Public employee unions on the defensive

[DEDixon 39]

Really good article from a really crappy newspaper. Good because it is an opinion piece instead of from staff.... don't get this stuff from staff in SF anymore.

Public employee unions on the defensive

Peter Scheer

Sunday, June 13, 2010

For public employee unions - those representing police, firefighters, teachers, prison guards and agency workers of all kinds at the state and local levels - these are the worst of times.

Despite record high membership and dues, and years of unparalleled clout in state capitols, public-sector unions find themselves on the defensive, desperately trying to hold onto past gains in the face of a skeptical press and angry voters. So far has the zeitgeist shifted against them that on one recent weekend, government employees were the butt of a "Saturday Night Live" skit, and the next day, a New York Times Magazine cover article proclaimed "The Teachers' Unions' Last Stand."

Public unions' traditional strength - the ability to finance their members' rising pay and benefits through tax increases - has become a liability. Although private-sector unions always have had to worry that consumers will resist rising prices for their goods, public sector unions have benefited from the fact that taxpayers can't choose - they are, in effect, "captive consumers."

At some point, however, voters turn resentful as they sense that:

-- They are underwriting, through their taxes, a level of salary and benefits for government employment that is better than what they and their families have.

-- Government services, from schools to the Department of Motor Vehicles, are not good enough - not for the citizen individually nor the public generally - to justify the high and escalating cost.

We are at that point.

In California, government-sector unions, once among the most entrenched and powerful labor groups in the country, mainly have themselves to blame. For most of the postwar period, they were a force for progressive change, prospering by winning over public support for their agenda.

In the 1970s and '80s they backed laws like the Public Records Act and Brown Act to make state and local government more transparent. Because unions enjoyed broad-based political support, efforts to enhance government accountability and responsiveness to voters were seen - correctly - as benefiting the unions and their members. The public interest and public employees' interests were aligned.

But the unions switched strategies. Although the change was gradual, by the 1990s, California's government unions had decided that, rather than cultivate voter support for their objectives, they could exert more influence in the Legislature, and in the political process generally, by lavishing campaign contributions on lawmakers. Adopting the tactics of other special-interest groups, government unions paid lip service to democratic principles while excelling at the fundamentally anti-democratic strategy of writing checks to legislators (wow!), their election committees and political action committees.

While not illegal (in fact, such contributions are constitutionally protected), the unions' aggressive spending on candidates put them on the same moral low ground as casino-owning tribes, insurance companies and other special interests that have concluded that the best way to influence the legislative process is to, well, buy it.

Public unions' distrust of voters, and abandonment of government transparency as a union objective, could be seen in their successful push, in the mid-1990s, for a change to the Brown Act, California's open-meeting law. The new provision ensured that the public would have no access to collective-bargaining agreements negotiated by cities and counties - often representing 70 percent or more of their total operating budgets - until after the agreements were signed. (wow!)

What happens when voters and the press have no opportunity to question elected officials about how they propose to pay for a lower retirement age, better health benefits for retirees' dependents, richer pension formulas and the like? The officials make contractual promises that are unaffordable, unsustainable and, in general, don't come due until after those elected officials have left office. In the case of Vallejo, this veil of secrecy and the symbiotic relationship it fosters led to municipal bankruptcy.

The biggest blow to unions' public support has come from revelations about jaw-dropping compensation and pension benefits. Police have received unwelcome attention for budget-busting overtime and the manipulation of eligibility rules for "disability pensions," which provide higher benefits and tax advantages. Other government employees, particularly managers, have been called out for "pension spiking": using vacation time, sick pay and the like to boost income in the last years of employment, which are the basis for calculating retirement benefits.

Such gaming of the system boosts starting pensions to levels that can approach, and even exceed, employees' salaries. Some examples from the reporting of the Contra Costa Times' Daniel Borenstein: A retired Northern California fire chief whose $185,000 salary morphed into a $241,000 annual pension; a county administrator whose $240,000 starting pension was 98 percent of final salary; and a sanitary district manager who qualified for a $217,000 pension on a salary of $234,000. At a time when most Californians anticipate an austere retirement (if they can afford to retire at all), government pensions are a source of real voter anger.

The harm to the credibility of public employee unions from these excesses is made far worse by the unions' attempts to hide them. The revelations about pay and pension abuses have surfaced only as a result of lawsuits. (The First Amendment Coalition has been a plaintiff in several of these cases.) Public employee unions, could have, and should have, taken the lead to stop abusive pension practices, which mainly involve managers and other senior staff. Instead, they have vigorously opposed disclosure of individual employees' salaries and pension amounts.

Public employee unions need to reboot. The old strategy of cynically buying political influence and excluding the public from decision making has run its course. Unions can rebuild public support by recommitting to an agenda of open government in the public interest. If they don't, they will be further marginalized.

Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a California nonprofit dedicated to government transparency and political accountability. Contact him at www.firstamendmentcoalition.org. Send your feedback to us through our online form at SFGate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/13/INSD1DRDIC.DTL

[Darnell 8,478]

Prior to May 5, I used to have much respect for any and all Labour Unions in the USA, including Public Employee Unions.

But on that day, I watched the leaders of 10 of them, national leaders, stand up in NYC and declare they support an amnesty program for illegal aliens.

Sorry - not interested anymore. Pardon, what I've written is not focused on California.

[Heracles 417]

But on that day, I watched the leaders of 10 of them, national leaders, stand up in NYC and declare they support an amnesty program for illegal aliens.

You are joking. The biggest opponents of them in AUS are unions. More often than not, they are behind raids on construction sites that use them. Not that this is anywhere near the US's problem of course but still.

How ###### stupid can American unions be to not realize illegal aliens suppress their wages and displace their workers. Who is going to use a NYC union wanker and not use an illegal alien? NYC unions, their demands and their extortion are downright ridiculous as it is.

[lostinblue 1,989]

A story in the local paper ran the other day. In a town of 8000 population 10 of the 30 police officers will retire with over $100,000 per year pension.The money tree is dead all over this country.

[Darnell 8,478]

You are joking.

No, I'm not. Sheila Jackson Lee, a US REP from my state, was there also, chanting on about amnesty, how happy she was that organized labour is supporting amnesty for illegal alien workers.

I'm sure this will be a major blow in her backside, as she has small # of constituents that are members of labour unions in her district, much more constituents who are displaced workers due to illegal alien hirings, in her district.

Clueless, she is.

[Darnell 8,478]

The biggest opponents of them in AUS are unions.

I had falsely laboured for some years, this decade, under the guise of 'same' in the USA.

Now, it's clearly not the case. I do miss 'that pull' - was large PAC collection to handle this silliness - now they want amnesty for illegal aliens.

F*cktards.

[Heracles 417]

It just amazes me that so many on the left here [particularly unions] don't get how negatively illegal aliens impact the poor and blue-collar jobs [Americans]. A job occupied by an illegal alien, is one less job [and opportunity] for an American. Consequently, one more person on welfare or living in poverty.

I guess in cities like NYC, it's a little different because the Unions get to pick and choose who is hired and fired and what jobs they work on. Never heard of such a thing prior to moving here. Those sorts of shenanigans sound like something out of the Soviet Union. A company would have to be stupid to setup operations outside right-to-work states. Unfortunately in place like NYC, these corrupt unions have a stranglehold on the government too.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Booyah!

[DEDixon 39]

what is the reason for the support of illegals? i don't know the logic involved.

[DEDixon 39]

bump... still interested to know.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

what is the reason for the support of illegals? i don't know the logic involved.

Perhaps an expectation on part of the union that these workers, once legalized, can fairly easily be unionized?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's simple really.

Unions are no better than "evil corporations" at the end of the day.

They have one goal and that's to make money. It's never about the benefits for the workers in most cases now days... When you look at how much money these unions actually take in, it has nothing to do with any type of benefits package... The more people they unionize, the more money they make, etc. It's a damn pyramid scheme now days. The guy on top gets rich while the little guy holds a picket sign when he could be working and making money as well.

[Craneman 2]

Having spent 15 years as a forced member, had to be a member to have a job, of a union, Unions are about memberrship not members.

The greater the membership numbers the greater the revenue, Transalte "MONEY"

Members are of little importance.

It's simple really.

Unions are no better than "evil corporations" at the end of the day.

They have one goal and that's to make money. It's never about the benefits for the workers in most cases now days... When you look at how much money these unions actually take in, it has nothing to do with any type of benefits package... The more people they unionize, the more money they make, etc. It's a damn pyramid scheme now days. The guy on top gets rich while the little guy holds a picket sign when he could be working and making money as well.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From one of the comments left on the page of the original article:

Peter, I wish you would have done some research. Those employees you cite in your article are NOT union employees, you freaking idiot! Those are ALL managers. They are not covered by any union contract at all. Those people are not in collective bargaining either. If you would have pulled your head out of your posterior, you would have realized that anyone who is a supervisor, manager or other executive level employee is under either an employment contract or subject to the fire at will doctrine. The average rank and file employee (remember Peter...the employees who do all of the hard work) have an average retirement of 28000 a year, hardly the windfall nitwits like you believe is happening. And now, lets talk about the tax-free status you people in the non-profit sector have. If you want to talk about a scam, lets talk about that.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/06/12/INSD1DRDIC.DTL&plckOnPage=3&plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=TimeStampDescending#ixzz0qq3eFUUB

[evli1966 88]

Having spent 15 years as a forced member, had to be a member to have a job, of a union, Unions are about memberrship not members.

The greater the membership numbers the greater the revenue, Transalte "MONEY"

Members are of little importance.

It isnt the memebrs it is the Union Leaders!!!

[Darnell 8,478]

bump... still interested to know.

I'm terribly sorry, not to have replied sooner.

It was some shock of a day for me, to watch it live on C-Span, my belief systems were shattered, I could not concentrate so much.

But I did make some notes about it, whilst watchiing. I too, was looking and listening for the 'why are they doing this?' tag.

The major preface, for an hour, from each of the labor union leaders that were talking - was -

[my words, general paraphrase]

'let's get our brothers and sisters legal in this country, they live under social injustice for so long'

But that doesn't answer the question of 'why'.

and I'm sorry, I wish I had some longer answer for you ...