Sen. Brown Goes To Bat For Government Unions

From the Wall St. Journal:

The Senate is moving closer to passing legislation that would require states to grant public-safety employees, including police, firefighters and emergency medical workers, the right to collectively bargain over hours and wages.

The bill, known as the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, would mainly affect about 20 states that don't grant collective-bargaining rights statewide for public-safety workers or that prohibit such bargaining. State and municipal associations, as well as business groups, oppose it, saying it will lead to higher labor costs and taxes, at a time of budget deficits.

The bill, backed by at least six Republicans in the Senate, prohibits strikes and leaves to states' discretion whether to engage in collective bargaining in several areas, including health benefits and pensions.

If the legislation passes and states choose not to grant the minimum collective-bargaining rights outlined in the bill, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which oversees labor-management relations for federal employees, would step in and implement collective-bargaining rights for these workers.

You can bet that once the federal government becomes involved that the states will be over-ruled by a board packed with labor allies. The police and firefighters will soon be receiving the gold-plated benefits of federal employees. It doesn't matter if the municipalities and states can afford them or not. They will be compelled to raise taxes. We shouldn't be spreading the budget busting policies of CA, NY, NJ and MA to states' that haven't become hostage to the demands of public union yet.

Police and firefighter unions are the biggest advocates of the legislation. "A year after this law passes most of these executives who are fighting it won't be able to remember what they were scared of," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the 325,000-member National Fraternal Order of Police. He said unions wouldn't be able to negotiate wages and benefits that governments couldn't afford.

Yeah right, all these union folks will be looking at what Ed Kelly squeezed out of Boston. A 2.5% raise just for taking a drug test will go national.

The other Republican co-sponsors in the Senate are Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Here's a look at what Sen. Brown is supporting. This is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. As Gov. Christie is talking about a "day of reckoning", Sen. Brown is trying to make it worse. The wages and benefits of public employees are already greater than those in the private sector to the point that they are threatening to overwhelm budgets across our country. They should be treated like an epidemic, quarantine them and fix them where they are, don't let them spread. Has Sen. Brown missed what is happening in Greece, Spain, Britain, Italy? The $50 Billion for public union workers that Bailout Barry begged Congress to pass on Saturday?

Are State Public Pensions Sustainable? Why the Federal Government Should Worry About State Pension Liabilities

Assuming future state contributions fund the full present value of new benefits, many state systems will run out of money in 10-20 years if some attempt is not made to improve the funding of liabilities that have already been accrued. The expected shortfalls raise the possibility that the federal government will be faced with a decision as to whether to bail out states driven to insolvency by their pension programs.

Enough is enough Sen. Brown

The Ground We Should Fight 2010 On

From the inestimable Michael Barone:

Public-sector unions bleed taxpayers
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
February 7, 2010
(AP File)

Growing up in Michigan in the heyday of the United Auto Workers, I long assumed that labor unions were part of the natural order of things.

That's no longer clear. Last month the Labor Department reported that private-sector unions lost 834,000 members last year and now represent only 7.2 percent of private-sector employees. That's down from the all-time peak of 36 percent in 1953 and '54.

But union membership is still growing in the public sector. Last year 37.4 percent of public-sector employees were union members. That percentage was down near zero in the 1950s. For the first time in history, a majority of union members are government employees.

In my view, the outlook for both private- and public-sector unionism is problematic.

Private-sector unionism is adversarial. Economic studies show that such unions do extract premium wages and benefits from employers. But that puts employers at a competitive disadvantage. Back in the 1950s, the Big Three auto companies dominated the industry and were at the top of the Fortune 500. Last year General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt and are now owned by the government and the UAW. Ford only barely escaped.

Adversarial unionism tends to produce rigid work rules that retard adaptation and innovation. We have had a three-decade experiment pitting UAW work rules against the flexible management of Japanese- and European-owned nonunion auto firms.

The results are in. Yes, clueless management at the Detroit firms for years ignored problems with product quality and made boneheaded investment mistakes. But adversarial unionism made it much, much harder for Detroit to produce high-quality vehicles than it was for nonunionized companies.

As economist Barry Hirsch points out, nonunion manufacturing employment rose from 12 million to 14 million between 1973 and 2006. In those years, union manufacturing employment dropped from 8 million to 2 million. "Unionism," Hirsch writes, "is a poor fit in a dynamic, competitive economy."

Moreover, federal laws passed since the 1950s now protect workers from racial and sex discrimination, safety hazards and pension failure. They don't need unions to do this anymore.

Public-sector unionism is a very different animal from private-sector unionism. It is not adversarial but collusive. Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits -- and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund.

The results are plain to see. States such as New York, New Jersey and California, where public-sector unions are strong, now face enormous budget deficits and pension liabilities. In such states, the public sector has become a parasite sucking the life out of the private-sector economy. Not surprisingly, Americans have been steadily migrating out of such states and into states like Texas, where public-sector unions are weak and taxes are much lower.

Barack Obama is probably the most union-friendly president since Lyndon Johnson. He has obviously been unable to stop the decline of private-sector unionism. But he is doing his best to increase the power -- and dues income -- of public-sector unions.

One-third of last year's $787 billion stimulus package was aid to state and local governments -- an obvious attempt to bolster public-sector unions. And a successful one: While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen. The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning over $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession.

Obama and his party are acting in collusion with unions that contributed something like $400,000,000 to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle. Public-sector unionism tends to be a self-perpetuating machine that extracts money from taxpayers and then puts it on a conveyor belt to the Democratic party.

But it may not turn out to be a perpetual motion machine. Public-sector employees are still heavily outnumbered by those who depend on the private sector for their livelihoods. The next Congress may not be as willing as this one has been to bail out state governments dominated by public-sector unions. Voters may bridle at the higher taxes needed to pay for $100,000-plus pensions for public employees who retire in their 50s. Or they may move, as so many have already done, to states like Texas.

Obama's Democrats have used the financial crisis to expand the public sector and the public-sector unions. But voters seem to be saying, "Enough."

A quick primer:

President Obama used TARP money to bail out GM and Chrysler to benefit the UAW. These companies acknowledge that the taxpayer will likely never be repaid. Instead the president is proposing a fee on banks' to recoup these losses.

The stimulus, as admitted by the administration was designed to bail out spendthrift state governments and protect public employees from layoffs.

There is no reason why public workers should be allowed to unionize and then use memeber dues to advocate for ever bigger government.