judges.

    <

    p>People who are not rich have no business voting for such a candidate, who will make it that much worse for everyone by beating down wages.

    • Folks would rather dream about and identify with the rich than face the reality that they are poor.

Archives