Maybe the gravy train is finally beginning to grind to a halt at long last? Maybe the thievery by unions that is bankrupting governments all across the nation is starting to show signs of abating? If this court ruling in Vallejo, California is any indication, we just might be starting to see some common sense at last endangering the practice of heaping undeserved and unsustainable union benefits on government workers.
On March 13 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael McManus held that union contracts “negotiated” by city worker’s unions can be voided by Vallejo if the city enters into bankruptcy proceedings. The judge said that city workers do not have the same protections that Congress bestowed upon union workers in private companies and that as public workers they cannot expect their full contracts to be forcibly upheld by courts during bankruptcy.
This is astonishingly good news for anyone interested in good government. For decades unions have heaped larger and more generous benefits and health coverage upon themselves with the willing participation of campaign cash grubbing politicians that have acquiesced to every demand, sustainable or not. Government worker unions give far and away better benefits to members than are seen anywhere in the private sector. And with political abandon it has been the inmates running the asylum for a long time.
We’ve seen a cynical and parasitic relationship as politicians and unions suck off the citizenry returning nothing but diseased government and a shriveled host. These excessive and unearned benefits are not only unsustainable, but are paid out of our taxes. That government workers do not produce anything is undeniable. They are a 100% drag on the citizenry and return absolutely nothing to the community. We all know that often their jobs are a result of knowing someone in government and not at all merit based. As the saying goes, there is nothing so permanent as a government policy/job/regulation/tax — all these things seem to live like the Frankenstein Monster, neither alive, nor dead, but always terrorizing the citizens. Worse yet, these monsters are made of other people’s best parts all the while adding nothing worth while to society. Unions have bloated themselves off of government like ticks, growing fat and happy with no effort and it’s about time these leeches were cut out of the body politic.
Let us hope that this ruling is upheld and cities can breathe a little easier as they try to cut back on bloated government spending and reorganize. These placemen and donothings deserve no sympathy. Let them get a real job.
Let us hope that this is the first step to the ideal situation of disbanding government unions altogether. They are antithetical to good government in any case. A union’s job is to get away with as much as possible for the worker, of course. A union’s concern is never the job, the product, or the health of the company. But in government WE are the employer. And government is there to serve we the people. This means that a government worker union’s main goal is to rip off the people! Their job is to steal our taxes and denude government of resources for all of us!
Hopefully this ruling is the first step on the long road to undercutting union thievery of government resources nationwide. It’s about time.
Neil Stevens
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Daniel Horowitz
Chapter 9 bankruptcy is an option in CA.
Old_Crow (Diary) Wednesday, March 18th at 7:02AM EST (link)As for other states, check your state constitution.
Doing the same in NY would require a change to the constitution, a responsible legislature would be starting the process now. But they are ignoring the freight train of debt that is speeding toward us.
“Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” — James Madison
With this ruling
Warner Todd Huston (Diary) Wednesday, March 18th at 7:08AM EST (link)With this ruling, though (if it stands) it could help make those changes in states foolish enough to enshrine such corruption right in their state constitutions.
———-
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!
Separation of powers:
Achance (Diary) Wednesday, March 18th at 7:46AM EST (link)In those states and polisubs where an explicit appropriation must support an expenditure of public funds, all it takes is an explicit refusal by the legislative body to perform the terms of the contract. The courts cannot force the legislative body to perform and make the appropriation necessary to expend the funds required to perform under the terms of a labor agreement. Few states have enshrined collective bargaining rights in their State Constitution or constitutionally established any obligation on the State’s part to perform any program or contract.
There are some good arguments to be had about the contours and limits of required performance however. For example, if the goverment has $100MM in its personal services budget and the terms of a union contract require $105MM, the failure to appropriate the increment does not necessarily abbrogate the agreement, but rather may require layoffs, reduced overtime, or premium pay to stay within the appropriated $100MM.
The reality is that few state and local governments understand the contours and limits of their rights and duties under their collective bargaining laws and fewer still will tell the truth about it.
Alaska accepted public sector collective bargaining in 1972, one of the earlier states, and did so by adopting AFL-CIO model legislation with almost no changes and no debate. At that time Alaska was owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Democrat Party and the Democrat Party was owned by organized labor. This extraordinarily important legislation was passed with almost no debate and with a zero fiscal note. (Under Alaska law, all legislation must have a cost estimate called a Fiscal Note. Some amazing works of fiction have been produced.)
Public sector collective bargaining began at the same time as the massive expansion of State and local governments due to the building of the TransAlaska Pipeline and dramatically increased State revenue. It is fair to say that all problems were “solved” by throwing money at them. When the oil revenue collapsed in ’86, the Legislature refused to appropriate funds to satisfy the terms of the third year of previously negotiated and approved labor agreements. There ensued a ten year battle of law suits, labor board actions, concessionary bargaining, and even decertification of the largest union for a time. I came in just as the Ball opened in early ’87. It is fair to say that nobody working for the State had a clue what the State’s rights and duties were in a concessionary environment. I won’t go so far as to say that we got a lot in concessions, we did get some, but we did hold the line for almost two decades and kept wages below CPI until the early ’00s. The last few years of that hold the line was actually more politics that public policy; the Democrat Knowles Administration, ’94 – ’02, dramatically politicized collective bargaining and the Republican-controlled Legislature was having none of it. For much of that eight years, if the Administration wanted it, they couldn’t have it – even if it was a good thing. Consequently, Alaska’s public sector wages came to lag the national wage market.
In any event, under most bargaining laws, if a government wants out from under a contract, it can do it. Not all states bargain retirement benefits and some states, like mine, have very strong constitutional or statutory protections for accrued retirement benefits however. Most of what you hear from them about how they can’t get out from under the requirements of their union contracts is simple cowardice or simply lying.
In Vino Veritas
Rhetoric
lukematthews (Diary) Wednesday, March 18th at 8:35AM EST (link)It is, as you have so clearly pointed out, merely rhetoric and not a legal argument to say you must fund a labor contract. The argument is a threat and not a legal requirement under force of law. Labor unionism uses this device often and to good use for their members. However, it is important to remember this ‘requirement’ is a ploy to move the public sentiment and erode opposition.