Public employee unions
Why is it that public employee unions are virtually the only growth area for unions, and that they consistently send a majority of cash to Democratic candidates [1]? The answer to the first part runs completely counter to traditional explanations of unionism, the answer to the second runs counter to traditional explanations of public policy creation.
The traditional explanation of unionism is that the companies they work for and their owners/managers are only interested in profit. They therefore exploit their workers in various ways (underpay, exposure to unsafe conditions and chemicals, fire them just before they are eligible for pension, etc.). But the government is supposedly not motivated by profit. The government lavishes pay [2], benefits, and lifetime employment upon its employees.
The traditional explanation of policy creation is either that we elect a set of policies or that we elect people who promise to enact those policies. The politicians then enact legislation that is carried out by a selfless group of employees (public servants) dedicated to seeing out the public's desire. But then why would those same employees want to influence the outcome?
I propose that neither of the traditional explanations are very complete or useful. Taken together, it would seem that the public employee unions serve the purposes of their own members in a way that is contrary to the public interest. To the extent that they are successful at affecting the policies, the government is not acting in the interest of the electorate. However, I am implicitly defining the public interest as the state of affairs without public employee union lobbying, a not entirely fair assessment since they, too, are members of the public. But it does seem that public employees have more influence over policy because they have both direct and indirect influence: direct by choosing what to carry out and how strongly, indirect by buying representation.
Are we experiencing the same effect in governance that Berle and Means warned about with respect to corporations? Their warning was that public corporations were gaining control over more of the nation's wealth, that ownership was becoming too diffuse for any one or any small number of owners to influence the activities of the corporation, and therefore the management was gaining more control over the direction of the corporation and by extension the nation's wealth. With respect to the state, there appear to be three similar trends: the state's authority is constantly expanding, while the control we the owners have over the state is constantly diminishing, and the career public employees are therefore gaining more influence over the state, and by extension, over the lives of the rest of us.
This is not intended to argue that the same is true of all unions; many serve very useful purposes that are both in their own and the public interest.
This is old hat; why should anyone care?
Well, first, that I think it shows that bureaucrats do, on average or in the aggregate, act in their own self-interest and second, that this is not a good thing. They literally thwart the public will, as traditionally understood.
Ah, well, it's for our own good, I suppose. Just ask them.
---------------------------------------
[1] Both assertions are easily proved with the Statistical Abstract and a glance through the relevant sections at OpenSecrets.org.
[2] No, not at the executive level, so don't compare Bill Gates to the POTUS.
The traditional explanation of unionism is that the companies they work for and their owners/managers are only interested in profit. They therefore exploit their workers in various ways (underpay, exposure to unsafe conditions and chemicals, fire them just before they are eligible for pension, etc.). But the government is supposedly not motivated by profit. The government lavishes pay [2], benefits, and lifetime employment upon its employees.
The traditional explanation of policy creation is either that we elect a set of policies or that we elect people who promise to enact those policies. The politicians then enact legislation that is carried out by a selfless group of employees (public servants) dedicated to seeing out the public's desire. But then why would those same employees want to influence the outcome?
I propose that neither of the traditional explanations are very complete or useful. Taken together, it would seem that the public employee unions serve the purposes of their own members in a way that is contrary to the public interest. To the extent that they are successful at affecting the policies, the government is not acting in the interest of the electorate. However, I am implicitly defining the public interest as the state of affairs without public employee union lobbying, a not entirely fair assessment since they, too, are members of the public. But it does seem that public employees have more influence over policy because they have both direct and indirect influence: direct by choosing what to carry out and how strongly, indirect by buying representation.
Are we experiencing the same effect in governance that Berle and Means warned about with respect to corporations? Their warning was that public corporations were gaining control over more of the nation's wealth, that ownership was becoming too diffuse for any one or any small number of owners to influence the activities of the corporation, and therefore the management was gaining more control over the direction of the corporation and by extension the nation's wealth. With respect to the state, there appear to be three similar trends: the state's authority is constantly expanding, while the control we the owners have over the state is constantly diminishing, and the career public employees are therefore gaining more influence over the state, and by extension, over the lives of the rest of us.
This is not intended to argue that the same is true of all unions; many serve very useful purposes that are both in their own and the public interest.
This is old hat; why should anyone care?
Well, first, that I think it shows that bureaucrats do, on average or in the aggregate, act in their own self-interest and second, that this is not a good thing. They literally thwart the public will, as traditionally understood.
Ah, well, it's for our own good, I suppose. Just ask them.
---------------------------------------
[1] Both assertions are easily proved with the Statistical Abstract and a glance through the relevant sections at OpenSecrets.org.
[2] No, not at the executive level, so don't compare Bill Gates to the POTUS.
<< Home