The young do not know enough to be prudent,
and therefore they attempt the impossible
-- and achieve it, generation after generation.
Pearl S. Buck
Some Notes About the Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Kerfuffle
Yesterday's post does a good job of explaining why public sector collective bargaining is bad public policy, and even though I'm supportive of Governor Walker's budget fixes, I explained why I thought this issue was poorly handled from the standpoint of political strategy. I'll briefly summarize a couple of pertinent points: government employees are citizens, no more, no less. They are entitled to no special privileges beyond any other citizens or organizations. Collective bargaining assumes a separation of the public's interests (the elected government) from government employees, whom seek to maximize their interests, not the public's. These agreements serve to tie the hands of policymakers to manage the government. For example, the union may restrict the use of more cost-effective contractors, limit managers' options to assign personnel to tasks (without authorized work rules) or streamline procedures, bar laying off the mostly highly-paid teachers, insist on higher pay for obtaining a Master's degree (whether or not that translates to improved teacher productivity), or specify union-favored vendors, not necessarily the most cost-competitive.
The issue is not about fairness to teachers; in fact, as in Wisconsin, public employees are entitled to certain protections under the law that, in fact, preceded the introduction of collective bargaining just over 50 years ago. The implementation of collective bargaining was pushing on a string, empire-building across different market sectors--and it affects operations in ways most citizens don't understand. For example, if certain allegations are made about a teacher, even if the teacher is no longer in the classroom, his or her pay and benefits may still continue for a period of time under terms of the contract. Another teacher may need to be hired, essentially doubling the cost of staffing that position. Termination rates of tenured public school teachers are extraordinarily low, for example, only about 60 cases out of more than 100,000 teachers in Michigan are brought forth, resulting in maybe 9 terminations--and the relevant legal costs per case can reach into six-figures; I regularly see higher numbers on IT projects involving less than 100 people. (The Michigan reference outlined one particularly objectionable case where a teacher who murdered his superintendent and shot a principal and another teacher was appealing his termination from a prison cell.)
There is no doubt that teachers deserve some due process rights; it's not fair for a teacher to be fired because the mayor's slacker son flunked a class, the local pastor wants the high school biology teacher to teach creationism or the superintendent's niece, who just earned her teaching degree, is looking for a job. However, there are ways to deal with that (short of granting tenure), such as multi-year contracts, increased transparency, and professional ethics policies.
There were a few other points I wanted to make. For example, a New York Times story mentioned a few anecdotal criticisms of the proposed collective bargaining descriptions. Ben Penwell, the husband of a public sector employee, said, "They’re willing to do what’s necessary fiscally without giving up rights in the future". First of all, I don't think that's right. The unions specifically attacked Walker's "5 and 12" (pension and health care deductions) during the gubernatorial campaign, and the only reason they "conceded" was because they didn't have the votes to stop it. Moreover, one can also argue the teachers STILL aren't paying their fair share relative to the private sector. I think that Walker simply has to implement a 401K and HMO/PPO style benefits in the future and/or raise age criteria on pensions. Second, as Walker pointed out, the issue isn't just the question of health care and pensions, but with how collective agreements leave policymakers with little control over reforming local education or trimming costs short of layoff. He wants to enable local policymakers and executives to better control their costs. To give an exaggerated example to make the point, the state/local government are still paying for 88% of health care. The teachers may want to push for gold-plated health care policies, knowing they are only picking up 12% of the incremental costs. The local executive wants to minimize his total costs: there are ways to do it, like capping health care insurance costs, raising the deductible, using a more restrictive pool of cost-effective providers, and minimizing policy mandates/features.
Why take things like health insurance and pensions off the collective bargaining table? Because these are highly-growing budget busters in an aging worker economy as the biggest generation (the baby boomers) retires and state revenues can't keep up. Benefits are not being eliminated, and government employees will have the right to lobby for changes in benefits just like any other stakeholder. Why take other things off the table? Because policymakers and executives need to address education reform: for example, we need to reform layoff processes so young, talented teachers are not the first to be let go.
Pat Wellnitz, a Republican accountant, thought that perhaps the governor was throwing out the baby with the bathwater. (In fact, the Gallup poll I cited yesterday noted that some 40% of Republicans supported such collective rights.) The issue is that Walker is trying to empower the public, which has been under-served by the incestuous relationships between Democratic lawmakers and public sector unions. He said that teachers would be allowed to submit referendums for raising pay above the cost of living. The fact of the matter is that even if Walker and the GOP-controlled legislatures restrict collective bargaining, future governors or legislatures can reinstate it.
- Public Safety Unions More Equal?
- Misleading Statistics
David Brooks, "Run Mitch, Run": Thumbs WAY UP!
I found Indianapolis very charming when I visited to attend a doctoral consortium and subsequent international conference in late 1985. Milt Jenkins, who headed the well-regarded Indiana University MIS program in Bloomington (an hour away), had been the dissertation chair for one of the members of my own dissertation committee (whom I won't identify in this blog out of respect for his privacy). Of course, everybody knows about the world's most famous auto race, but I was struck by a scene straight out of Currier and Ives, including horse-drawn carriages, and I recall one evening during the event the IU program put together an English Renaissance theme dinner. At the time I was the equivalent of a first-round draft pick in a young discipline where there were probably 10 business school positions for every newly minted PhD. I had every half-hour interview slot filled at least a couple of weeks before the event and colleges were proactively calling me; I probably could have booked several more days of interviews. I wasn't happy, though, because my predecessors had landed offers from schools like Arizona State and Iowa State. I had asked my chairman to push my availability with some of the more highly-regarded schools in the market, but he said that given the robust market, I didn't need his help. That's how I ended up at Wisconsin-Milwaukee, even though I had preferred Bowling Green State. Unfortunately, I decided to take UWM's offer because it had a PhD program and gave me the opportunity to teach graduate classes. [And I'm still annoyed about the fact that one of my UH colleagues later ended up getting an offer from Penn State...]
I still remember thinking as I walked down the picturesque streets of Indianapolis it was a shame I hadn't heard from an Indiana college. Of course, as a Catholic teen babysitting my youngest sister on Sunday morning (I had a Sunday morning paper route and would attend Mass the previous evening), I used to watch an hour-long summary of Notre Dame football highlights mid-morning. I did send Notre Dame my curriculum vitae a couple of times during my years as an academic, but they never acknowledged receiving it. [I have a brother-in-law whom regularly goes to Notre Dame games, and the weird thing is that nobody in his family ever went there--but he's an Irish Catholic guy.] Suffice it to say, Indiana made a good impression on me; I did talk about possible professional (versus academic) jobs in Indiana on 2 or 3 occasions, and things just didn't work out.
I carefully watched as one of my favorite politicians, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, came into the Fox News universe as the shameful Wisconsin state Senate Democrat "cut-and-run" exodus spread to Indiana's own legislature as the GOP legislative leadership ignored Daniels' expressed wishes to defer union-sensitive legislation; there is no doubt about Daniels' bona fides on the general issue: one of his first acts as governor was to set aside public sector collective bargaining. My favorite Fox News moment was when Daniels made it clear how disgusted he was over having to clean up after the fiscal mess left by 16 years of Democratic predecessors. He's got a more low-key persona than Chris Christie, but my intuition tells me that Daniels would be the most effective person to run against Obama: Mitch Daniels is the anti-Obama; he exudes administrative competence, he has federal as well as state administrative expertise, and he just comes across as an inclusive, plainspoken Mr. Middle America. As Brooks points out, Daniels is also an idea man, like two of my favorite Republicans, Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich; I have wanted precisely that kind of candidate, without Gingrich's political baggage (but could you imagine a Daniels/Gingrich ticket? Be still my heart! It would be the most competent Presidential ticket in my lifetime... Dare I hope for such a wonderful thing?) I want the Republicans to nominate a less predictable candidate, not rerun the Reagan campaign again...and again...and again. If the batter Obama knows the next pitch is a fast ball headed down the middle of the plate, belt-high, he is going to get his fair share of base hits; a great pitcher has multiple key pitches, mixes them up, and throws them at differing speeds and locations.
Mitch Daniels recently earned the scorn of the social conservatives when he suggested a big tent campaign in 2012 with less emphasis on culture warrior issues. I echo that concern (and no faithful reader can question my pro-life commitment or my position on traditional marriage). John McCain did a poor job exposing Obama's politically-spun, lip service "centrist" philosophy; if we have learned anything from the 111th Congress and President Obama is even with all the Clinton golden-age economists, all the Big-Brother-Knows-Best regulatory legislation, all the years equivalent of federal revenue thrown at every progressive cause under the sun, Obama has no answer other to spend, tax, and regulate more (terming it "investment") and try to lock in gross overspending, unconscionably transferring this generation's debt to younger generations. I think Mitch Daniels just might be able to take the case to the American people, not as a polarizing demagogue, but as an unflappable, capable executive deftly taking the fight to Obama with the precision of a surgeon.
Political Humor
Some originals:
- I can't speak for the quality of Wisconsin education, but some of the protesting Wisconsin teachers thought that Hitler was recently elected governor...
- The 14 Wisconsin state senate Democrats discussed tactics with the teacher unions. They then decided to take the senate budget bill, played "Keep Away", ran across the Illinois border with it and, looking back, stuck out their tongues at Wisconsin law enforcement and taunted, "Na, na, na, na, na, naaaaa! You can't get me!"
The Bee Gees/Kenny Rogers & Dolly Parton, "Islands in the Stream"
