http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519312Labor: In voting to raise taxes to fund health benefits of public-sector union members, Oregonians have taken some of the shine off Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts and set a potentially dangerous precedent.
Opposition to tax hikes was one of three positions that Sen.-elect Brown took that resonated with Bay State voters last week (the others being opposition to Congress' health care overhaul and a hard line in the war on terror). But there was no Scott Brown on Oregon's special ballot Tuesday.
Instead, there were Measures 66 and 67 — an attempt to pry more dollars from the middle class, the wealthy and small businesses advanced by an aggressive axis of government employee unions.
Each passed by a 54%-46% margin, flying in the face of conventional wisdom that raising taxes is the last thing you do in the middle of a recession. The result does underscore a new reality: Public-employee unions have gained unprecedented clout and may try similar shakedowns in other states with budget problems.
In Oregon, supporters of 66 and 67 spent at least $6.9 million, most of it coming from teacher and public employee unions, the Oregonian newspaper reported. State Republican Chairman Bob Tiernan put it more bluntly: "The unions bought the election."
Oregon isn't the only place where the public-employee unions have the numbers. There are now more unionized government workers than unionized private-sector employees in America.
Time was, unionization meant blue-collar workers laboring on production lines, at construction sites and in mine shafts. While those industries are still unionized, organized labor is losing ground in the private sector. And the fall has been steep.
In 2009, only 7.5 million private-sector workers were unionized, down from 8.3 million in 2008 and far off the mid-1950s glory days when more than 35% of the work force was unionized.
Meanwhile, 7.9 million public-sector workers belonged to organized labor in 2009, up from 7.8 million the year before. Rather than represent 17% of the unionized work force as they did in 1973, union workers make up 52% of the union rolls.
This may be good for union members and bosses, but not for taxpayers. Leo Troy, a Rutgers economics professor who has studied unions for years, notes "the collaboration between the nominal public employer — elected officials — and unionism" and suggests the taxpayer comes out on the short end.
"Collective bargaining," adds James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation, "gives government employees the power to tell voters how to spend their tax dollars instead of the other way around. That is why early labor leaders rejected it as undemocratic."
As did policymakers. Until the laws began to be changed in the 1960s, Sherk says, federal, state and local governments did not allow public employees to collectively bargain with taxpayers.
The wise move would be to return to those restrictive policies. But the unions aren't about to let that happen. Nor would lawmakers, with whom the unions have developed what Troy calls an "incestuous" relationship.
After all, unionized public employees are a natural voting bloc for lawmakers who keep handing them raises. It is the kind of relationship that is crushing California and will eventually devour Oregon and other governments.
Topic: UNIONIZED GOVERNMENT WORKERS (Read 788 times)