Across the country, public schools are floundering, public services are being cut, and many states are facing financial devastation. Many place some of the blame on public sector unions, but they don’t deserve it. Public sector unions serve a worthy purpose for their workers, and they aren’t a threat to the government’s sustainability.
Critics charge that the unions are too powerful and have too much influence over the government. Political scientist Daniel DiSalvo argues that government unions have more power than private unions in that they can help elect politicians who they’ll bargain with later on, and that due to this heightened political activity they have major pull. This argument is misguided.
Government bureaucracies have managers that deal with and bargain with unions, so politicians aren’t involved. Managers can disagree with the unions and negotiate for what they feel is better for the government.
Additionally, as law professor Anne Marie Lofaso mentions, corporations and other special interests have broad influence over politicians as well, so the problem is corrupt politicians.
If the government speaks against a union’s desire to strike, they can negotiate and reach such an agreement. Thus, DiSalvo’s fear is a false one.
Yet another criticism, leveled by DiSalvo, is that the government has a monopoly on many services, thus giving unionized public workers a stranglehold on these services at the expense of the public. Lofaso argues that while the government indeed has a monopoly on some services, it’s a “monopsonist buyer (single buyer) of the labor needed to provide these services.”
Since this leads to abuse, Lofaso argues that unions are necessary to block government mistreatment of workers.
Furthermore, opponents of government worker unionization erroneously assert that public-sector workers subvert democracy.
The argument, offered by DiSalvo, is that public sector collective bargaining transfers some power to make decisions from elected representatives, who are accountable to the people, to union leaders, whom the people haven’t authorized to make such decisions.
Thus this is an undemocratic violation of the people’s sovereignty. This argument fails to acknowledge that many people in the public sector make decisions and aren’t accountable to the people directly, yet they are accountable to management and indirectly to elected officials.
It would be great if the public could directly hire government workers and oversee them to ensure that they’re fulfilling their duties, but this is impractical and inefficient, as direct democracy usually is.
So, in the interest of utility, we elect officials who delegate their authority to others so government tasks can be accomplished.
But union representatives are different. Their job is to protect the interests of their workers, not alter public policy. There may be effects on policy issues, but the effects are usually incidental and don’t deprive taxpayers of any liberties.
Also, even if there wasn’t a formal union, workers could still ostensibly seek workplace changes on an individual basis, which could limit some of the government’s power.
Another fallacy is that public workers are paid more than their private sector counterparts. Research has proven that private sector workers earn more in total compensation.
Regarding pensions, economists cite the recession and poor fund allocation by the government as being the culprit, not the unions, and there are ways to resolve the funding issues.
Instead of making public sector unions a scapegoat, politicians need to focus on legitimate ways of handling government finances.
Leonardo Poareo is a senior journalism major and a contributing writer for the Daily 49er.
