What Brian S. is missing
By D.J. McGuire | Friday, March 11th, 2011 | Policy
Brian Schoeneman is one of the more thoughtful bloggers in the center-right of Virginia’s blogosphere. That is what made his post on Wisconsin labor reform all the more painful to read.
I think Brian is correct that this issue will not go away with Wisconsin; I don’t even think the story is over in Wisconsin. However, Brian’s analysis is missing two very big pieces: history and the dramatic impact of local governments on state budgets.
The history regarding labor is not very well-known in general, besides the usual hagiography about the rise of organized labor to challenge the industrial barons of the late 19th century. Organized labor’s history is actually much older and, surprisingly, more controversial. For much of the first third of the 1800s, unions were seen not as a necessary protection for laborers but rather as a dangerous attempt to monopolize the workforce and destory the artisan-farmer economy. Numerous labor leaders were arrested on “restraint of trade” charges in an attempt to keep labor markets competitive.
Several things changed this dynamic. The expansion of suffrage made anti-union policies far more problematic on election day (union leaders themselves made sure of that by becoming more active in politics – in no small part to ensure their ability to operate freely). Moreover, the rise and concentration of industry shifted Americans’ concerns about “restraint of trade” from the suppliers of labor (unions) to the demanders of labor (the firms). Organized labor was viewed more as a check against monopolization than a cause of it.
Lest anyone be confused, I’m not defending the early 19th century notion of organized labor. One of the chief tenets of rational expectiations in economic theory is that as time progresses, people have more data available to make economic and political decisions. I sincerely doubt anyone in 1830 who could have been made aware of the 1890 situation would have defended the “restraint of trade” actions against unions. My point is that collective bargaining was not considered a “natural, God-given” right, but rather a power workers felt they should be able to use. Over time, most Americans agreed – at least in the private sector.
As for the public sector, that discussion is still ongoing – even before Wisconsin. Several states do not allow collective bargaining for public employees at all, while many others place limits upon them.
Last night, Wisconsin joined the latter group. That’s big news for Wisconsin, and again this is due to history of which Brian may not be aware. Limited government has always fought an uphill political battle in the Badger State. The Republican Party was “founded” in Ripon in 1854, but from that point until roughly 1940, the GOP was the big-government party in American politics; that shift began with big-government Republicans left for FDR’s Democrats or the LaFollette’s Progressives. Anyone want to guess where the LaFollette family called home?
This is the real reason why Wisconsin has garnered so much attention – as opposed to Indiana, who did this six years ago with much less reaction due its history of more affinity for limited government.
These pieces of the historical puzzle make it clear that the Wisconsin Republican Party is hardly as radical in their actions as Brian claims. That said, it does not explain why they did it. For that, you have to consider the nexus between local and state spending, something that may seem strange to Virginians but unquestionable in much of the rest of the country.
Here in the Commonwealth, the combination of the Dillon Rule and the lack of collective bargaining for local government workers has led to an unusual disconnect between state politics and local politics. In fact, only three Virginia Governors in 50 years began their political careers in local office – and two (Albertis Harrison and Jim Gilmore) were Commonwealth Attorneys. Only one (Tim Kaine) started in politics by governing at the local level.
Meanwhile, although a very large chunk of the tax money Richmond gets is rerouted to county courthouses and city halls; Richmond has largely told local governments that complain about funding to keep quiet and balance their budgets on their own. Governor McDonnell is one of the very few who has examined the relationships between state and local governments – and his focus is on reducing mandates rather than adding funding.
Outside of Virginia, however, the impact of local politics cannot be underestimated. The tax revolt in California that some say helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 was in reaction to property taxes, and the effort to combat them (Proposition 13) is widely credited with reorienting local funding – from the homeowner to the state legislature.
In the state where I was raised (New Jersey), property taxes have been a hot state issue for more than two decades, even though the state has no impact on property tax rates. New Jersey has been offering property tax rebates to homeowners since 1991. In New York, the loudest opposition to Andrew Cuomo’s attempts to rein in state spending has been NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (he’s worried about a cutback in funding from Albany). Brian may be surprised to learn that Bloomberg’s greatest worry is not the need to cut local spending in response, but his inability to keep good younger teachers and fire old, incompetent ones due to a “last-in-first-out” clause in the teachers’ union contract. All over the country – and most especially in blue states – local governments have been rattling tin cups in the state capitals to fund their spending sprees.
As for the role public sector unions play, we need to remember that Governor Scott Walker was the Milwaukee County Executive before 2011. He has seen first hand how public sector unions forced up local government costs. Again, in places where collective bargaining for the public sector doesn’t exist (like Virginia), this isn’t seen. None other than the Washington Post has noticed the difference between Montgomery County, Maryland (where public sector unions can collectively bargain) and Fairfax County, Virginia (where they can’t).
This is why Walker initially proposed his reforms as part of budget repair: for his state, its long term fiscal health is dependent upon getting local government costs under control. In order to do that, he has moved Wisconsin from the left end of the public sector union scale to the center of the scale. It’s unfortuante that Brian can’t see that.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
Comments
32 Responses to "What Brian S. is missing"
I don’t get what I’m missing. I knew 95% of what you wrote here, DJ. The only thing I didn’t know was the percentage of folks in Virginia who got elected governor and started in local government. That’s interesting.
The contention that collective bargaining is the cause of the problems here isn’t proven by what you’ve written. If local costs are the issue, then the localities need to deal with those local cost issues. Sitting down with the union does not cost them anything. If they sign a bad deal, that’s their problem.
If the locality signs a bad deal with a contractor to build a road or a local government building, does that justify their shutting down the government contracting bid process and just handing out money to whichever builder gets there first? I don’t think so.
So why are we blaming the unions for the bad decisions that these localities made? If they’re signing contracts and making promises they can’t keep that is their fault, not the unions. It takes two to tango – does none of the blame lay with the localities in places like Wisconsin?
There are a lot of differences between Montgomery County Maryland and Fairfax, and collective bargaining is but one.
And none of this contradicts the underlying point in my article: Walker and the Senate Republicans had the ability to do what they wanted to do in terms of gutting collective bargaining at any time. They didn’t need to let the last three weeks happen. That’s the difference between politics and governance.
Brian, dont you do work for a union? doesnt that skew your perspective?
No, I think it informs my perspective. I wouldn’t have taken a job with a union if I was opposed to them.
Gives you a somewhat unique perspective. I don’t know too many other active Republicans who work for unions.
Brian’s point is valid. A union does not in and of itself cause budget issues. And it’s a point that the anti-union folks always overlook and ignore. Busting a union does nothing for the bottom line.
And how many unions have you busted, local?
I’d disagree, and I’ve busted a number of locations.
In the case of Wisconsin the battle with the union is not all about money, it has a lot to do with quality of education and the pursuit of individual student accomplishments.. every individual. The unions have no mechanism in place to reward better teacher performance and the good performers get the shaft so really the unions are screwing kids. It is not about merit pay for better teachers, its about greed through $eniority. The price of mediocrity is too damn high.
How did God get into a discussion about Unions? You talk about unions and God given rights as if all rights are given by God and unions are not mentioned. If people can get together and form a corporation why can’t workers get together to try as a group to improve themselves. How do you think the coal miners bettered themselves. Was it by the the Robber Barons becoming benevolent? No it was workers banding together to become more than slaves to their master. What about the garment workers of the 1900′s in our country who are the slaves of the manufacturers around the world. I guess they are just chattel to be used up and discarded. The big thing wrong with unions. according to people like you, is that they interfer with the boss’s ability to make more money
Dear Louis,
And who may I ask is the boss making the money and oppressing those poor public sector unions?
“And who may I ask is the boss making the money and oppressing those poor public sector unions?”
Why it’s those evil taxpayers. You know, the ones who were spending all that money on new cars and McMansions instead of fairly compensating their public employees. Citizen greed is what caused the current crisis.
I would not place Brian on “center-right”. With his big controlling government and support for unions push him more on the left. “Center-left” is more appropriate.
Brian attempted the “it does not cost anything to sit down and negoiate” line on his own blog, and it’s complete bunk. It costs the tax payer dearly in the form of bloated compensation and benefits that are unsustainable in WI and all over the country. Brian like to incline that it is lack of political will on the part of the politicians when they enter into these negotiations – but it is far more sinister.
What everyone is missing here is the political angle, which has a long and ugly history. PEU’s and the Democrats have been gaming the system for the better part of 50 years, and with the use of public funds thru dues and support they have been padding the union coffers – which in turn – dole out the money to candidates that are friendly to their salary and benefits packages, but most importantly the power of the Unions. It’s buying votes plain and simple. Unions in the private sector have been utilizing these measures for decades as well, but to be so blind to the robbing of the Tax Payer’s money makes my blood curl.
Public Employee Union collective bargaining is the antithesis of our conservative values. It is why you see big government Republicans like Local GOP piping in with comments like “gee, can we stop busting on the poor old unions, they are trying to do good”.
The delicious relationship the Democrats have with the unions – private and public – is turning sour. As evidence (and as usual) – the rent a mobs are bused in and the union leaders are talking about “working class families” and “living wages” – all the while the Democrats hide and wonder whether their built in suport is evaporating. Yes it is.
John Jackson,
Brian’s opposition to Obamacare does not square with a center left designation. He is moderately conservative but has a perfectly reasonable bias for private sector unions which however unduly affects his opinions on public sector unions, an entirely different animal. The civil service protections of public employees and their protection from job loss require a different approach the same way a utility is not treated like a software company. It is his and other union supporters conflation of the two that is causing 90% of the angst here.
Agreed on the 90% angst comment Valentinus.
I’ve argued with Brian over and over on this issue.
The liberals call me a right wing extremist. I am not even close to being center left. And I am not even close to being a “big government” type. In fact, my support for unions is partially out of a desire to see smaller government. Unions are a natural check and balance on employer bad behavior. I would rather see a union negotiate about workplace safety than OSHA come in and ham fistedly over regulate harming both the workers and the employers.
There is nothing sinister about Democrats trying to appease voters by caving in and giving them too much. It happens all the time. That it has happened in some places with public sector workers is More the fault of those politicians than it is the workers. I blame the politicians. Blaming the unions for doing their jobs makes no sense.
LL, your hatred of unions borders on the pathological.
“..I am not even close to being center left. And I am not even close to being a “big government” type… Unions are a natural check and balance on employer bad behavior. I would rather see a union negotiate about workplace safety than OSHA come in and ham fistedly over regulate harming both the workers and the employers.”
How about southern democrat? Conservative of course..
No. I’m not racist.
Now now kiddies, no need to get your britches in a bunch and call names! Brian S is one of the most well-read, well-educated, thoughtful, and analytical writers/thinkers in the party – and in the blogosphere.
Why does our party have such a low tolerance for anyone that doesn’t fall lockstep in with the party line? Where Brian may/may not fit on the left-to-right ideology scale is simply a lazy way to debate his position, which IS held by a large number of folks.
From the President of his union who was making a labor Day speech about Freedom, Collective bargaining and unions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHXJr8tqP0&feature=player_embedded
Think and enjoy…
@ William Bailey – That sure man could write and deliver a great speech!!
Couple of notes:
#1 Poland’s Solidarity movement was a NON-government trade union movement.
#2 There were 10 Million Trade Union members during the solidarity movement; today less than 4.
#3 The movement was fed largely by failing economic conditions, huge unemployment numbers and massive shortages which led to anti-communist backlash.
#4 The second solidarity (labor) movement began in the late 80s/ early 90s ~ Poland’s economy was in worse shape – ravaged by hyperinflation (over 500% in 1990), huge foreign debt squelched investment, unemployment was staggering, industry was inefficient, government-run enterprises produced substandard goods that no one wanted to buy, exports were low, goods were scarce, lines were long, agriculture was backward and the Soviet Union could no longer afford to prop up a failed, government run economy.
And, your point was …..???
Oops – meant to say, “That man (President Reagan) sure could write and deliver a great speech”.
My point was Mr Reagan was president of his local screen actor’s union and he supported unions. He understood the value and need for workers to have a voice and strike a balance with the employers.
While it is in fashion to invoke Ron today but many folks do not look beyond the current rehtoric and see the real man and his beliefs and values.
William Bailey, if that was your point, then you used the wrong guy, the wrong speech, and the wrong historical event to make it ~ sorry!
President Reagan was president of SAG – a PRIVATE (not public) union and Lech Walesa wasn’t fighting for VIAGRA rights or preferential treatment. He battled to dismantle a broken-down, corrupt government-run system that quashed entrepreneurship, silenced dissent, and produce crappy goods, services, shortages, hyperinflation, unsustainable foreign debt, soaring food prices and an unstable economy.
In actuality, the modern Tea Party movement probably has much more in common Solidarity than Wisconsin’s PUBLIC union leadership’s goals. Students, peasants, labor, and ‘intelligentsia’ – over 10 million (out of a total population of roughly 30 million, including children) – joined in unison to form a movement representing ALL workers – not a select 3% of the labor force. And the ‘employer’ Walensa fought was … a communist government!
A major economic crisis, horrible statewide conditions, and the yearnings of an entire population for a free society produced Solidarity – THAT was the democratic movement Reagan supported and spoke about so eloquently in this clip.
Sorry if you want to try to side step the issue on a technical detail but you get the point… I wouldn’t expect anything different.
One legitimate criticism of Brian’s discussion is his penchant for intentionally confusing PUBLIC-sector unionism and PRIVATE-sector unionism, as well as his failure to address at all the fact that he is not defending “collective” bargaining; he is defending MONOPOLY bargaining, which is inherently coercive.
Unions with value have no trouble attracting and keeping members. That the American model permits/requires the grant of a MONOPOLY of bargaining power — subsuming the right of an individual to bargain over his terms and conditions of employment to a union getting a majority of those voting in a sometimes-arbitrary bargaining unit (sometimes a small minority of the actual unit) — creates all of the same evils of big, distant government.
As I recall, we fought a revolution against those evils.
Yeah, unions are great. Charlie Sheen gets 2 million per episode from a show no one talked about until he was fired, and union costs drive productions up so high that no one can afford to make a decent movie anymore and actually get it distributed.
Sure, an independent can make a non-union production and get it on DVD. YAY!
SAG and Equity are making productions so expensive that I suspect it won’t be long until those monopolies come tumbling down.
First of all, I’m not confusing anything. I have generally been speaking about public sector unions unless I use my own as an example. But even my union has some public sector employees. Many, many unions do. Public sector workers aren’t just in the NEA, AFSCME and AFGE. All of the maritime unions represent federal DoD workers, as do almost all of the largest unions, from SEIU to the Teamsters, the transit unions, the firefighters, stealworkers, machinists, electrical workers among others. It’s hard to simply say “these guys are all government workers” unless you’re talking about the FOP, AFSCME or AFGE, all of whom are public sector, to my knowledge.
If anybody is confused, it’s the folks who want to act like public sector unions are complete and separate from private sector unions. In my situations they aren’t.
Monopoly bargaining sounds like something you do when you’re trying to get hotels on Park Place and Boardwalk.
Kirwin, are you nuts? Two and a Half Men was one of the top rated shows on TV, and won a bunch of Emmys. SAG and Equity have been around for almost a hundred years each – I think Equity is older – and they aren’t going anywhere.
[...] that the same post also exists here at Bearing [...]
Am i nuts? Probably. I don’t fawn over Emmys and I don’t recall anyone ever talking about the show until Sheen started spiraling.
Ratings don’t mean what they used to with 300 networks.
It’s a good show. My wife and I watch it sometimes. The kid is funny.
BK: You’re right that ratings don’t mean what they used to given the explosion of entertainment options. They still remain, however, the best way to know who’s “winning” as far as TV shows go. They still determine ad rates, for example.
Center Right?
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.