Why are we not arguing about the principles behind the collective bargaining issues we face in this country? As someone who has studied human resources, manufacturing and entrepreneurship, I have a few thoughts. These thoughts get down to the heart of the issue and if we know our hearts, we might not have these problems. A couple of questions:
If I am employed as a public servant, do I have the right to walk away from the bargaining table if I don't feel that my employer is being as generous as morally possible? Can you take the word morally out of the previous sentence and have a situation where both people believe that each party has the other's good measure at heart? My employer is the public, so I have to rely on its representatives to understand what is morally and financially possible. Because of this, there should indeed be standards. I believe they should be enforced between the parties with a possible mediator or several mediators used if possible. This is the definition of binding arbitration, and although it is not always the answer, it's a darn site better than the monopoly of a union with un-checked power.
I've always found it interesting that the unions believed that they must compel membership in order to enforce the morality of the public. So far, and I've done a few searches, read a few articles, I have yet to see a valid defense of compelling union membership. Why would a union not be voluntary? I was incensed that I had to pay union dues at the University of Montana, because I don't believe the union at U of M represents my ideas politically. At the university, we have the right to ask the union to donate the money on our behalf. I felt I would be donating on behalf of an organization I do not support politically. No-win, no-win situation; not my favorite.
The other side of this argument is a straw man: why should I benefit from the actions of the union on my behalf? Frankly, I am not opposed to sitting down with my employer and negotiating my own salary and benefits, who knows, I might do better than the union leaders. In fact, I know I could do better. I do believe that unions serve a purpose, but in the case of the public unions, I do not, unless membership is voluntary. As a public employee, you should be prepared to be paid what your community can afford to pay you. Binding arbitration in this case is warranted. Why do public service unions want mandatory union membership? I'll tell you why...power. The power of the unions to exert influence over politicians who see voting blocks and stumble over themselves trying to ingratiate themselves. It's sad and pathetic, and it's our political system, but those unions should not include those who do not believe in the union agenda.
I don't know a single person who would pay teachers less than they thought was morally and financially possible. I don't believe that the money paid to teachers is the main problem, but it is one that should be handled with efficiency; one I think that should be run privately, but that's another argument for another time.
I also believe that there are statistics to bear out that more money does not equal satisfactory performance. WI spends more per student than any other state in the union. I think it's significant enough proof that 2/3 of their 8th graders not being proficient in reading is not due to money paid to teachers. Top of the line teachers should earn $80,000 to $100,000 per year, but that depends on the area. We might even want to pay teachers more than we have...usually the public is in favor of fair pay; again, not the issue. In Missoula, I would think that something a little less, $80,000 [for those with a master's degree] would be the top end of my scale here (even though housing prices were once quite high here, housing is selling for 12% less now). This is all subjective, of course, and therefore standards should apply.
Housing price pressure, by the way, will directly affect the budget of the states a year and a half from now. Have we taken that into consideration? Here in Montana we have the right to appropriate the money from other resource-rich counties to pay for our teachers. Lucky us. Other states, like WI must rely on taxes, big ones. They have the 5th highest property tax burden in the country in the paper industry, anyway. What is fair? I think, again, binding arbitration might not be pretty, or politically powerful, but it would do the job. The rest of the folks could then simply re-up their membership in the Democratic Party to satisfy their political urges.
Teachers have a great reputation and they are not helping it by striking in WI. Instead, the political organizations that have come out of the woodwork are doing what they do best, agitating. They don't care about the teachers, not really. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the union leadership doesn't care about the teachers either. Just read some of the harrowing cases that have come before the Right-to-Work organization and you can get a feel for how the unions abuse not only membership dues, but the members themselves. True, no organization is perfect, even union organizations, but we sure treat them like they are. They are the untouchables, the ones whom we cannot insult lest we bring the wrath of God down upon our conservative selves.
I think it is time to take a hard look at these unions and I hope that some of that effort will come from inside, from those who are not satisfied with their membership and wish that they could just go back to work. Where are you? Come on in, the water's fine, a little warm, but you'll get used to it. I sure wouldn't want to be in their position, it's hard to buck your union, but when you start the process of questioning mandatory membership, their arguments break down. After all, what is wrong with voluntary union membership? Ask the question! It's the heart of the matter.
