For unions, there is no “bargaining” in “collective bargaining”

Posted by: ST on March 3, 2011 at 5:53 pm

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute senior fellow Christian Schneider has a fascinating write-up on the behind the scenes union machinations that were taking place prior not only to the (perceived belief that) Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s budget bill would become law – but even before he was sworn in. It’s an in-depth look at union “bargaining” that big labor doesn’t want the public to see: union “leaders” pretty much writing their own tickets without going through that little process called “bargaining”:

Just days after Gov. Scott Walker introduced his budget repair bill, public-sector-union leaders said they would accept Walker’s financial demands as long as he kept collective bargaining intact. However, in the time bought by the flight of 14 Democratic state senators, local governments have been quickly adopting new contracts in advance of Walker’s bill becoming law. In effect, the unions are spraying their benefits with Walker repellent. (In fact, an investigative report shows that there may have been collusion between the missing state senators and City of Madison officials to delay the bill so contracts could be signed.)

Three days after the governor introduced his budget, the Milwaukee Area Technical College ratified a new three-year contract that preserves no-cost pensions and contains no layoffs for its teachers (average pay: $95,000.) Union leaders called an emergency meeting at 5:00 p.m. on a Friday night to vote on their new contract — yet their president said that had “nothing to do” with Walker’s budget-repair bill.

State employees tried to pull a similar trick in December. In a Hindenburg-like fiasco, Democrats tried to use the pre-Walker lame-duck session to pass state union-worker contracts with microscopic concessions. To get their deciding vote in the assembly, they even pulled a legislator out of jail, where he was serving time for drunk driving. The contracts unexpectedly failed by one vote in the senate when the Democrats’ leader inexplicably switched his position at the last minute.

Also before Walker took office, the Milwaukee Public School board quickly adopted a four-year teacher contract that runs through 2013. It contains pay increases of 2.5 to 3 percent, and requires teachers to begin contributing to their health insurance for the first time — although in amounts well short of what Walker is proposing (1 percent of salary for single coverage, 2 percent for family). The contract also extends health benefits to domestic partners, which will offset a good portion of the $50 million in savings the district expects to realize from the teachers’ contributions.

For other school districts that ram through generous contracts, the results could be disastrous: Walker just announced a budget that reduces state aid to local school districts by $834 million; much of that cut was going to be offset by teachers’ increased benefit contributions, but districts that capitulate to their teachers won’t have that option. Instead of having a full complement of teachers paying slightly more for their benefits, they will have fewer teachers, but teachers with jewel-encrusted retirement and health packages. Then they will blame Scott Walker for the massive layoffs their districts will see.

[...]

This rush to ratify new contracts is why Scott Walker didn’t take the union leaders up on their “deal” almost two weeks ago — there’s no way the AFSCME and AFL-CIO big shots could control the contract machinations of over 1,000 local governments. While protesters roared that their objection to Walker’s plan wasn’t “about the money,” their bargaining units were working furiously behind the scenes to grab as much cash as possible before Walker dropped the guillotine.

Furthermore, these new contracts demonstrate why declaring public sector “collective bargaining” to be sacrosanct is so preposterous. In places like the City of Madison, there’s very little “bargaining” happening. Public employees and elected officials are sitting on the same side of the table. The only actual negotiating taking place is from city employees deciding which Applebee’s they’ll crash to celebrate their fat new contracts.

Remember all this the next time you see one of the numerous polls out there right now (like this one from Rasmussen) that supposedly show how a “majority” of people favor leaving the “right” to collective bargaining untouched.

Regarding the possible collusion Schneider mentioned between City of Madison officials and the MIA Democrat state senators in the days leading up to their hasty exit to Illinois, Ed Morrissey gets it right:

[Madison Mayor Dave] Ciesliewicz claimed that Madison’s government bargained “in good faith” to get the best deal taxpayers could get from the contract. Does this sound like Ciesliewicz and his team had taxpayers in mind, or currying favor with the unions? The attempt to rush into an agreement that avoids the curbs on PEU collective bargaining prerogatives and to avoid cutting the benefits of employees does sound a lot more like collusion than “good faith” bargaining on behalf of taxpayers, whether or not it meets the legal definition of collusion.

Amen.

These people are contempible. Absolutely, positively freakin’ contemptible.

Related reading:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

4 Responses to “For unions, there is no “bargaining” in “collective bargaining””

Comments

  1. i want collective bargaining for taxpayers.

  2. Moira says:

    I absolutely believe that if more people were fully aware of what collective bargaining is and how it works with regards to PEUs they would realize that it’s not about “workers rights” but rather the union’s power to coerce states and municipalities. That’s the only reason why the Wisconsin unions are willing to accept the cuts that Governor Walker is calling for but NOT the restrictions on collective bargaining. The unions plan to use collective bargaining to get it all back. They have no intention of willingly sacrificing. They don’t think they should have to sacrifice. And, of course, they don’t want to have to collect their own dues…because that would give way too much freedom to the rank-and-file. The workers might even forget to pay their dues from time to time…and where would the union honchos get their campaign slush funds if that happens? ;)

  3. Carlos says:

    Easy way to do that, Thomas, is vote any jerk anywhere in the nation out of office if there is so much as a hint of collusion.

    That means, especially, the handling of any contract signed since the recession/depression started that gives so much as a nickel more a year to union members, so much as an extra day off a year to union members, so much as any additional bargaining “rights” to the union, should be the basis for immediate recall or, in the alternative, unemployment forever from public sector bargaining authority.