public sector unions

Faulty Public Pension Accounting: A Problem too Big to Ignore

by Ivan Osorio on April 28, 2011

in Economy, Employment, Labor, Regulation

One reason the ongoing debate over collective bargaining for government employees has been so loud is that the stakes are so high — for unionized government employees on one side and for taxpayers on the other.

For years, public sector collective bargaining enabled government employee unions, especially at the state and local level, to aggressively lobby for generous compensation in exchange for political support for the politicians who grant such largess.

Those politicians, seeking to avoid taxpayer wrath today, deferred many of the costlier elements of that compensation well into the future, including pensions. To make matters worse, states underfunded those pensions for years, and the accounting methods they used hid the funding gaps.

Today, however, much as the budget crises affecting state government around the country has brought public attention to the bad bargain for taxpayers that is public sector collective bargaining, state pension accounting standards face considerable public scrutiny, from across the ideological spectrum.

[click to continue…]

Wisconsin Judge’s Strange Ruling Blocking Limits on Collective Bargaining Surprises Legal Observers

by Hans Bader on March 25, 2011 · 2 comments

in Labor, Legal

Wisconsin legal observers were “surprised last week when Madison-based judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of Gov. Scott Walker’s bill to limit public-sector collective bargaining.” A law professor was “astonished” by the legally-baseless ruling, which didn’t even bother to “address the relevant laws and rules that demonstrate that what the legislature did was proper.”

The judge’s decision made no legal or logical sense, but did make political sense: the judge has to run for reelection in a liberal area, and her own son was a union organizer. Her son is a liberal political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. Moreover, the judge’s husband is a campaign donor to three of the Democratic lawmakers who fled the state to block the passage of the collective bargaining law, as well as a donor to Gov. Walker’s opponent.

Judges in Wisconsin have to run for reelection, and this judge is elected in liberal Dane County, where the new collective bargaining law was resoundingly unpopular, and the new governor lost by a wide margin even while winning easily statewide.

There was little legal basis for the judge’s ruling. The Senate Chief Clerk and non-partisan legislative attorneys signed off on the legislation being consistent with the open-meetings law.

[click to continue…]

CEI Podcast for February 24, 2011: On, Wisconsin

by Ryan Young on February 24, 2011

in Features, Labor, Podcast

Post image for CEI Podcast for February 24, 2011: On, Wisconsin

Have a listen here.

Vice President for Strategy Iain Murray, who also directs CEI’s Center for Economic Freedom, discusses the labor reforms that have led to a thousands-strong sustained protest in Madison, Wisconsin. While the reforms themselves are relatively minor, both sides know that the stakes are high. This may prove to be at a watershed moment in the relationship between public sector unions and taxpayers.

Image credit: WxMom’s flickr photostream.

Are the Wisconsin Protests Backfiring?

by Ryan Young on February 18, 2011 · 2 comments

in Economy, Employment, Labor

Protests in Wisconsin over public sector compensation cuts have been the big story this week. Over at The Daily Caller, I explain why some of the tactics that union members and supporters are using are actually backfiring.

The teacher sickout is classic bad PR. The parents who have to find and pay for last-minute daycare are now less likely to side with teachers’ unions, not more.

The saturation coverage is doing far more damage. Millions of people are learning about the sweetheart salary and benefit deals that many public sector union members get. Even if Gov. Walker’s cuts pass, the protesting workers will still be much better paid than their non-union counterparts. Both are better compensated than most private sector workers.

Read the whole thing here.

Image credit: WxMom’s flickr photostream.

What Government Unions Want: One, Two, Many Californias

by Ivan Osorio on January 6, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Employment, Labor, Regulation

That the large Republican gains in the 2010 midterm elections pose a setback for organized labor’s agenda is hardly news. What will be newsworthy is how incoming policy makers at both the federal and state level will fight back against union power — especially government union privileges — over the next couple of years, and to what extent they succeed.

The Economist sums up the challenge elected officials face as they stare down the government union political machine (and offers a good overview of the global nature of this problem):

It would be a mistake to write off the public-sector unions. They are masters of diverting attention from strategic to tactical questions. Undoubtedly the unions will lose some of their privileges over the coming years; the scale of the debt crisis makes this inevitable. But will governments have the courage to tackle the root causes of the problem (such as pensions) rather than dealing with secondary problems (such as wages)? And will they dare to tackle questions of power rather than just pay and perks? If they are to claim victory in the coming fight, they need not just to restore the public finances to health. They also need to breathe the spirit of innovation into Leviathan.

And not all politicians challenging government unions are Republicans. As The New York Times reported this week:

State officials from both parties are wrestling with ways to curb the salaries and pensions of government employees, which typically make up a significant percentage of state budgets. On Wednesday, for example, New York’s new Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, is expected to call for a one-year salary freeze for state workers, a move that would save $200 million to $400 million and challenge labor’s traditional clout in Albany.

Indeed, as I noted recently, the longstanding alliance between government employee unions and Democratic politicians has become strained. Public sector unions may be among the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituencies, but the gaping budget deficits to which unionized government employees’ generous compensation packages have substantially contributed bear no party label.

And it’s not as if bloated state budgets guarantee a high quality and adequate supply of public services. As Arnold Kling puts it so well in EconLog blog:

If you do not have enough sanitation workers because you cannot fill job openings at the current level of pay, then those government workers are underpaid.

On the other hand, if you do not have enough sanitation workers because your budget is busted by the ones you have, then those government workers are overpaid.

Thus, the bipartisan nature of this pushback should not be that surprising — yet it has taken government union leaders by surprise, being unaccustomed as they are to finding themselves on the defensive. Naturally, they plan a response.

And what the unions want should worry anybody who cares about fiscal sanity. As Politico reports:

Labor leaders take hope in the story of California, where Schwarzenegger arrived after a recall with an apparent mandate for dramatic change and, in 2005, moved to shift state employees from a defined benefit to a defined contribution pension plan — the goal of many Republicans, but anathema to unions that see it as a threat to traditionally secure retirements.

Instead, Schwarzenegger found himself stymied by a state Legislature whose Democrats were tightly tied to labor, as well as by failures at the polls. Most public workers ultimately negotiated new benefit “tiers” with Schwarzenegger, but the changes fell far short of the Republican wish list, and the governor leaves his Democratic successor, Jerry Brown, a large budget gap.

We all know how that turned out.

(Hat tip: F. Vincent Vernuccio)

For more on public sector unions, see here and here.

New York Snow Debacle Shows: It’s Government Unions vs. Taxpayers

by Ivan Osorio on January 5, 2011 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Labor, Regulation

The longstanding alliance between Democratic politicians and government employee unions has come under increasing strain, as I recently noted in a Washington Times op ed. Now the New York City snow cleanup slowdown is adding to that strain.

As state and local governments face large and growing budget shortfalls, the individuals who lead those governments are having to make hard decisions on where to cut spending. And the area with the most room to cut is public employee compensation, which has far outstripped that in the private sector. Thus, simply eliminating waste in other parts of city and state budgets won’t bring the books into balance. As the Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas notes in City Journal:

Only if state and local politicians identify the true culprit behind the botched post-storm cleanup: the misguided idea that management expertise can overcome the benefits costs that are consuming the city budget.

If money could melt snow, Mayor Bloomberg would be basking in victory over the storm. When he took office in 2002, Gotham spent $1.3 billion annually on the Department of Sanitation. Today, the city spends more than $2.2 billion on “New York’s Strongest.” That increase during Bloomberg’s tenure was almost three and a half times the inflation rate. It follows that we should have a sanitation army well equipped to clean the white stuff up fast. Not quite. Today’s budgeted sanitation force—from supervisors to garbage collectors—is 392 people smaller than it was nine years ago, a 4 percent decline even as population is up. And the department is shrinking further, as Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith knocks 200 people off the rolls to save $21 million by moving supervisors into front-line jobs.

So where has the city’s swelling sanitation budget gone? Not into better services but into workers’ health care and pensions, as well as borrowing to fund infrastructure, which would otherwise be unaffordable because of those sky-high benefits. Taxpayers now spend $144,000 on salary and benefits for each sanitation worker, up from $79,000 nearly a decade ago. Nine years ago, taxpayers contributed about $10.5 million annually to support sanitation pensions; this year, they’ll cost $240 million—a more than twentyfold increase (the final number may be lower, though, as some changes to the pension funds, which push up contribution rates, may not go into effect until next year).

Such generous government employee compensation packages are not only expensive — they are impervious to economic downturns. So, as private businesses retrench or cut back hours, governments must carry on, even as tax revenues fall, until they reach a crisis stage at which draconian measures become necessary. Yet even then, government employee unions are wont to push back against any curbs in compensation, as the New York snow cleanup slowdown painfully shows. Thus, elected officials have no option but to face government unions head on, as Gelinas recommends.

Bloomberg should direct his innovators to focus on where the money is, reducing taxpayers’ commitments to pay future retiree benefits before they consume even more of the budget. He could run a media campaign, for example, to help the public understand that Governor Andrew Cuomo must do wholesale pension change so that new workers, not taxpayers, take more responsibility for their retirements. Further, as union workers would chafe under a serious effort to pare back health benefits in future contracts, the mayor needs an old-fashioned labor-wars veteran to make sure that employees aren’t executing stealthy work slowdowns, as some sanitation workers may have done last week.

That course of action will be difficult, but if carried out effectively, likely would meet widespread  support among the general public — from whom government unions are also becoming increasingly disconnected. As Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn notes:

In theory, of course, organized labor is all about fraternal solidarity. For many years, it is true, private-sector unions supported collective-bargaining rights and better benefits for government workers, while public-employee unions supported the private-sector unions in their opposition to legislation such as the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s.

Suddenly, it’s a different world. In this recession, for example, construction workers are suffering from unemployment levels roughly double the national rate, according to a recent analysis of federal jobs data by the Associated General Contractors of America. They are relearning, the hard way, that without a growing economy, all the labor-friendly laws and regulations in the world won’t keep them working.

What’s more, “blue-collar union workers are beginning to appreciate that the generous pensions and health benefits going to their counterparts in state and local government are coming out of their pockets,” says Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “Not only that, they are beginning to understand the dysfunctional relationship between collective bargaining for government employees and their own job prospects.”

It’s no coincidence that states that have barred collective bargaining for government employees, such as Virginia, have found it much easier to keep their finances in order. That’s the least the taxpaying public should expect.

For more on government employee unions, see here and here.

Union Holds New York Hostage

by Ivan Osorio on December 30, 2010

in Labor, Politics as Usual, Regulation

Public anger over New York City’s botched snow plowing effort this week has turned to the city’s sanitation workers union — for good reason. The New York Post reports:

Selfish Sanitation Department bosses from the snow-slammed outer boroughs ordered their drivers to snarl the blizzard cleanup to protest budget cuts — a disastrous move that turned streets into a minefield for emergency-services vehicles, The Post has learned.

Miles of roads stretching from as north as Whitestone, Queens, to the south shore of Staten Island still remained treacherously unplowed last night because of the shameless job action, several sources and a city lawmaker said, which was over a raft of demotions, attrition and budget cuts.

“They sent a message to the rest of the city that these particular labor issues are more important,” said City Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Queens), who was visited yesterday by a group of guilt-ridden sanitation workers who confessed the shameless plot.

Halloran said he met with three plow workers from the Sanitation Department — and two Department of Transportation supervisors who were on loan — at his office after he was flooded with irate calls from constituents.

The snitches “didn’t want to be identified because they were afraid of retaliation,” Halloran said. “They were told [by supervisors] to take off routes [and] not do the plowing of some of the major arteries in a timely manner. They were told to make the mayor pay for the layoffs, the reductions in rank for the supervisors, shrinking the rolls of the rank-and-file.”

New York’s Strongest used a variety of tactics to drag out the plowing process — and pad overtime checks — which included keeping plows slightly higher than the roadways and skipping over streets along their routes, the sources said.

The snow-removal snitches said they were told to keep their plows off most streets and to wait for orders before attacking the accumulating piles of snow.

The costs that government employee unions impose on taxpayers are bad enough. But holding a city hostage during an emergency should be truly beyond the pale. In this case, people died because emergency vehicles couldn’t get through the unplowed streets. (It’s worth noting that, while The Post is to be commended for reporting this story, the workers who revealed the union shenanigans are whistle blowers, who do not deserve the ugly “snitch” epithet.)

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg hasn’t shied away from taking on the teachers unions that have brought the city’s public schools to dysfunction. Now the sanitation union’s bosses have issued him a challenge. He must meet that challenge if he wants to put a good light on his legacy.

For more on public sector unions, see here and here.

Are Government Employee Unions Losing the Democrats?

by Ivan Osorio on December 10, 2010

in Economy, Labor, Regulation, Zeitgeist

Government employee unions have long been renowned as one of the Democratic Party’s most loyal and dedicated supporting constituencies. For years, Democratic politicians have supported public employee unions’ agenda of increased government spending, leading to more government jobs and thus more potential union members.

For teachers unions — which are among the most politically powerful government unions — Democrats have helped them resist popular school reform efforts that could threaten the government-school monopoly, including school choice and charter schools.

That was great deal for the unions and their political allies, but a dead weight on everybody else, as taxpayers funded a continually expanding government sector, while a growing number parents saw their children stuck in underperforming schools. Now cracks are finally starting to show in that alliance — and they may get wider in the near future.

It is perhaps no coincidence that some of the nation’s boldest education reformers have been Democrats. From outgoing Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (who was a Democrat before he re-registered Republican and is now an Independent), it is mayors in Democrat-controlled cities who have faced the most dire conditions in the schools they were elected to oversee.

Both Fenty  and Bloomberg saw the need for drastic action, thus their appointment and strong support for their respective school chancellors — Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein — both of whom pursued an aggressive reform agenda.

Now Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, also a Democrat, has joined the pro-reform chorus. Not surprisingly, his city’s teachers union, United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), wants no part of Villaraigosa’s reform efforts. Moreover, Villaraigosa himself has a teachers union background. To his credit, the mayor is striking back.  In a speech this week, Villaraigosa criticized the UTLA leadership in no uncertain terms:

Over the past five years, while partnering with students, parents and non-profits, business groups, higher education, charter organizations, school district leadership, elected board members and teachers, there has been one, unwavering roadblock to reform: UTLA union leadership.

While not the biggest problem facing our schools, they have consistently been the most powerful defenders of the status quo. I do not say this because of any animus towards unions. I deeply believe that teachers’ unions can and must be part of our efforts to transform our schools. Regrettably, they have yet to join us as we have forged ahead with a reform agenda.

By partnering with the Los Angeles School Board, we created the Public School Choice program that is now allowing non-profits, charters, teacher groups — anyone with a proven track record of success — to compete to run new or failing schools. By 2012, over 50 low-performing schools will be under new leadership, with a new chance for success.

UTLA leadership fought against this reform.

Partnering with the School Board and the charter school community, we doubled the number of charter schools in an effort to raise our test scores and alleviate overcrowding.

Partnering with the Parent Revolution, we successfully passed legislation here in Sacramento, empowering communities to shut down, reopen or takeover a failing school if a simple majority of parents petition to do so.

Working with LA Unified, I founded the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools to turn-around 21 of the lowest-performing schools.

And partnering with civil rights organizations and the ACLU, we filed a lawsuit to take a stand against the practice of seniority-based layoffs, which were disproportionately affecting our poorest schools and students of color.

At every step of the way, when Los Angeles was coming together to effect real change in our public schools, UTLA was there to fight against the change and slow the pace of reform.

Now let me pause to underscore the point once again that I come from an organizing background. I vociferously believe in the fundamental right for a worker to organize, to have a voice and a seat at the bargaining table. But union leaders need to take notice that it is their friends, the very people who have supported them and the people whom they have supported, who are carrying the torch of education reform and crying out for the unions to join them.

UTLA boss A.J. Duffy angrily dismissed Villaraigosa’s remarks, saying that, “Pointing fingers and laying blame does not help improve our schools.” Yet pointing fingers at those responsible for the dire state of public schools is what is needed.

Duffy’s reaction, while unfortunate, is not surprising. For he and other government union bosses to change course, the incentive structure under which the UTLA, and government employee unions in general, operate needs to change.

As the late president of  American Federation of Teachers, Albert Shanker, so honestly put it, “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.” Until they do, Villaraigosa’s call on UTLA leaders to drop their opposition to his administration’s reform efforts and join him in making L.A.’s public schools better is likely to continue falling on deaf ears.

Likewise, government employee unions exist to represent the interest of their members, not of taxpayers. And government employees benefit from the growth of government, so the interests of public sector unions and those of taxpayers are fundamentally at odds.

Adding to the problem is the fact that it is on union-friendly politicians’ interest to give the unions what they want, since — in the classic concentrated benefits/diffuse costs public-choice problem — they’re more likely to protest at being denied greater compensation than taxpayers are likely to protest seeing their taxes go up gradually. Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, also a Democrat, recognized this, though unfortunately once he was safely out of office:

The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But we politicians — pushed by our friends in labor — gradually expanded pay and benefits . . . while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages.

In government, unionization is greater at the state and local levels. For years, state and local governments were able to sustain their unionized employees’ generous compensation packages, as long as their economies continued growing. But since the nation’s economy went south, states and localities are struggling, and state and local politicians — Democrat and Republican alike — must face this crisis.

Indeed, in New York, Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo — yes, also a Democrat — may be headed for a showdown with government employee unions over wages and pensions. The unions won’t like it, but the taxpaying public will. In that regard, I think left-leaning Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum gets it right:

I sometimes wonder if [UTLA head A.J.] Duffy understands just how widely his union is loathed? Somebody should correct me in comments if I’m wrong, but as near as I can tell UTLA literally has no support anywhere from anybody that it doesn’t directly give money to. Everybody else hates them with a passion. That doesn’t mean Villaraigosa can win a big public battle with UTLA, of course, since they give lots of money to lots of people, but he might. If Villaraigosa plays his cards right, he’ll have about 90% of the city on his side. Pass the popcorn.

Indeed, this and other similar fights will be worth watching.

For more on public sector unions, see here and here.

The Stealthy Public Pension Time Bomb

by Ivan Osorio on October 29, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Employment, Labor, Regulation

As state and local government budgets have come under increasing stress, greater public attention has come to focus on government employees’ compensation. This greater scrutiny has led to public anger over public employees’ generous compensation (along with their iron-clad job security). Naturally, this has put public employee unions and their allies on the defensive. Some have responded with publications that essentially retort, “It ain’t so!” In The American, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute, responds to that defense. As he notes, a significant such study, by the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics (CWED) at the University of California-Berkeley, makes an important miscalculation:

The basic problem with CWED’s treatment of benefits is that it assumes data showing what employers currently pay toward benefits is equal to what employees will actually receive. In the short-term, this assumption is fine, since many employee benefits are consumed today. But in the public sector, a large share of compensation is deferred to retirement in the form of pension benefits and retiree health benefits. The CWED study significantly underestimates the value of deferred benefits.

As many people are aware, public sector defined-benefit pension plans are significantly underfunded. Using private sector accounting standards, which is necessary to make apples-to-apples comparisons, the typical public pension is less than 50 percent funded. When pensions are underfunded, compensation from pensions is underestimated.

Thus, although the CWED study argues that California’s public sector employees receive pension benefits equal to 8.2 percent of their total compensation, that’s not exactly true. Their data actually shows that California public employers are paying 8.2 percent of employee compensation toward pensions, but that is only around half what employers should be paying. And since public pension benefits are guaranteed, that extra amount will be paid sooner or later. A good guess of true public pension compensation is to divide the reported pension contribution of 8.2 percent by the 50 percent funding level of California pensions, producing a value for promised pension benefits of 16 percent of compensation. This increases the 2 percent pay advantage that the CWED study already acknowledges to a public sector pay premium of around 10 percent.

So, in addition to threatening state and local government finances — and thus by extension taxpayers — public employee pension underfunding also partly obscures the real cost of public employee compensation. For government employee unions and the elected officials they support, this politically convenient, since they simply pass on the cost to future taxpayers, while mitigating current taxpayers’ wrath. For some insight into how they do this, it’s worth reading the study by Biggs and Eileen Norcross of the Mercatus Center (who’s also a former CEI Warren Brookes Journalism Fellow), on the public pension underfunding crisis, published by Mercatus. In a word, public pension managers have been overestimating investment returns for years. They focus on New Jersey as a case study.

The state reports that its pension systems are underfunded by $44.7 billion, when liabilities are discounted at the 8.25 percent annual return that New Jersey predicts it can achieve on funds’ investment portfolios.

However, when plan liabilities are calculated in a manner consistent with private sector accounting requirements, methods that economists almost universally agree are more appropriate, New Jersey’s unfunded benefit obligation rises to $173.9 billion. This amount is equivalent to 44 percent of the state’s current GDP and 328 percent of its current explicit government debt.

Such unrealistic investment return expectations lead to further underfunding. One necessary first step to alleviate this situation, Biggs and Norcross note, is honest accounting.

In addition to understating funding requirements, using a high discount rate to value public pension liabilities encourages plan managers to invest in higher risk portfolios in order to target the expected rate of return, producing bad incentives in the management of pension assets. Instead, financial theory suggests pensions should be discounted according to the lower risk (and lower return) Treasury bond rating of 3.5%.

Government employee unions are a formidable political force. However, the public pension underfunding problem is so large now that public support for reforms to get states out of the red finally has a good chance of carrying the day, as it did in Utah. As Utah State Senator Dan Liljenquist, who helped design and enact a major pension reform in his state noted recently at a Mercatus event (where Biggs and Norcross also presented): “This is not a conservative-versus-liberal issue, this is a reality issue.”

For more on public sector unions, see here and here.

For more on pensions, see here.

Michigan Child Care Workers May Get their Day in Court against Forced Unionization

by Ivan Osorio on September 16, 2010

in Economy, Employment, Labor, Legal

Today, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered a lower court to explain its dismissal of a class action lawsuit challenging a forced unionization scheme for child care workers in the state. The suit. This is welcome news, since this suit takes on directly one of Big Labor’s newest efforts to expand its falling membership: expand the definition of the “public” sector.

For years, government employment is the one area in which unionization had grown at a robust pace, even as unions’ private sector numbers fell precipitously. That trend reached a tipping point last January, when the number of union members in government employment surpassed the number of private sector union members for the first time. There is no reason to expect the trend to reverse.

So, as unions continue to struggle at reviving their private sector fortunes, some are now seeking to redefine many private sector workers as government employees. In Michigan, the United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) partnered to create a child-care worker union whose main purpose was to collect union dues from the state subsidy checks sent to child care providers who served low-income families. As The Grand Rapids Press explains in an editorial:

In 2006, the UAW and AFSCME partnered to form a union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan. The union represents and draws dues from people who care for children from low-income families. The new union members belong either to the UAW or AFSCME, depending on the part of the state in which they live.

Whatever attempts were made to inform child care providers of the pending unionization must have been feeble at best. Only 15 percent of the state’s 40,000 dues-paying providers took part in the vote-by-mail certification election that formed the union. Fully 92 percent of those voting said yes to the union. But they hardly constitute a valid majority of all the now-dues-paying members. Hopefully, the federal lawsuit will uncover how this election was allowed to occur.

The low-income clients provided a rationale — though not a legitimate one — for the forced unionization. The argument is that because providers take public money in state subsidies for those clients, they are therefore public employees. Union dues are taken directly from the state subsidies, money that should go toward child care. The UAW and AFSCME receive 1.15 percent of the subsidies, amounting to more than $1 million a year.

This also gives organized labor a good reason to support the Obama health care legislation. Expanding the definition of “public” to any public service provider who receives any sort of state support gives unions new opportunities to organize health care workers, as more of them are officially deemed ”public” employees.

An Associated Press  story sums up the absurdity of the situation this creates, with one of the plaintiffs as an example:

Peggy Mashke tends to 12 children for 12 hours a day at her home, so she was surprised to get a letter welcoming her to the United Auto Workers union.

“I thought it was a joke,” said Mashke, 50, of northern Michigan’s Ogemaw County. “I work out of my home. I’m not an auto worker. How can I become a member of the UAW? I didn’t get it.”

The current suit was filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation; the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy has filed a similar suit. This case deserves national attention, as unions in other states are likely to try similar schemes.

For more on public sector unions, see here and here.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →