What the Public Really Wants From The Wisconsin Union Debate

The events in Wisconsin about public sector unions' rights created a vociferous debate, much of it sidestepping one major problem and a possible, permanent solution.

Collective bargaining covers a wide range of issues - not only wages, but also hiring practices, layoffs, promotions, working conditions, work hours and benefit programs.

Today the public seems in favor of cutting the generous benefits given to government employees.  This, however, does not necessarily mean that they want to see the public sector unions of firemen, police or teachers emasculated.

People probably have an intuition that government officials, administrators and the vast bureaucracy that supervises teachers, for example, may abuse their powers, and may bring more harm than good.  These define "good teachers" by the statistics of how many fail in class.  A consequence may be that the better teachers, who try to sustain high standards, are penalized.

And if schools try to select better students, then the worse ones will end up somewhere.  The teachers in the latter can stand on their heads, yet the children will still not perform.  They are simply not good enough. They should perhaps be in a technical school or some other establishment.

Since this is not done today, the teachers end up self-selecting, and the mediocre and below end up in the schools with the "mediocre and below" students. The better teachers, who may still stick around to teach mediocre students, have little chance of proving that they are "good."  Lack of collective bargaining giving bureaucrats even more powers, their chances diminish further.

But let it be clear, by "underachieving children" I do not mean to suggest that they cannot perform very well in other areas.  They just may not be interested in what schools are now offering them.  They may indeed excel in any number of areas, studying to be electricians, plumbers, construction workers or other skilled jobs.

With the country in dire need of rebuilding its infrastructure, including the electricity grid, roads, bridges, and sewers (jobs that are impossible to outsource), the earnings potential may be much higher than what could be earned by virtue of finishing some undergraduate degree.

And by no means are these endeavors "low-tech" today.  Israel, for instance, is experimenting with under-highway equipment that produces electricity through friction.  The electricity grid could be rebuilt to prevent wasted energy in a wide variety of smart, high-tech ways.  Schools could do a much better job to prepare students for that.

The monetary obligation of wages or other benefits that the public unions have extracted from the taxpayers is what worries people.  They are in favor of reducing these expenses but do not seem willing to give government a blank check to negotiate with the unionized workers.

So what would be the best solution?

If unions want to keep their collective bargaining powers, so be it.  But rights come with obligations.  For each and every item they negotiate, the unions should have the obligation to present the exact amount of money and liability that the expense would impose upon the taxpayers.  The numbers could be contested by any number of independent observers and there should be a public debate.  Within six months, say, the item would be subject to a state or local referenda and that would be the democratic end to it.

A few years later, if the voters realize that they were wrong,  then they would have the right to call a new initiative and reverse the arrangements.  In other words, the unions can keep their collective bargaining rights, but it should come with the obligation that they submit their requests to the public that pays the bills.

Since recent research suggests that education budgets for schools and universities can be cut with impunity, any request for money or rights should come with the obligation of showing how these would improve education.  Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa's recent book shows that most students do not learn much in their first two years at college.

Students might then acquire knowledge in a much shorter time.  There would be serious savings. Spending on schools and universities now is no "investment" by any stretch of the imagination.  Students themselves acknowledge boredom according to recent studies.

When the country was richer, it may have been good to allow public sector workers to benefit and to allow many adolescents a nice two year subsidized vacation while at college.  Those times are gone with the wind, at least for the foreseeable future.

If the unions for public workers want collective bargaining rights, then fine.  However, these rights should come with obligations regarding both the services they deliver and their costs.

-Article by Professor Reuven Brenner

Read full article: Forbes, March 28, 2011