The other issue is that since the entire value of being a teacher, etc is in the pension, there is incredible incentives not to rock the boat once you've been around awhile. If the school system sucks then a younger teacher tries it for a few years and then bounces to a new career. If you're close to the 20 year brass ring you would literally murder a baby to get to that pension.
I do agree that unions are oftentimes blights on society, either rent-seeking or imposing a source of friction that’s not worth the cost. However, I want to push back on the idea that public sector unions have any less of an adversarial relationship with their employers than private sector unions do.
Politicians are not any more accountable to public sector employees than executives are to private sector employees. This is because public sector employees are not a large fraction of voters the same way as private sector employees are not a large fraction of shareholders. Executives want maximum revenue for minimum expenditure, while politicians want maximum political gain for minimum expenditure. This *can* lead to both wanting lower wages for the employees, since the budget matters for politicians. But more often politicians are adversarial for other political reasons. I was happy police unions existed during “defund the police”, even though that had nothing to do with a possible concern for policemen being stiffed on wages.
I don’t think unions should have outsize influence the way they do, and they clearly have engaged frequently in rent-seeking or otherwise detrimental behavior, but saying they’re not in an adversarial relationship or should only be able to bargain over wages seems to step too far. I’m frankly much more concerned about politicians taking foolhardy, shortsighted choices that sound good to the public than I am about executives doing so.
Perhaps my language was too strong, although I think it is at least directionally right, but your point about the police union helping to constrain defund the police is interesting.
What I will say firmly is that in many blue states and cities there is basically no appetite to take on public sector unions like teachers and it has resulted in very bad policies like keeping the schools shut down for too long and also resisting phonetics. The evidence from Wisconsin - and the other Econ papers I’ve read - really does seem to show it was directly, causally, harmful to student learning. Or in the case of the Florida SC case public safety.
The core issue is that they act as a large entrenched block that even if numerically small are pretty clearly negatively influential on policy outcomes.
I really do sincerely appreciate the pushback though Ried. You are a real one 🫡
Thanks for appreciating the pushback. I do totally agree that you’re directionally right, particularly about blue states (and blue cities) being big problem zones since they haven’t wanted to tackle this. I just think it’s primarily a question of balance of power rather than the doctrinal “this should be abolished”. I have the same quibble with Richard Hanania, in large part. I’m totally on board with saying that unions (public and private) shouldn’t be allowed to put out voting guides/endorse candidates, and that they shouldn’t be allowed to contribute to PACs or otherwise influence things top-down.
Members of public sector unions are employed by the taxpayers. If there's an adversarial relation, then it's no longer public service in the provision of a public good and the taxpayers can put it out for bid to private vendors.
First, saying that public sector employees are employed by taxpayers is like saying that private sector employees are employed by customers or shareholders. While the funding comes from there and the employees have a duty to them, they are not employed by them.
Second, of course there exists an adversarial relationship between taxpayers and public sector employees - taxpayers don’t want to pay taxes! Adversarial relationships exist when a profit for someone is a loss for another. Changing the endpoint of the relationship from politicians to taxpayers doesn’t change that.
Third, why on earth would privatizing things like the police either a) remove an adversarial relationship or b) be a good idea even if it did? The same incentives exist for taxpayers and employees regardless of whether they report directly to the government, and even the hard-core libertarians usually agree that the state should have a monopoly on violence.
Again, if it's an adversarial relation, then that's even more reason to make it an arms length transaction. Make the dealings contractual instead of giving state employees three votes and cradle-to-grave propaganda about their "public service."
Also, there's no labor-capital relation. The State is not a capitalist. It does not raise capital; it expropriates capital.
Really did not have becoming a neoliberal on my 2026 bingo card but we may be there. What would your response be to the strong teachers unions in Finland and the fantastic education system that country has?
Abolishing public unions in toto is probably unrealistic, but the three reforms proposed by Peter Banks could reduce the deleterious effects that public sector unions -- particularily public teachers unions -- have on society. The author's second reform references the "Wisconsin model" an outgrowth of Act 10 here in the Badger state. An article I co-published 15 years ago, examined the debate that still rages on today: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/04/the_truth_about_wisconsins_col.html
Full disclosure: I’m a public sector union member as a CUNY adjunct professor and tutor.
I don’t…well, disagree with your assessments, but I worry about how the reforms you propose would work in actual practice. I work in NYC, and for a union member, my salary is very modest (I work a weekend job to make ends meet and it’s still tough).
My meager salary and benefits aren’t what’s bringing down the NYC budget, and the supposed “lack of discipline” workers at my level have is, frankly, untrue (I’ve seen a few colleagues get fired for the most trivial stuff, or to cover for what a higher up did).
Eliminating the unions would maybe lead to the outcomes you’re hoping for, but for the members on the lowest rung, it means we’ll earn even LESS - the city and state already think I make “too much” even though I’m barely surviving. Just get another job and move if you have to, because, free market” is too expensive and unrealistic for my class of employee.
I propose other reforms - like, a strict salary cap on public sector union presidents, for example, or 100% transparent book keeping, a more egalitarian salary structure for lower end employees (prevents all the benefits going to senior members and last-hired-first-fired policies, etc), strict state mandated disciplinary procedures, etc.
I know eliminating unions looks great on paper, but it’s me and the bottom end guys who will suffer the most.
1) what % is demographics of union members reaching max pension with state underfunding vs inherent rent seeking by unions that would occur no matter what?
2) how much of the underfunding ratio could be improved with mild structural inflation that might come with aging populations? during covid, pensions actually were funded more on paper due to this until rates were hiked to crush their bonds.
Which is sad because when you meet the truly amazing person on the govt side there is something inspiring and noble about them, and I appreciate their service.
And on the other hand, I’ve just gotten better at sending “oh this person doesn’t do a single thing.”
The other issue is that since the entire value of being a teacher, etc is in the pension, there is incredible incentives not to rock the boat once you've been around awhile. If the school system sucks then a younger teacher tries it for a few years and then bounces to a new career. If you're close to the 20 year brass ring you would literally murder a baby to get to that pension.
The pensions are probably the single biggest issue they create. Legit bankrupting some places like Chicago
Its because you can use accounting chicanery to pretend it doesn't cost as much as it does.
Indeed
Pensions and health benefits.
Yes the pensions are bankrupting many cities
Great article. On the private side of funding it also gets very opaque for public service welfare organizations.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231251327446
Thank you for sharing and I’m glad you enjoyed it!
I do agree that unions are oftentimes blights on society, either rent-seeking or imposing a source of friction that’s not worth the cost. However, I want to push back on the idea that public sector unions have any less of an adversarial relationship with their employers than private sector unions do.
Politicians are not any more accountable to public sector employees than executives are to private sector employees. This is because public sector employees are not a large fraction of voters the same way as private sector employees are not a large fraction of shareholders. Executives want maximum revenue for minimum expenditure, while politicians want maximum political gain for minimum expenditure. This *can* lead to both wanting lower wages for the employees, since the budget matters for politicians. But more often politicians are adversarial for other political reasons. I was happy police unions existed during “defund the police”, even though that had nothing to do with a possible concern for policemen being stiffed on wages.
I don’t think unions should have outsize influence the way they do, and they clearly have engaged frequently in rent-seeking or otherwise detrimental behavior, but saying they’re not in an adversarial relationship or should only be able to bargain over wages seems to step too far. I’m frankly much more concerned about politicians taking foolhardy, shortsighted choices that sound good to the public than I am about executives doing so.
Perhaps my language was too strong, although I think it is at least directionally right, but your point about the police union helping to constrain defund the police is interesting.
What I will say firmly is that in many blue states and cities there is basically no appetite to take on public sector unions like teachers and it has resulted in very bad policies like keeping the schools shut down for too long and also resisting phonetics. The evidence from Wisconsin - and the other Econ papers I’ve read - really does seem to show it was directly, causally, harmful to student learning. Or in the case of the Florida SC case public safety.
The core issue is that they act as a large entrenched block that even if numerically small are pretty clearly negatively influential on policy outcomes.
I really do sincerely appreciate the pushback though Ried. You are a real one 🫡
Thanks for appreciating the pushback. I do totally agree that you’re directionally right, particularly about blue states (and blue cities) being big problem zones since they haven’t wanted to tackle this. I just think it’s primarily a question of balance of power rather than the doctrinal “this should be abolished”. I have the same quibble with Richard Hanania, in large part. I’m totally on board with saying that unions (public and private) shouldn’t be allowed to put out voting guides/endorse candidates, and that they shouldn’t be allowed to contribute to PACs or otherwise influence things top-down.
Members of public sector unions are employed by the taxpayers. If there's an adversarial relation, then it's no longer public service in the provision of a public good and the taxpayers can put it out for bid to private vendors.
This is wrong on many levels.
First, saying that public sector employees are employed by taxpayers is like saying that private sector employees are employed by customers or shareholders. While the funding comes from there and the employees have a duty to them, they are not employed by them.
Second, of course there exists an adversarial relationship between taxpayers and public sector employees - taxpayers don’t want to pay taxes! Adversarial relationships exist when a profit for someone is a loss for another. Changing the endpoint of the relationship from politicians to taxpayers doesn’t change that.
Third, why on earth would privatizing things like the police either a) remove an adversarial relationship or b) be a good idea even if it did? The same incentives exist for taxpayers and employees regardless of whether they report directly to the government, and even the hard-core libertarians usually agree that the state should have a monopoly on violence.
Again, if it's an adversarial relation, then that's even more reason to make it an arms length transaction. Make the dealings contractual instead of giving state employees three votes and cradle-to-grave propaganda about their "public service."
Also, there's no labor-capital relation. The State is not a capitalist. It does not raise capital; it expropriates capital.
Really did not have becoming a neoliberal on my 2026 bingo card but we may be there. What would your response be to the strong teachers unions in Finland and the fantastic education system that country has?
Abolishing public unions in toto is probably unrealistic, but the three reforms proposed by Peter Banks could reduce the deleterious effects that public sector unions -- particularily public teachers unions -- have on society. The author's second reform references the "Wisconsin model" an outgrowth of Act 10 here in the Badger state. An article I co-published 15 years ago, examined the debate that still rages on today: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/04/the_truth_about_wisconsins_col.html
Full disclosure: I’m a public sector union member as a CUNY adjunct professor and tutor.
I don’t…well, disagree with your assessments, but I worry about how the reforms you propose would work in actual practice. I work in NYC, and for a union member, my salary is very modest (I work a weekend job to make ends meet and it’s still tough).
My meager salary and benefits aren’t what’s bringing down the NYC budget, and the supposed “lack of discipline” workers at my level have is, frankly, untrue (I’ve seen a few colleagues get fired for the most trivial stuff, or to cover for what a higher up did).
Eliminating the unions would maybe lead to the outcomes you’re hoping for, but for the members on the lowest rung, it means we’ll earn even LESS - the city and state already think I make “too much” even though I’m barely surviving. Just get another job and move if you have to, because, free market” is too expensive and unrealistic for my class of employee.
I propose other reforms - like, a strict salary cap on public sector union presidents, for example, or 100% transparent book keeping, a more egalitarian salary structure for lower end employees (prevents all the benefits going to senior members and last-hired-first-fired policies, etc), strict state mandated disciplinary procedures, etc.
I know eliminating unions looks great on paper, but it’s me and the bottom end guys who will suffer the most.
I write on parenting & policy, so I focus most of my ire on teachers' unions, but I'm glad to see more skepticism of public sector unions.
https://fatherhoodframework.substack.com/p/power-pay-and-the-classroom-a-hard
1) what % is demographics of union members reaching max pension with state underfunding vs inherent rent seeking by unions that would occur no matter what?
2) how much of the underfunding ratio could be improved with mild structural inflation that might come with aging populations? during covid, pensions actually were funded more on paper due to this until rates were hiked to crush their bonds.
Silicon Valley has its fabled 10x engineer,
Govt has its dreaded 1/10th bureaucrat.
Which is sad because when you meet the truly amazing person on the govt side there is something inspiring and noble about them, and I appreciate their service.
And on the other hand, I’ve just gotten better at sending “oh this person doesn’t do a single thing.”