Politicians make many promises during the course of a presidential campaign. But, more important than studying which promises they keep, voters should note whom the kept promises were made to. On October 20, 2008–less than two weeks before election day–then presidential candidate Obama sent a letter to the largest federal employee union and promised that if elected, he would “work to ensure” that Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport screeners “have collective bargaining rights.” This political back-scratching ignores the relevant question: why should government power be used to support a legal monopoly of our government’s workforce?
Union Dues Courtesy of the American Taxpayer
Over two years and three TSA administrator nominees later, Obama’s promise to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is now only a few weeks away from being fulfilled. Starting March 9, TSA airport screeners began voting on whether they want a union or not. The Federal Labor Relations Authority, a self-described “independent federal administrative agency” created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 during the Carter Administration, paved the way by issuing a decision calling for an election to determine whether TSA employees want “exclusive union representation.” Interestingly, when signing the Act, President Carter noted the new law “goes to the heart of what the American people are asking for: a government and civil service that work.” The vote to pick a union ends April 19th.
Union bosses recognize that helping elect the very people they negotiate with gives them tremendous leverage when collectively “bargaining.” At the same time, politicians who support public employee unions recognize that when unions are incentivized to elect the “management” they negotiate with, they will spend heavily to elect politicians who promise them concessions.
If we truly want to prevent trading political favors for campaign contributions, the answer is to return government to its constitutional limits so there are fewer favors to seek or give. The answer is to limit government power, not use it in a way that creates a conflict of interest with the very people you represent.
The money involved comes from one source: the taxpayer. Fact: granting unions a monopoly over government work gives unions tremendous leverage over both budgets and taxes. Fact: public employee unions benefit from increases in government spending, and thus have an interest in supporting higher taxes. Neither of these two facts benefits the taxpayer, and both present clear conflicts of interest.
It’s no secret that when more union dues are collected from government workers … the larger the amount of money union political action committees spend in support of union-friendly politicians. The AFGE and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), combined, represent approximately 750,000 federal workers. During the 2010 midterms, the AFGE (affiliated with the AFL-CIO) and the Services Employees International Union combined to spend over $88 million electing Democrats, while the NTEU’s PAC spent $577,597 (97% went to support of Democratic candidates). What Democrat lawmakers clearly understand is that more unionized federal employees means more support come election time. What they ignore is that “support” relies on leveraging political power at the expense of the American taxpayer, plain and simple.
The idea that unions do not belong in civil service is not new. During the 1950’s, the AFL-CIO Executive Council, in addressing collective bargaining procedures, declared, “government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress–a right available to every citizen.” The 1950’s-era AFL-CIO president George Meany said “[i]t is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” Even FDR, who gave unions extensive powers to collectively bargain in the private sector, excluded them from government and determined they had no place in public service. Today, however, more government workers are unionized than private-sector employees.
Cutting spending may carry the political torch, but voters must also recognize that federal public employee unions inject tremendous inefficiency into our bloated bureaucracy, and have interests that conflict with that of the People. Government power cannot be used to politicize the civil service and create leverage over the governed. When it comes to politicians and promises they make, TSA unionization is just the latest example of political back-scratching, evidenced by whose promises are kept, and whose best interest is ignored.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.