Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
I deserve neither credit nor blame for this, but 47 years ago, I was on the board of a public employee union when we collectively realized that the elected officials who voted on our salary each year thought our endorsement for their reelection was valuable. It turns out voters are silly people. When they read that public employees endorse candidate X, they assume the employees have altruistic reasons for doing so.
On the whole, my colleagues and I were pretty altruistic. There were more than a few small, informal debates about whether or not we should endorse people we didn’t like or respect solely because they voted to give us a little raise every year. Those debates raged on for about 15 minutes. We then voted to shamelessly prostitute ourselves.
Back then, our endorsement came without any money. Our union dues were minimal, so there was no money to give. Over the years, that changed. We upped our dues to create a political slush fund.
Back in my days on the board, we observed the rules. The quid pro quo nature of our relationship with local politicians was never articulated privately or publicly. We spoke only by actions. We endorsed the challenger of an incumbent who had the gall to think our annual raise should be the inflation rate and nothing more.
Back then, the law was fuzzy about whether or not we could legally go on strike. I was adamant that we could not, and should not. We never did, but I lost my board seat after those debates. (I left the union completely a few years later when I was promoted into management.)
My particular union was a small fish in a small pond. Today, teacher and other public employee unions are extremely large and powerful fish that control large cities, large states, and the national Democratic Party. The niceties are no longer observed. Quid pro quo demands are made routinely. In Los Angeles, Chicago and NYC, as well as California, Illinois, and New York, the individuals with the most political power are not elected politicians - they are union leaders.
This embarrassment is not required by the 1st Amendment or any other part of the Constitution. Any city, county, or state may enact legislation that prohibits public employee unions from making endorsements and/or political contributions. The only thing that prevents such legislation is the power of the public employee unions.
California, Illinois, and New York are in a three-state race to insolvency. Current law does not allow states to seek bankruptcy protection from creditors. That law may soon need to change. When it does, I hope it gives the bankruptcy judge the authority to sever the cord that is responsible for the bankruptcy.
G-Pub
PS: I cannot defend the size of my pension. But I don’t give any of it back, either.
Discussion (6)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I appreciate the honesty of your post. I wish your outlook was held by a wider percentage of public employees.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Public employee Unions should be illegal full stop . They are corrupt get demonicrats elected organizations . GOP does nothing about it because they are corrupt in a different fashion .
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
We all know this: allowing public employee unions is like letting the wolf, mountain lion, and sheep vote on who gets to eat the sheep. The sheep, in this case, is the taxpayer, while the wolf and mountain lion are the union and the politician. The taxpayer has no chance. The union cannot lose because the politician is their employee.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
There's a reason even the extremely pro-union President Franklin D. Roosevelt said government employees should not be able to unionize.
Corruption is inevitable.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Unlike for individuals, there is no need for bankruptcy to apply to U.S. states. As sovereign governments they can't be compelled to pay their bills. A federal court telling a state how it has to spend its taxpayer collected money (and that's what a bankruptcy courts does when an individual is granted bankruptcy protection) is probably unconstitutional.
Where it can be sticky is how a state constitution applies. For example, Illinois's constitution has protections for state government pensioners. Where that gets sticky is that pension debt takes precedence over, say, money spent for police enforcement. In the meantime, their tax base is fleeing, exaceerbating the problem as government social programs deteriorate.
That's where the thought that federal bankruptcy laws might help, thereby bypassing Illinois state constitution. As someone who has never lived in Illinois, I say let them figure it out without federal "help."
You're seeing five of six comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.