Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector
The events in Wisconsin and Indiana, combined with appallingly high and mostly-unfunded pension obligations for public employees (California’s tab runs to half a trillion dollars), have focused new attention on whether public employees should be able to engage in collective bargaining.
Ricochet’s Membership has been divided on the question. On one hand, some Members describe collective bargaining as an extension of the right to free association, and feel that it can be separated from things like egregious contracts and labor walkouts. Other Members decry not only collective bargaining’s disconnect from market realities but also the principle of unions and collective bargaining against the public they’re supposed to serve.
To hash this out, we’ve set up two pages: one for each side of the discussion. Each page will contain a series of semi-structured conversations, with the ultimate aim of creating a concise, compelling, and substantiated defense of a position. The Logo introduced this yesterday.
- The page arguing FOR public sector collective bargaining is here.
- The page arguing AGAINST public sector collective bargaining is here.
Some conversations that address the topic are below:
Answering a Friend's Challenge (Mar. 6, Dave Carter)
Guess Who Loves Collective Bargaining (Mar. 3, Diane Ellis)
Ohio's Collective Bargain (Mar. 2, Bill McGurn)
Mitch on Collective Bargaining (Feb. 25, Peter Robinson)
Gallup: 61% Oppose Limiting Collective Bargaining Rights for Public Unions (Feb. 22, Hot Air)
Wisconsin, now Indiana: Public Union Reform is the Next Political Prairie Fire (Feb. 22, Rob Long)
Unionized Public Employees = Nomenklatura (Feb. 18, Daniel Frank)
"Worker rights" (Feb. 18, tms)
In favor of unionization? (Feb. 17, historius)
And don't forget the first segment of this week's Law Talk podcast, which addresses the topic.