Editorial: Bad dynamic

 

As part of the gubernatorial campaign, Republicans have taken Gov. Ted Strickland to task for signing executive orders authorizing independent home-health-care workers and self-employed child-care workers to unionize.

These moves bolstered union rolls and dues for the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and will ensure union support for Strickland's re-election bid. AFSCME Council 8, which is representing the child-care workers, is likely to collect about $2.1 million in new union dues over the next year. A similar estimate for SEIU Local 1199, representing home health-care workers, isn't available, but the new union dues will be substantial.

This is a legitimate campaign issue, but it's an issue that transcends this single race and reaches far beyond Ohio.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that for the first time, the majority of unionized employees, 52 percent, work for the government rather than for private employers. And while private-sector union membership declined by 834,000 in 2009, public-sector union membership increased by 64,000.

This is an ominous trend because there is a crucial difference between unionization in the private sector and unionization of government workers.

In the private sector, unions push for better wages and benefits, while management stands for the interests of shareholders, which means keeping labor costs at a level that leaves the company competitive and profitable. These conflicting aims check and balance each side.

Applying that model to the public sector ought to mean that lawmakers and executive officeholders act in the role of management, looking out for the interests of shareholders - that is, taxpayers - by operating a government that enhances the competitiveness of the state by ensuring that taxes and spending are kept in check.

But that's not how it works. Instead, public-employee unions wield substantial campaign cash and voting power to elect union-friendly politicians. And politicians seeking election and re-election have every incentive to be good to public-sector unions, by improving their wages and benefits and expanding union rolls.

How well has this worked out for public-sector union members? Extremely well. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of March, total wages and benefits for private-industry workers averaged $27.73 per hour. For state and local government workers, the figure was $39.81 per hour.

As a result, in state after state, public-employee unions are at the forefront in opposing budget cuts while favoring tax increases. California, with its pampered public-employee unions, lavish public pensions and $19 billion budget deficit, is Exhibit A for this phenomenon.

Labor, of course, is a major constituency of the Democratic Party, so it's no surprise that Democrats have been more willing to expand and reward public-employee unions.

But if Democrats have been overzealous in this, Republicans have been underzealous in combating it. Some have played along with unions themselves. And even those who recognize the problem may be cowed by labor's electoral muscle.

Still, the recession seems to have emboldened some Democrats and Republicans to challenge public-employee unions. As private-sector workers lose their jobs, say goodbye to raises and watch their 401(k) accounts wither, politicians can see the electoral arithmetic changing.

In Illinois, Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn recently signed a law reining in pension benefits for the state's five pensions. California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been defeated in previous attempts to curb public-employee power and benefits, is preparing to take on his state's pension system again. Another effort is under way in New Jersey, where Republican Gov. Chris Christie has initiated pension reforms and taken on teachers unions.

The predicaments of these states and their efforts to correct them hold lessons for Ohio.