« The Elite Conservative Media | Main | Publishing Idea »
During the last two decades, the Golden State has been transformed from what was once known as the nation's most anti-labor outpost to a state essentially run by public-sector unions. Nearly three in five publicsector workers are unionized, compared to less than two in five public employees in other states. The Democratic Party, which is fully in hock to unions, has controlled the legislature and most statewide posts, with the notable exception of the governor's mansion, for more than a decade. That means more government workers, higher salaries, and drastically higher pension costs.
According to Adam Summers--a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this magazine--the state's annual pension fund contribution vaulted from $321 million in 2000-01 to $7.3 billion last year. According to public databases, more than 5,000 people are drawing pensions in excess of $100,000 from the state of California each year.
So pervasive is the union influence that big labor doesn't even try to defend its deleterious effects on California's finances. Just before the special election, a member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board asked Service Employees International Union chief Andy Stern to respond to charges that unions are the 21st-century equivalent of the railroads that were once all-powerful in California. Stern verbally shrugged: "I think democracy is an ugly thing at times."
Here's an idea: outlaw public employee unions.
Here's an idea: outlaw public employee unions.
Yes, and watch the quality of life of millions of people come tumbling down. You'd never know to read Matt Welch's piece that unions actually have a point-- that they inarguably raise the quality of life of the people in them, and that improving the material economic conditions of the country's people is one of the most basic purposes of government. Maybe if Matt Welch, or you, were willing to actually consider both sides of an issue, we could have an adult conversation about it. But because you are both conservatives (whatever Welch wants to call himself), it means that you can't have anything but rabid and irresponsible reactions to unions. It's very easy to argue against something when you don't even pretend to consider what the arguments in favor of that something are.
To the extent that public employee unions really do raise effective compensation (not just wages and salaries, but benefits and percs, even including things like an increase in job security) over what the market clearing price for the labor of those employees would be, they only raise the quality of life for the members of the unions by decreasing the quality of life for others who have to pay for the inflated level of compensation.
Personally I'd be against outlawing such unions, but I'd also not give them any special benefits from the government. No "prevailing wage" laws, no requirements that a worker be a member of the union or give dues to the union even if they don't want to be a member, etc.
Here's an idea: Outlaw corporations.
It makes about as much sense as outlawing public employee unions.
It'd be interesting to know where Summer's is getting those numbers. Cause they don't jive with this: http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/board-cal-agenda/agendas/bpac/200905/item05.pdf
California's current payments to CALPERS are ~3 million/year. Even if it was 7 billion, that amounts to less than 20% of California's budget shortfall.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.