Image via Wikipedia
I will own up to my response to Christian’s post on Thursday, on the activity in Wisconsin and its public sector unions. I did accuse him of engaging class warfare, and it was very unfair. I apologize, and I would also like to make a clarification of my position.
As I commented on Christian’s recent post, “I Am Not Anti-Corporation”, I do not believe that public sector unions have the interest of the impoverished at heart. Not all unions are created equal. I am in full support of workers rights to unionize in the private sector, in fact, I recall vividly that I desired to be part of a union while at the behest of a former employer from a long time ago. Where I draw the line is with the public sector (all of them, even police persons and fire fighters), on the local, state, and federal levels. Federal employees cannot unionize, they do not have any bargaining rights. State employees are protected by civil service laws. What happens is that in the process of negotiations and receiving entitlements, public employees forget that they are “warring” over tax payer dollars, and that means a different mode of accountability. Government is ran by the people, as those who believe in democracy tell us. Anti-government conservatives need to be reminded that it is the government that is not evil in and of itself; institutions are morally neutral. What happens is that there are people, and John Howard Yoder would even say spirits, behind institutions. I want to re-iterate, I do not have this overwhelming suspicion of unionization; it is the public sector unions, the ones that have been banned up until JFK‘s presidency (see, I told ya CAMELOT was exclusive). History shows that even Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed unions in the public sector, because he knew that it was a way of limiting the influence of special interests in the public sphere (and we have a long way to go). As Wisconsin shows, special interests did take over the political conversation in the name of “the working man”; thus this pacifist’s cynicism for class warfare by both sides.
Just as liberals remind anti-government conservatives that human beings run the government, it is the duty of libertarians and the like minded to remind progressives that corporations, ran by stockholders, are ran by people. Corporations are not “literally” persons, but ran by persons, like any other institution. The way to limit corporations’ power is not to ignore the humans behind them, but to vote with your wallet. I have serious doubts that public sector unions can do this any better than America’s citizenry.
Joel also has commentary on this subject.
Rod,
Apology accepted, although none is needed.
You make some very valid points, and I love that we can discuss this like rational humans. I agree that, yes, unions, even public sector ones, have been known to get greedy and overreach.
Personally, I’d like to see a balance between the two (mgt & labor) where the good of the company, and the good of the employees, are emphasized.
Now, before I go back and answer your questions on my blog, I do have one for you.
In a society where taxes are seen as an anathema to many, and public sector employees only slightly better, how do we do our best to ensure that we, as a society, end up leaving them behind? Do we privatize things like schools, waste collection, parks, water treatment, while leaving other things in the public sector?
What do you think?
Well Christian,
While many libertarian thinkers see privatization as a cure-all, I do not; I even have a problem with government/corporate partnerships, and I have definitely always had an allergic reaction to subsidies of any kind.
In terms of programs, and dealing with budgets, the problem is the tax code; it is such a tedious process as I argued in my earlier post. It is the “doing” of taxes that makes paying taxes all the more painful. I was informed on facebook that the Fair Taxs is not the same as the flat tax, and so if the fair tax is not flat all around, i would support some form of it; but I am definitely in favor of luxury taxes, I mean, people owning two or three houses, planes, and multiple cars. Taxes should not be used to punish people, but i think taxing on income and assets definitely has its limits. Also, by simplifying the tax code, it makes it easier for small businesses. I am, in principle, against the fair tax if it means a national sales tax; prices would rise and rise. So, I side with Ralph Nader in more of a flat tax.
I would say things like parks, waste collection, social security (even FDR’s plan was for this to eventually happen) should be privatized with government accountability. As far as schools go, I am definitely for separation of church and state and vouchers violate that principle. I support public education much like Calvin Coolidge did; he is someone libertarians look to, but he was for it. Its more about the public good than anything else. Water treatment should be public; clean water is quite important, and just like food regulation, its about the gov’t protecting the people. But really, the idea that we have police persons, firepersons, etc., making 6 digits is outrageous. Each state should decide for itself what to pay its employees, but collective bargaining, gambling with tax payer dollars I just disagree with. There’s really no way to ensure their standard of living financially because the market has cycles. As tax payer revenue goes, so should go the public sector’s pay.
Hey Rod,
Sorry for taking so long to get back, I wanted to familiarize myself with the Fair Tax position before I spoke.
I think we agree on quite a bit on this, actually.
The tax code is insanely, and unnecessarily complex. Years and year of people lobbying for their own pet projects to get preferential tax treatment does that, I guess. Here in AZ, even the state tax code is crazy and full of loopholes for everything from nail salons to country club memberships to some cosmetic surgeries are not taxed.
I agree that the Fair Tax, as explained by fairtax.org the national sales tax, is a horrible idea that will simply cause prices to rise. I also agree on luxury taxes.
The issue I have with a flat tax is that it, in my opinion, is horribly regressive. Most flat-tax proposals exempt income from sources such as investment interest and dividends, capital gains, etc, and other sources that flat tax proponents like Steve Forbes derive their income from. This shifts the tax burden to the working class, whose money is better spent on “survival issues” like housing, food, heating/cooling, etc. In the big picture, a cart full of groceries costs the same whether you make $30,000/year or $300,000/year.
And, don’t be shocked, I agree that there are probably plenty of things that governments can divest themselves from and hand over to the private sector. The trick would be to ensure that there is actual governmental oversight (where needed) AND that the gov’t has the ability to hold those private firms accountable, and not just in a superficial way.
I also think that we have to look at these ‘public sector 6 figure salaries’ with a little wider vision. On its face, yes, it seems excessive. However, in some of the areas where the salaries are that high, so is the cost of living. What I make here in AZ would be poverty level in places like California, New York, Massachusetts, etc. In addition, considering that there is a significant segment of the public that look at these employees with utter disdain, including federal, state, and local governmental officials, I would hesitate leaving their livelihood to the whims of said politicians. Can this go overboard the other way? Sure…. it’s possible.
Can you clarify one of your points for me? When you said “As tax payer revenue goes, so should go the public sector’s pay”, do you mean that public sector’s pay, on an individual basis, can fluctuate year to year? If so, how does that contribute to the economic stability of families who, one year may be able to afford a modest house and, when revenue drops, the next year may end up losing it in foreclosure? Now, on raises, I’d agree that if the money ain’t there, it ain’t there… but not fluctuating base salaries.
Christian,
If you agree with me so much, there should be nothing stopping you from becoming a libertarian.
I kid, I kid.
As for the fluctuating salaries, I am talking about more in terms of raises, rather than salaries; salaries should be examined every 10 years along with the Census, ideally.
Not all unions are created equal. State employees are protected by civil service laws. Its more about the public good than anything else. You can also subscribe without commenting.Great post thanks for sharing. FYI you might want to try chiller hire