Does Limiting Public Employee Collective Bargaining Save Money For State And Local Governments?

In Wisconsin and Ohio, new Republican majorities in state legislatures, and new Republican governors, have modified public employee collective bargaining rights and argued that it is part of an overall effort to bring state and local government budgets back into balance.  Democrats have responded that the budget control argument is a bogus fig leaf and that the real motivation for the Republicans’ actions is union-busting, pure and simple.

It therefore is interesting that in Massachusetts — Massachusetts! — the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill to restrict the ability of municipal public employees to collectively bargain about health care benefits.  Moreover, the House effort was led by Democrats, who argued that the changes will help struggling cities and towns.  Indeed, the Democratic Speaker of the House contended that the changes would save cash-strapped municipalities $100 million and allow them to maintain more jobs and provide more services.

The Massachusetts initiative still has to pass the Senate and be signed by the Governor, so it may well not become law.  Still, the fact that Democrats in the Massachusetts House supported such a measure on budget grounds seems like a powerful argument for the proposition that modifying public employee collective bargaining rights is a legitimate way to achieve significant savings in government spending.  If Democrats have accepted that argument in Massachusetts, how can Democrats in Ohio and Wisconsin contend that similar efforts in their states are motivated wholly by partisan politics and mindless anti-union sentiment?

2 thoughts on “Does Limiting Public Employee Collective Bargaining Save Money For State And Local Governments?

  1. Yo Bobber, you didn’t mention you had a blog–and a great one at that! It seems we have the same take on the current political shenanigans. What’s happened to common sense? Why is it that every problem can be solved if “only we throw more money at it”? Bah! It really is about the spending.

    Keep on truckin’!

    Ben

    Like

  2. For one thing, when John Kasich was campaigning for Governor of Ohio he came right out and said he was going to “break the back of the teacher’s union” If you look at the bill he has not only aimed at teachers he also included all public unions but certainly the teachers bear the brunt in the final bill. As to the spending, when the budget is tight you also try to raise your income–in this case not on the backs of the workers but those who get block buster bonuses even if the company is failing.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s