Opinion

[Print]  [Email]        

Ban government employee unions

Examiner Editorial
November 16, 2009

An AFSCME rally in Springfield, Ill. last year. AFSCME, like AFGE and other public sector employee unions, takes political action using your tax dollars. ((AP Photo/Seth Perlman))

There was a time in America when the typical union member was a blue-collar guy sweating in a Pittsburgh steel mill, screwing together Chevies in Detroit or loading and unloading ships on the San Francisco docks. But things are radically different today because Joe Lunchpail has been replaced by white-collar Todd and Margo Yuppiecrat processing Social Security checks in Baltimore, conducting environmental audits in Denver or keeping the lines moving at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The breakdown of union membership make this change clear: Only 7.3 percent of all private sector employees are union members, while 37.6 percent of all government workers are unionized. Fifty-one percent of all union members are government workers.

As the Heritage Foundation's James Sherk points out, these numbers ought to be red flags for taxpayers because "government employees don't strike to get higher wages from a private business -- they strike to get higher wages from you."

"Their pay is funded through your tax dollars," he adds. "For government employee union members to get more, your taxes need to go up. So that is what unions now lobby for." And as with so much else in this country, Sherk cautions that what is happening on the West Coast is likely a portent of disturbing things to come for the rest of us:

* In Oregon, public employee unions are funding ballot initiatives to raise personal income and business taxes in order to protect gold-plated medical benefits from state spending reductions.

* In California, the Service Employees International Union spent at least $1 million on a massive television ad campaign demanding that desperate state government officials raise oil, gas and liquor taxes instead of cutting spending.

These actions point to the hard reality that the interests of government employee unions are fundamentally opposed to the interests of taxpayers. The unions are serving their own members, while the government officials who oversee them are serving the public, which usually means delivering the most efficient service at the lowest possible cost.

These diverging interests are perfectly illustrated at the federal level by the political endorsements of the American Federation of Government Employees, which actively backed Barack Obama. For his part, the president is now pushing federal spending to unprecedented heights while expanding the federal work force and working with Congress to raise taxes. Between elections, AFGE, along with other federal employee unions like the National Treasury Employees Union and the National Federation of Federal Employees, constantly lobby Congress against any proposal to rein in the spiraling compensation costs of the federal civil service. Hard-pressed taxpayers shouldn't have to fight tax-happy congressmen and greedy government worker unions at the same time.

Public service employees should be forced to bargain as 92.7 percent of the work force does -- in a way that recognizes the best interests of both sides and does not assume that government is a Daddy Warbucks with limited resources.



beltway confidential

You're beautiful, Chuck Todd. I mean that. (ap photo) On a day when many White House reporters (ahem) stayed away from the White House for snow or early-deadline...

Two James Madison University students are facing felony charges for throwing snowballs at a Harrisonburg city snow plow and an unmarked police car called to investigate during...

Upstart Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina is gaining in the polls and now sits 4 points behind Kay Bailey Hutchison. From PPP: Medina is coming on strong and polls...

A cursory reading of this Las Vegas Sun report, "Prospects For Organized Labor's Legislative Agenda Rapidly Fading," suggests -- and not without evidence -- that Big Labor isn't...






Most Popular Headlines





To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Alarm1201

Nov 16, 2009

I word as a contractor for the government agency and you would not believe the waste caused by unions. Just one example - we developed a program to assist the clerks in doing audits. It would have doubled the amount of work they could do per day. However, the unions did not like it because they would have to change their daily quotas, so the program was scrapped.

 

publius

Nov 16, 2009

In Montgomery County the unions dictate salary, benefits and pubic policy. Pay for the average county employee with benefits is $110,000 a year. Some categories of employees retire at age 42 and live on average to age 82. One retiring today and beginning with a pension of $55,000 a year will at age 82 collect $345,000 a year because of cola adjustments that do not exist in the private sector. Family medical costs for this employee will be huge as well. In addition many employees in Montgomery retire on tax free disability, starting with 70% of their pay and getting cola increases and health benefits for the rest of their lives.

 

Nov 16, 2009

USG Federal Employees cant strike. Get your facts straight.

 

jim02351

Nov 16, 2009

If USG federal employees can't strike why have a union? Answer: Benefits! As Publius noted, it's the early retirement, COLA and paid health insurance. Bring them back to what the average citizen gets. State and federal employees should receive no better than the average wages and benefits in the private sector.

 

Nick Beddoes

Nov 16, 2009

Why not allow government employees to decide for themselves whether they want unions? Employees have the right to band together to protect their jobs and prevent unjust firings, whether they work in the public or private sectors. Without unions employees are at the mercy of big emploters, private or public. Without teacher unions, for instance, teaching would not be a profession worth getting into.

 

Don L

Nov 16, 2009

As the former president of a local government emplyees union (teachers) I heartedly agree, but only to the point of their politicing and funding political issues. They can do that as individuals. Frankly I'd like to see all special interest monies be made illegal. The only special interest that should be political is America. Most of these others end up as opposing what 's good for the nation in order to feed the interest group.Often the interest group works at odds with the best interests of America.

 

Jerome

Nov 16, 2009

unions are hurting normal jobs that dont need unions running up overall cost cuase they think their members need raise every year....y do most of them need raise anyway when the cost of living in must cases are going down

 

Dominic

Nov 16, 2009

This editorial is seriously misinformed and doing a disservice by misinforming the taxpayers by using a medium like the examiner to write his fiction. Government Employees can't strike. They can't lobby congress either, and all these wages that they're getting are taxable, so they're also contributing tax payers. The money they're getting is taxed to subsidize their own salaries. The taxpayers money can't be used for union activities, it's not like the unions have an appropriated budget from congress. Unions operate on the dues paid by its members. And none of those dues can be used for political means. Only PAC dollars can be used for that and those are voluntary.

 

Dominic

Nov 16, 2009

The assumptions on this editorial are borderline ridiculous, what a citizen (in this case a government employee) does with his paycheck is his business. You can't tell him he can't join a union that's going to look after his livelihood if he chooses to do so. It's called FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. It's in the constitution. Look it up.

 

markit8dude

Nov 16, 2009

Teachers are in unions due in large part to the majority of public education teachers being mediocre.

A tenured public school teacher CAN'T GET 86'd.. unless Michelle Rhee has something to say about it!

The country needs more like her. To get rid of the public educator blight..

 

VenturaCapitalist

Nov 16, 2009

The SEIU and the other public employee unions (in corrupt cahoots with democrats) are the most destructive force in government. They elect the politicians who sit across from them at the "bargaining" table and together they decide how they're going to line their pockets with taxpayer money.

Dominic, you'll be the first to scream bloody murder when a business contributes to get a candidate elected then gets a contract from the same politician.

But it's perfectly fine for the SEIU, AFSCAM, the NEA and other unions to give $MILLIONS to politicians whose reelection depends on how much they give you in contract negotiations.

 

Nov 16, 2009

Im a USG Federal Employee that works in Foreign Military Sales, and 100% of my salary is paid by the country i work for. So this doesnt apply to me, although im not a member of the union, if i want to join one i will. Also i dont plan on retiring early, i cant lobby Congress for a pay raise, and my health insurance isnt free. Where people come up with this type of misinformation is beyond me. And, oh yeah as a fed i cant strike, remember what Reagan did to the Air Traffic Controllers when they did.

 

Nov 16, 2009

Maybe if Wal-Mart had a union, their employees wouldnt be subject to modern day slave labor.

 

Comanche

Nov 16, 2009

I firmly believe that we not only need to do away with the government unions but also the double and triple dipping. If you put 20 years in the service, then you get 20 years retirement...not 30 years and no second retirement!

 

pts

Nov 16, 2009

Maybe if Wal-Mart had a union Americans would not enjoy low cost products and several hundreds of thousands americans now working at Wal-Mart wouldn't have jobs.

 

pts

Nov 16, 2009

BTW, what Americans are about to discover is permanent double-digit unemployment (like European countries), and declining personal discretionary income, i.e. declining standard of living. Cause? Growth of non-productive elements in the economy resulting in disincentives for business formation and growth. Welcome to Cuba.

 

Retired CPO

Nov 16, 2009

Ford is another company about to benefit from having union labor. The union refused to grant the same concessions to Ford that they granted Government Motors and Chrysler. Instead, they looked at the profit report of a billion dollars and said, "Whoa. We have to grab our share of that stash." They have no concept of the terms return on investment and profit margin. The billion dollars is about a 2% return on investment.

 

Retired CPO

Nov 16, 2009

The payoff to the unions by Barak of PLA agreements is one of the biggest ripoffs of the federal government since cost plus bidding. To force non-union workers to pay due to a union in order to work is slavery!!!! It totally abnegates the concept of a free market. Then when it comes time to benefit from those dues paid in, the non-union laborer is screwed and left out. To take away 35 years of union service for a one year break in service is a full fledged crime. My dad worked in the IBEW for 34 years from 1938 to 1972, and then took off one year and six months to work as a private contractor. Then he came back to work with the union, and he lost all of the pension contributions he had made. He worked another 15 years as a journeyman before retiring. They credited him with 15 years pension. That is their care for the working guy.

 

Dominic

Nov 16, 2009

VenturaCapitalist, If it became illegal for politicians to receive contributions from private interests - and that would be wonderful - unions would still exist. Unions are service non-profit organizations, they survive on the dues of its members and provide them with different benefits, like representation on labor-related matters. You've been watching too many mob movies / tv shows if you think that unions have the power to elect government officials. Last I checked that's what elections were for. They as every other association out there, endorse candidates based on voting records and points of view. They don't make their members vote either way. AND none of those politicians sit on contract negotiations. It's actually the department heads. So while your statements make for a cool movie script, I'm afraid they're not based in any kind of fact.

 

Dominic

Nov 16, 2009

Comanche, retirement funds and plans are based on how long you work and how much you contribute. If you work only 20 years, you get a lower percentage of what you would've gotten if you had worked 30 years. Also, pension plans are funded through portfolios invested in both high and low risk funds and stocks. how an employee is vested and how long their life expectancy is impacts their monthly retirement benefit. Nobody gets a free ride.

 

Dominic

Nov 16, 2009

PTS, I don't even know where to start with you. Have you even studied Cuba? Have you even looked at what the incentive programs are out there in federal/state/local government? It seems from your statement that you're blaming the current economic climate on unions, when it's more accurate to blame it on the private investors who managed investment portfolios unethically and on behalf of the private investors who benefited from the housing market and multilateral investment funds blowing up outside of the actual growth of the US production power. Result? housing market crash, loss of speculated "increased" purchasing power that these investors had seen thanks to this "flipping" practice. If anybody is to blame for the unemployment, that's the private investment companies. But instead of holding them accountable, we bail them out. You're looking in the wrong direction buddy.

 

Dominic

Nov 16, 2009

Retired CPO,
Wrong, the federal/state/local government is a right to work state. Workers cannot be compelled to join or pay dues. That may be true of some private unions but not the government unions, and THAT falls outside the scope of this article/discussion.
If anything, the dues-paying members bear the cost of representing their non-dues paying counterparts. Government unions are open shops so even if you don't join or pay dues, you are still covered under the protections of the contract within the bargaining unit. And in many cases, the union is compelled to represent these non-dues paying members on labor-related matters at no additional cost to the member. Again, this is the case for federal/state/local unions, any other type of union falls outside the scope of this article/discussion.

 

Nolanimrod

Nov 16, 2009

Typo alert - you meant UNlimited resources.

 

VenturaCapitalist

Nov 16, 2009

Not mob movies, Dominic. I live in California.

Unions telling members how to vote is a red herring.

The issue is unions taking millions in dues and giving it to campaigns of democrat candidates who will make policy based on what benefits the union. This circlejrk is what has bankrupted this state.

 

Fed Up Californian

Nov 16, 2009

There is an initiative campaign in California that will prevent public employee unions from spending dues money taken out of government employee paychecks for politics. Check out the campaign at www.UnplugThePoliticalMachine.org

 

JAY

Nov 16, 2009

Government employees need unions because they have no other job protections. How could they survive without unions?

 

Greg

Nov 17, 2009

When I was a kid, I recall the painter unions fighting the use of paint rollers because they drastically shorten the length of time a job takes. What was old is new again...nothing new under the sun.

 

abby

Nov 17, 2009

Dominic, you are wrong in this statement. "Workers cannot be compelled to join or pay dues. That may be true of some private unions but not the government unions, and THAT falls outside the scope of this article/discussion." Governor O'Malley passed a "fair share" union bill requiring State employees to pay union fees.

 

Whaaa

Nov 17, 2009

Jay has got to be the sorriest of human beings. Protection from what??? The government?? Aren't those the same people you worship and follow? Aren't they the ones that are here to help all of us?

As Reagan said government isn't the solution it is the problem.

It's public service......if you can't handle working for government than I guess you will just have to get a job with a company that actually produces something.

 

Nov 17, 2009

Quoting ...Dominic .. "This editorial is seriously misinformed and doing a disservice by misinforming the taxpayers by using a medium like the examiner to write his fiction. Government Employees can't strike. They can't lobby congress either, and all these wages that they're getting are taxable, so they're also contributing tax payers. The money they're getting is taxed to subsidize their own salaries. The taxpayers money can't be used for union activities, it's not like the unions have an appropriated budget from congress. Unions operate on the dues paid by its members. And none of those dues can be used for political means. Only PAC dollars can be used for that and those are voluntary."

WOW ... you are a boob !

 

Capt. Renault

Nov 17, 2009

It's a waste of time even discussing this. Government at all levels has already been hijacked by the public employee unions. The politicians funnel money to the unions who in turn fund and staff the politicians' campaigns. Neat. Seamless. Unstoppable.

 

NormD

Nov 17, 2009

Practically how does one "ban government employee unions". A federal law, a constitutional amendment? State-by-state laws?

 

Chris Mallory

Nov 17, 2009

Calling a government employee a taxpayer is like calling a bank robber who opens a checking account a customer.

 

dell

Nov 17, 2009

The bureacracy is a self serving blood sucking beast.

Public employees are now a very large powerful voting block. Your current administration is pushing card check to eliminate the secret ballot so that they will become even larger and powerful. Say goodbye to America.

 

mortygwhiz

Nov 17, 2009

Chris Mallory, Who lit a firecracker to your tail? If you read the article you will note that the majority of government employees are not covered by unions. On the otherhand all government employees pay the same taxes as all other workers, public and private. As for unions not being able to lobby members of Congress, the unions meet annually in D.C. for lobby week and lobby their Congressmen. It's a right protected in the U.S. Constitution and available to all citizens.

 

entropy

Nov 17, 2009

I have been saying this for years. NO unions for public sector workers.

Hopefully our pending national insolvency will solve this, then again our currency could collapse and our nation with it.

Spend some more DC.

 

ozzie

Nov 17, 2009

Great idea!! Let's start with teachers.

 

bjohnson

Nov 17, 2009

Why stop with just the government labor unions...by your logic, why not abolishing all member-based 403(b) orgs, and all the multinational corporations and banks who're "too big too fail", and and so on, and so on,...because each an every one of these types have been successfully feeding at the public trough, ...and it can be just as legitimately argued that their interests are not necessarily those of the taxpayers.
Phfllt!!!

 

Andy

Nov 17, 2009

"Calling a government employee a taxpayer is like calling a bank robber who opens a checking account a customer."

Hmm, I work for the IRS and I am a taxpayer just like every other citizen that actually pays their taxes. I get federal, state, and city taxes taken out of my wages at the normal rate and I file my returns timely like all other responsible taxpayers. If anything, I am held to higher standards than a non-IRS employee because I could lose my job (regardless of the fact I am a union member) if I did not file my taxes timely and pay those taxes.

I guess I am confused on what your definition of a taxpayer is and how a taxpayer differs from a government employee.

 

Catherine West

Nov 17, 2009

Somehow, there is a disconnect between the administration of a union & the thoughts or actions of its members. The Democratic Party has relied on votes for their candidates for many years from Unions. Whether strike actually occurs or not is also a bit beside the point. The problem remains union benefits & their administration's fight for more benefits, often has nothing to do with where or how much money is involved. The unions have no relation to profit or the risks of profit. When CA was in trouble with deficit, the SEIU approached for changes in retirement, answer was no. And there is a video of an SEIU spokeswoman saying to Committee you know where your votes come from.

 

dinot

Nov 18, 2009

The whole concept of unions and collective bargaining in a non-capitalist non-ownership of the means of production eliminates completely the rationale for claims to share the wealth created by the production process.govt. orgs. don't create wealth they aren't even a production process. Rather they represent a social overhead cost to the taxpayer who has no direct involvement in mgt. ergo. a govt work situation is one where neither worker nor mgr. have any skin in the game. Even Marx would giggle at this farce.
costs of production) as in un-fireable auto workers and NY teachers on the other hand along with the Hillary Clinton era of storefront concern for discrimination in the classroom destroyed the protective legal doctrine of in-loco-parentis causing protection in union membership. This stupid move must be reversed if public schools are ever to become functional again

 

willem

Nov 18, 2009

Government employees don't need unions, they need ombudsmen; preferably designated DOJ arbiters who secure the Constitutional rights of each employee and ensure the laws of the workplace are followed collectively by all governmental employees irrespective of title or classification. We need ombudsmen to guard against the abuses of pathological personalities, incompetent workplace practices and subcultures which abuse the resources and capabilities of the workplace. No more government unions. They just add a layer to the mess we already have. We need a quasi-judicial presence in the government workplace to protect sanctity and rights of each individual who works there to mitigate the factions the inevitably form to poison productivity and engage in serial abuse of their authority and responsibility.

 

Nov 18, 2009

Is this retaliation on unions for helping to end National Security Pay System (NSPS) for government employees? ALL EMPLOYEES NEED A VOICE!!

 

depaz

Nov 18, 2009

Dominic - Do you SERIOUSLY believe that unions are non-profit?!?!?!? I don't know to break this to you, fella, but that union president who is screaming about the evil CEO and his obscene bonuses ain't livin' in the ghetto. He's on the next hill over from the CEO.

 

tex

Nov 19, 2009

The government is a blood sucking leech. We need to go through every department , every cabinet , every drawer and audit , inventory and get rid of enormous chunks of this parasite.
Elected officials salaries and benefits should be put to a vote. Heavy prison terms should be voted on for the betrayal of public trust.

 

IMangelic

Nov 19, 2009

Dominic
your position & diplomacy are highly commendable - Not to mention you impressive intelligence. Will you marry me?

 

Dan

Nov 21, 2009

Also, why is it the only sector growing in this Employment climate is Govt?

 

IRS worker

Nov 24, 2009

I welcome any of you who don't work for the government to try it and see how it really is. See if you make it through training and your first year. I can not support my family on what I make and am held to a very high standard. Most of my starting group did not make it through their first year of work because they were fired for not performing the way managment thought they should. We need a union to make sure there is fairness in our workplace, otherwise management would fire all of us just because they felt we were not performing they way they wanted. My work is on the telephone and I must account for every single minute of my time. Do all of you have that accountability? I doubt it. I have a limited lunch. I must be back on time from lunch and breaks or I'm considered AWOL, and this would be reason for dismissal. Are any of you anit union people held to this accountability, again I doubt it. Save all of your negative crap about Unions until you've walked the government walk!

 

iscount Christian Louboutin Sandals

Dec 6, 2009

discount Christian Louboutin
Christian Louboutin Wedges on sale
Christian Louboutin Boots on sale
cheap Chloe boots
Manolo Blahnik shoes
Cheap Jordans Shoes

 

DOE Employee

Dec 30, 2009

I'm a computer programmer, & federal employee. A few years back there was an unsuccessful ballot to unionize my job classification. I voted against it. In my department we go through admin assistants like underwear, the bad ones are constantly shuffled w/i the system. After 10 years of service, I have the impression that firing a Unionized employee for nonperformance is almost impossible. The gov't is a horrible arbiter between tax payer money and Union negotiators. The DOE bureaucrats aren't concerned with efficiency, the costs are all built into the funding equations. In the private sector every level is concerned with costs.

A few years ago I was rated "Outstanding" at my performance review, the following year I was granted "Average". I was told this would give me a better chance at getting "Outstanding" the next year. They call the performance review system a meritocracy, but it doesn't really function as one.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




Local

Another snowball fight planned for Dupont Circle

The Official Dupont Circle Snowball Fight facebook fanpage has over 6,000 fans now, and it looks as if snowed in DC'ers will return for another battle. Full story

Politics

GOP winning war over Miranda rights for terrorists

Even as the administration defends its decision to grant accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, the president himself is hinting that things might be done differently in the future. Full story

Local

D.C. region braces for up to 20 more inches of snow

The National Weather Service has the entire D.C. metro area, from Prince William County north, under a winter storm warning for 10 to 20 inches of snow. Forecasters have had their eyes on this storm for days, but the projected snow totals were bumped up late Monday. Full story