Some might argue that if taxpayers don’t like the contracts negotiated on their behalf, they have the right to vote their representatives out of office. The same is true of public employees who have that right as well as the right to reject the specific contract their labor leaders negotiate for them. I fail to see the reason why voters should have fewer rights than the public employees.
When faced with the growing imbalance of wages and benefits in favor of public employees relative to the private sector, defenders of public employee unions suggest that the solution is to raise the wages and benefits in the private sector. In other words their answer is to make private industry as uncompetitive and inefficient as the government. Unfortunately, in the private sector consumers and shareholders are free to vote with their wallets. If a product is too expensive or of poor quality the consumer has numerous other choices. If a company fails to earn sufficient return, shareholders are free to sell their investment. No equivalent discipline exists in the public sector.
Some ask “Don’t you believe in public employee’s rights to collective bargaining?” The simple answer is no. Public employees were specifically excluded from the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. At the time, President Roosevelt, the champion of organized labor wrote “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 …”
Others claim “You can’t change the deal. You can’t take away benefits we have earned!” The simple reply to that is “Why not?” Taxpayers in Massachusetts had a deal with our state government allowing it to take 5% of our income and an additional 5% on the value of most products we purchase. But then they changed the deal. They now take 5.3% of our income and an additional 6.25% on the value of most products purchased. It’s hard to argue that the deal changed and for the vast majority of taxpayers, the state is taking a benefit (money) that was clearly earned.
In the end I believe in the politics of the possible. Despite the good it would do I don’t see the end of public employee unions. Given that reality I suggest simply that we level the playing field and give taxpayers the same rights as public employee union members.
The law notwithstanding I do believe public employees DO have the MORAL right to collectively bargain, as they would in the private sector.
<
p>Any change in deals come from negotiation, but to force a change would violate the constitutional prohibition against infringing on the obligations of a contract.
<
p>I am adamantly opposed to negotiation via direct democracy on the part of the taxpayers. Unfortunately, there’s too much evidence that taxpayers will not support the people who serve them.
I am not suggesting in this proposal that public employee unions be stripped of the ability to collectively bargain.
<
p>Union employees elect their union representatives. They vote for their elected political representatives. They also vote on ratification of the contract that their union reps bargain for. (I guess direct democracy is okay there?).
<
p>I am simply suggesting we level the playing field by allowing the people who are going to pay for the contract to ratify it as well.
<
p>Your last comment is perhaps the best argument that I have heard in favor of public employee unions and that is that the average person while not necessarily evil, is certainly selfish and won’t support the people who serve them.
<
p>I am not saying you are wrong to hold that view of people. It just seems like a really depressing way to go through life.
…I’m much more OK with rank and file voting in a limited-membership, voluntary society with a specific purpose than I am the people at-large. I personally don’t want to vote on these contracts; I elect people for that, but if I were in the union I’d want a more direct say because it would have a more direct effect on me.
So if it comes up as a Citizens Petition I’ll put you down as a no.
If it were to make the ballot I will of course vote my preference since I also believe that if you don’t vote you can’t complain.
are you a fan of?
<
p>Do you oppose unions, or just public employee unions? ‘Cause the thing is, whatever limitations FDR referred to don’t really apply to a longstanding municipality with a longstanding public education system that children of residents attend for eight to 12 years.
<
p>
Why doesn’t FDR opposition to public employee unions apply to a municipality.
<
p>Granted his comments were directed to Federal Employee unions but I don’t see the distinction.
As I said previously, I don’t know the full context of what FDR said.
<
p>FDR is also no longer with us. I therefore assert that your position, as the diarist, is more relevant. And I say you’re using a quote from FDR to bash unions to suit your own purpose.
<
p>But whatever — you cite
<
p>
<
p>There is no limitation with a public school system funded by property tax in a town. None. As long as people live there, and pay their taxes, the school will have a source of funds. The community has a compelling interest in educating its members. Not that it’s the only possible system, but it’s a highly workable system, and has self-sustained for many years.
<
p>
Happens down here. You assume your ‘community’ is a homogenous Mom-And-Dad-And-Buddy-And-Sis place. Some communities have no ‘compelling interest’ and it shows in their votes.
…don’t want children of the community educated? I realize some do seem to have that attitude, which is unfortunate. I say we’re all in this together. I don’t have grandparents in my own town, but I’m going to support elder services. We all should support the fire department even as we pray that we personally will never need them.
And I said no such thing.
<
p>But, you know what, Peter, I’m out on this one. I came in like the March wind, put off by Brad’s anti-union question. I should have stayed out, because this is the sort of question a blog can’t resolve. I support the right of collective bargaining, and to me a community with a standing public education system is a parfect environment for one.
<
p>You’re saying, it doesn’t work for all communities. OK fine. I could further assert that those communities are tied to other, more crowded places (Hyannis?) where it does work — or doesn’t, you might argue. But either way, I see nothing to undermine the right to bargain collectively. Since teachers have to deal with elected officials already, it seems like collective bargaining is a reasonable response.
<
p>And you and Brad seem to disagree. There we are.
<
p>
I’m tired of funding the Council of Aging. I guess with that attitude — a Republican one, let’s call it — we should just defund the whole thing at town meeting.
<
p>If it’s everyone for themselves, the median Republican voter (or state) will come out of worse off than any other.
I told the kids that if they didn’t register to vote and attend town meeting, they were ensuring that there would continue to be town funded golf courses with special rates for seniors, and no youth centers.
As long as youth ignores politicians during elections, politicians will continue to ignore youth between them.
… learned this lesson the hard way. So when the TPers show up and are apparently listened to by the right, they made a point of ‘globing on’. They aren’t the only ones of course, so now the TPers are indistinguishable from the ‘standard’ right side of the GOP, as many actual libertarians found out the hard way.
<
p>Perhaps youth need something to ‘glob’ onto?
Brad….bless your heart. You provide no links that prove that public employees are over-compensated…you simply bleat crap you’ve heard from the “nattering nabobs of negativity.” (special thanks to Spiro Agnew)
<
p>There was a study, however, that proves that the narrative of the “over-compensated” public employee is a myth. http://www.gazettenet.com/2010…
<
p>
<
p>So when comparing apples to apples….public sector education and experience with private sector education and experience….your argument that there needs to be a “level playing field” falls flatter than a landscape in St. Louis.
<
p>
<
p>Unfortunately, public sector employees are a convenient scapegoat for people unwilling to do the work of understanding the the complexities of wage and benefit analysis, instead of spouting faux talking points.
did I make an argument that public sector employees are overcompensated? If I had I would have provided links.
<
p>As far as bleating crap I am not aware of anyone, at least recently offering this proposal so I guess I can’t provide links to that either.
<
p>As your Nom de keyboard is Justice4All I assume you would support giving taxpayers the same powers enjoyed by public employees.
<
p>Your argument also seems to assume that if voters were given the power to vote on public employee they would vote against them. Again, this is not an argument I made.
You then go on to say that would be a bad thing. Clearly, you want to reduce the wages and benefits of public employees to the imaginary lower level of the private-sector employees. If you did not think they were overcompensated, why would you want to do that?
you’re right. Replying on too many streams.
You’re too clever by half, Bradley. Link up,amigo, since as you stated, “if you had, you would have provided links.”
<
p>I support democracy. You seem to support voter micromanagement of the public workforce, which is neither efficient nor realistic. I work in the private sector, Bradley, do you think 150,000 people vote on my wage increases and benefit increases? Do you think 2,000 people vote on my wages? How about 100? Nope. That doesn’t happen.
<
p>You’re a panderer, Bradley. You think the voters will like you better if you make them think you care about their rights. People see right through this around here. It may play in Peoria but it won’t play here.
<
p>Your last line is just nonsense. I do note that you haven’t refuted the study….but bleated that voters should have rights. Oye. Again, too clever and too cute by half.
<
p>
From the NH Gazette
<
p>http://www.gazettenet.com/2010…
<
p>Hartford Business:
<
p>http://www.hartfordbusiness.co…
<
p>Not sure why you gave me “4” – it’s not my fault that one of your guys showed up armed with a peashooter.
Before, it asked for money. Now it’s this –
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know what they are looking for, but I don’t have this problem with other people’s links. A ‘4’ is needs work, not a judgement.
<
p>
Hopefully, the Hartford Business link worked? And I don’t know why it’s asking for that, when I found it by googling it, and got in, no problem.
<
p>Give me credit for linking, Peter P….Brad didn’t bother to link at all.
If those don’t work, google Massachusetts Public Employees Compensation Study
It’s not his fault that the study is paywalled or doesn’t work well with your browser or whatever. I certainly don’t think it deserves a 4… his post doesn’t need work, nor does the study itself.
<
p>Sorry, Brad, but this is just a terrible idea. You may not like public sector unions, but it makes little sense to put fully negotiated contracts up to an up-or-down vote among voters who were not part of the negotiation process. There is a reason why our democracy is a representative democracy — we designate people to take care of the details of running government, all the time ensuring that there is democratic oversight by the people. That’s what we have here — if people don’t like how their local government are run, then they have plenty of options to vote people out of office — or better yet, getting involved themselves to fix whatever problems they see.
<
p>Let me ask you this — what do you think about the American people being able to vote on each defense contract signed between the Department of Defense and private contractors? After all, the taxpayers pay for these contracts — and far, FAR more than they pay for public union contracts.
<
p>Since you’re in favor of direct democracy when it comes to union contracts, I assume you’re in favor of national referenda on each and every defense contract?
I’ll have to think about that one.
Your equating employment contracts of state and municipal workers and those with defense contractors is interesting but I believe ultimately flawed.
<
p>First, defense contract are typically, though not exclusively competitively bid. When they are not there is an outcry from across the political spectrum. I can only assume there were perhaps a mention or two of Halliburton and Blackwater and No Bid contracts here at BMG during the early years of the Iraq War. I am not aware of our state putting work at the Turnpike Toll Booths, the RMV or DCR out for bid. In fact we have the Pacheco Law to functionally forbid it.
<
p>You also said
” However that is exactly what is done when the rank and file are allowed an up or down vote on a “fully negotiated contract.” The rank and file were certainly not part of the negotiations. In fact, in most municipalities the local unions are not involved in the negotiations. The state or national union sends in attorneys and/or trained negotiators to work out a contract with a local and often part-time school board or city council. Perhaps if Steve and Larry of Local 336 of the Gloucester Public Works Department negotiated the union contract with Bob and Sally of the Public Works Committee there might be no need for what I propose.
<
p>You made the point that people can vote and/or run for office. I think you are aware that I have done both. (I was delighted to see that Representative Walz spent $90,000 this past election cycle to beat me.) Now unlike the unions, neither I nor a defense contractor can compel anyone to hand over a percentage a portion of their taxpayer funded pay check to provide direct and in-kind donations to the same politicians who are supposedly negotiating on my behalf.
<
p>So, I get to vote for a politician to represent me in negotiations with a public employee union. A public employee union member gets to vote for the union boss who is going to represent them (or higher the negotiators who do) in those same negotiations. That same public employee is either forced or paid to “volunteer” for the re-election of the politician to represent me. They also get to vote for that politician. The public employee also gets to vote whether or not to accept the contract that has been negotiated.
<
p>Tell me again how that is a level playing field.
<
p>Now for every study from a pro-labor or left leaning think tank that someone can cite saying that public sector employees are not over-compensated I can cite on from a conservative/libertarian one that says the opposite so let’s not play that game. But let’s assume that they are right and public employees aren’t over-compensated, don’t retire 5-10 years earlier than their private sector counterparts and don’t take advantage of loopholes and anomalies in retirement regulations negotiated by my representatives. Why not put the contracts to a vote? I am certain they will all be approved by the voters.
Your argument about it “not being a level playing field” because union members get to vote for “union bosses” and contracts while regular voters do not is very strange.
<
p>As you surely know, union members pay union dues that regular voters do not. The purpose of paying these dues is to support the union’s activities, including negotiating contracts. If a voter wants to vote on a contract, then they can if they join the union. But saying that voters should have a say on union contracts when they’re not paying the dues…how would that be an “equal playing field”?
<
p>Also, I’d argue my analogy about defense contracts still stands. For one, I don’t see how your point about competitive contracts is relevant, given that the bidding process is simply a form of negotiation. Even if the contract is the result of competitive bidding (and many, especially in the specialized defense context, are not), it still involves a government agency negotiating with a private entity for a deal that transfers taxpayer money to that private entity. The effect on the taxpayer is the same. How, using your logic, is it fair that government bureaucrats and defense CEOs get a vote on whether to enter that contract, but not the taxpaying voter? I don’t care if the contract was competitively bid if I think it’s a bad contract I don’t want to pay for.
I don’t even know where to begin with your post so I’ll just focus on one point you make, i.e that rank and file are not part of the negotiations for their contracts. I can’t speak for municipal union members, but as a dues paying member of NAGE, which represents over 22,000 members in 60 agencies in Massachusetts, I can speak somewhat intelligently about how our contracts are negotiated, and how rank and file members are involved.
<
p>Prior to the expiration of the existing contract, the members elect a negotiating committee from among the membership to work with the union leadership on contract terms. Clearly, the leaders are lead, but the committee meets, and it sits in on the negotiating sessions with the Commonwealth. From contract to contract there aren’t a lot of new terms. I know this because two contracts ago I was an elected member of the committee.
<
p>I don’t know if you’ve ever taken the time to read an entire public employment contract. Perhaps you should, and then we can discuss whether you think it’s appropriate for approval of the contract to be on the ballot.
<
p>All this is not to say I’m a big fan of my own union, but the idea that “taxpayers” should vote on my contract is just absurd. I’m a taxpayer, too, and I have no interest in seeing “Public Employee Contracts” on my ballot next to a re-vamped Bottle Bill. My tax dollars are spent on many things I don’t like, but I think it would be absurd to expect me to vote on them. As others have said, that’s why we have representatives in government.
“When they are not there is an outcry from across the political spectrum.”
<
p>Not so much. I hear so much more about unions than no-bid defense contracts. Pick up any national or local paper any day of the week.
<
p>Certainly there are differences between defense contracts and union contracts. The question is, what particular difference or set of difference is salient with regard to direct democracy? It seems to me from your post that the salient point of the union contracts that makes direct democracy appealing to you is that taxpayers should be able to directly vote their interest since that is what happens on the other side. The implication being that currently union members have unequal access toward voting their interests. Assuming defense contractors ‘vote’ their actual interest by merely applying to contract, then the same really holds true in defense contracts as do unions.
<
p>Now I’d argue that direct democracy is a lousy way to manage any issue of such complexity that the particulars require study beyond what the average voter is likely willing to devote. Contract negotiations are just such an area which is why lawyers get involved.
<
p>Hoya – EVERY town in MA with open town meeting does exactly that! And that is a MAJORITY of the cities and towns in the Commonwealth!
<
p>Selectmen/Managers negotiate contracts, but they do NOT have the power to make a binding agreement. ONLY town meeting has the fiscal authority to do that. Sometimes, contracts get postponed, or redone if town meeting rejects them, but 95% of the time it gets voted through. But the actual TAXPAYERS have the final word on their own expenditure.
<
p>And somehow – the world does not end.
We have open town meeting and we have never been asked to vote on a contract for town employees.
Because you can vote no, and there has to be renegotiation.
Those departments do of course get funded through the budget questions we vote on as a whole, but I can’t find any questions I would interpret as voting on a contract.
The Town Meeting refused the override to pay the arbitration, and they had to go back again. STORY.
<
p>And this IS an exceptional case – in 30+ years of town meeting, only once did my town reject a contract, and that was settled that fall at a special.
you vote on the budget usually in May.
<
p>Budgets rarely get discussed at town meeting because they are negotiated by elected bodies. The school committee negotiates with the teachers’ union. The select board, along with the town administrator, if there is one, usually negotiate with police and fire and highway, etc. The democratic aspect of budgets and contracts are done by elected representatives, not town meeting. PP, I don’t think our town meeting votes on those employment conracts. We do vote on other contracts though? Does that sound right?
<
p>My dad tells the story of moderating a town meeting in the 1970s, when the town rejected the school budget. It had never happened before. A member of the school committee–a very conservative Republican who nevertheless believed in government–called for reconsideration. He then got up and told the townspeople they would shut the schools down until a budget was passed. The school budget was passed the second time.
In the end, the town or city has the power to override management. This is also true at the state level – after the contract is negotiated, the union has to scramble to push to fund it – if they vote no, there’s no contract. To the original diarists point, I’d call that a leveling of the playing field.
voters don’t really question the budget.
<
p>As much as it will make my selectman life more difficult, I’m hoping to increase transparency in the budget-making. It’s all televised, but people have little understanding of how the budget is constructed or how they might affect it at an earlier point in the process.
And now they are saying anything they can to get us to destroy the pensions of middle class people, one group at a time, and they’ve picked the middle class people who work for the public, like teachers, police, firefighters, public health workers. They tried to privatize Social Security under Bush, and now they are trying this angle.
<
p>Nice try, Brad Marston, trying to make public servants sacrifice dignity in their elder years just because you conservatives really tanked the economy, making so many investments worthless as a result of your laissez-faire attitude to financial regulation.
<
p>For those who want lots of wonky details, read this:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index….
I’m sure believes in enlightened self-interest doesn’t extend that value to workers.
<
p>It’s all right for corporations to unite, form interest groups, lobby elected officials, and in some cases, spread misinformation all to their advantage. It’s all right, for limited monopolies like cable television to charge whatever they like, regardless of the actual cost of production. (My favorite abuse was in the 1980s when CD’s cost less to produce than vinyl records, but were priced twice as high). It’s okay for speculators, who add nothing of value (or nothing but value), to drive up gas prices purely for profit’s sake. But it’s not okay for workers to openly negotiate wages and benefits!?
<
p>The rights of voters as they pertain to contracts are limited by our system of government, i.e. representative democracy. At the state and federal level, the executive branch negotiates contracts, which are then part of a budget that is submitted to the legislative branch. I suppose that the contracts could be submitted to the legislature without being buried in a budget, as was done at PP’s town meeting.
<
p>Anyone interested in what benefits unions add to the state of Massachusetts might check out the union-sponsored site American Rights at Work. There is some research on there, though as I’ve learned through reading economic research on education, it’s hard to prove the direct effects of unions.
You made some great points and there were some thoughtful counterpoints from BMGers. But thanks for bringing up a controversial issue and actually trying to talk about it, absent any vitriol (just minor snarks…).
<
p>How are things on Beacon Hill with more Republican members?