I suppose unions are in the news a lot these days, between the situation in Wisconsin and the impending NFL lockout. The differences between the two situations are important to understanding the current struggle. In the case of the NFL, even if you hate the idea of millionaires fighting billionaires, at least both sides have clear objectives and reasons for their actions. Owners want an 18 game schedule to increase their revenues, while players want to maintain 16 in order to have a better chance to stay healthy. On issue after issue, the sides disagree, but they are working together in good faith.
I contrast this with a public sector union. In any confrontation between a public union and government the sides are not diametrically opposed. If a union desires higher wages for its members, government officials are inclined to agree with them. Why? Quite simply, because they do not have a stake in the game since they are not spending the money. If an NFL owner agrees to higher player wages, that money comes directly from his interests, but a government official simply commits other people’s money. The taxpayer never has a say in the process. In fact, the incentives in a public negotiation are even more misaligned because government officials who increase union wages often benefit from union donations during the next election (no quid pro quo there I’m certain).
That’s why I do take heart at the Wisconsin Governor’s proposals, especially the idea that any raise above inflation must be approved by a referendum of the voters. That way, the individuals who will be most affected by the higher wages get a say in when they are conferred. If the voters believe workers are doing a good job, the wages will go up. By removing the government’s perverse incentive to heighten wages, I believe this proposal better represents the interests of the voters. Now, if only there could be a vote on the matter…
No comments:
Post a Comment