The post Missouri Ballot Issues and the Return of Three Mile Island appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with Ryan Bourne, the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute and editor of the book The War on Prices: How Popular Misconceptions about Inflation, Prices, and Value Create Bad Policy. They discuss the effects of price controls, recent interventions in the economy, how to remind people about free market principals, and more.

Ryan Bourne occupies the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato and is the author of the recent books Economics In One Virus, and The War on Prices. He has written on numerous economic issues, including fiscal policy, inequality, minimum wages, infrastructure spending, the cost of living and rent control.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The War on Prices with Ryan Bourne appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Nuclear War
• Total Surrender
• Recommended State Department policy

The understanding of the joke is that whatever policy or ideas elected officials want to enact, it is the government employees—the bureaucrats—who have to carry it out. Too often, the bureaucrats carry it out in a manner that benefits them, not the elected officials or the public. (I care more about the latter.)

The City of St. Louis is experiencing a problem like that right now, with its efforts to combine its three 911 systems into one. Consolidating 911 centers should be one of the low-hanging fruits for service sharing among local governments. There are numerous examples of it benefitting communities in Missouri. Unfortunately, while many efforts have succeeded, a few have been stalled due to resistance from local bureaucrats.

The problems in St. Louis are all the more confusing because this effort is entirely within the same city government. In theory, it should be easier to implement service sharing in one government rather than sharing 911 services across different governments (which isn’t really that hard, either.) But, shockingly, the various city employee unions have thus far been able to stall the reform efforts. The mayor’s plans to consolidate and improve the 911 system have been blocked, thus far, by the unions representing the dispatchers who are currently within different departments. From the article:

One union represents police dispatchers, and another represents EMS and fire dispatchers. The unions have demanded bargaining over any dispatcher cross-training. Uncertainty about which union would represent a combined dispatcher position slowed attempts by Mayor Tishaura Jones and her former public safety director, Dan Isom, to allow dispatchers to handle all types of emergency calls.

The unions complained Jones and Isom’s plans for consolidation were made without consulting them and that the changes in job duties were clearly something that should be covered in contract negotiations. [emphasis mine]

Missouri attempted major public-sector union reforms a few years ago. While some reforms were passed into law, a lawsuit unfortunately led to the reforms being overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court.

St. Louis has public sector unions delaying improvements to a system that would improve the city’s currently terrible 911 system and spend tax dollars more efficiently. But hey, fiefdoms have to be protected, right?

FDR was right about public sector unions. They shouldn’t exist.

The post Looking For Bureaucratic Efficiencies in All the Wrong Places appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Daniel DiSalvo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a professor of political science in the Colin Powell School at the City College of New York–CUNY.

Read Big City Pensions and the Urban Doom Loop here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced By Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Urban Doom Loop with Daniel DiSalvo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This isn’t that complicated. The new St. Louis city fireman’s pension board was created because the old one was dominated by union interests who made it incredibly generous for firemen and civilian employees of the department. One of those civilian employees received a half-million-dollar (!!!) cash payout upon her retirement, on top of her generous pension. As this recent Post-Dispatch story explains, the union trustees on the new board have implemented draconian changes to the pension funds, things such as cancelling the annual pension board training trip to Key West. Cue the outrage; from the Post story:

Paul Payne, the city’s budget director, said going to an industry conference in South Florida looked less like education than vacation. And he told Kenny Mitchell, a firefighter trustee who wanted to go, just that.

Meeting minutes relay what happened next: “Trustee Mitchell responded to Trustee Payne with a profane remark.”

I’ve been to Key West many times. It is uniquely wonderful for many things. Pension board training is not one of them.

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen just passed, once again, a bill to return the pension plan to the control of the fireman’s union instead of the new city board that runs it for the benefit of both firemen and taxpayers. That means having a pension system that pays fireman what they deserve, but also considers the interests of the taxpayers at the same time. It doesn’t mean pension training trip to Key West, nor does it mean half-million-dollar cash payouts on top of the pensions. What does St. Louis City’s budget director think it means?

The [proposed] move will consolidate pension oversight under a firefighter-run board that spent double what a city-run panel paid for administration last year. And Budget Director Paul Payne says it would be a first step toward taking the pension system back to where it was a decade ago, when years of rubber-stamping benefit increases led to a budget crisis and forced painful cuts.

“Their history,” Payne said of the firefighters, “is not one of saving money.”

Mayor Jones has vetoed the legislation, just as Mayor Krewson vetoed it previously, and as Mayor Slay would likely recommend after having spent considerable time, effort, and political capital during his term making these necessary reforms in the first place. Good for Mayor Jones. Pension funds should be run for the benefit of those government employees promised good benefits in accordance with the overall fiscal health of the city and its taxpayers, not just one of them.

The post Taxpayers Getting Burned appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To summarize, about 20 years ago Hazelwood annexed a part of unincorporated St. Louis County that had been served by Robertson Fire District. Because of an obscure and misguided law (RSMO 72.418), Hazelwood was not allowed to use its own fire department provide fire protection services to the newly annexed area. Instead, Hazelwood was required to keep paying Robertson Fire District the amount it was due from property taxes within the part of its district now within Hazelwood. (It’s more complicated than that, but those are the basics of the arrangement.)

That part is troubling enough, but what happened over the ensuing years is that the fire district was able to convince voters in that area to increase their property taxes dramatically, because the residents did not owe the increased taxes like they normally would. In this case, the entire city of Hazelwood had to pay the higher taxes that benefitted (perhaps) a small number of residents. These elections were likely held on little-attended election dates where small groups of residents were able to wield outsized influence. The fire department union probably comes into play here, as a very politically active union can more easily dominate a fire district than a city fire department, although it can certainly do so with the latter, too.

Over the years, it has gotten to the point where Hazelwood is considering bankruptcy to pay the insane taxes it owes a fire district for services Hazelwood could and should be providing itself to these residents. This situation reflects everything that can go wrong with local government in Missouri—high taxes, inefficient government, and the imposition of taxes on taxpayers who have no say in the matter to benefit special interests. I wrote about this issue in my paper on Special Laws in Missouri. RSMO 72.418 needs to be changed so that cities that annex or incorporate have the option of providing fire services to the new parts of a city if that is what the new residents want. It is reasonable to require some type of payment to the fire district in these instances, but the current law allows the rampant abuse we are seeing in St. Louis County by the Robertson Fire District and needs to be substantially changed.

The post Robertson Fire District Changes Move Forward appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A few decades back, the City of Hazelwood annexed some adjoining land into the city. That land was previously unincorporated and had been served by the Robertson Fire Department. Because of an arcane and misguided law applicable in St. Louis County (RSMO §72.418), Hazelwood was required to pay Robertson the property tax revenue in the annexed area for Robertson to continue providing service there, even though Hazelwood was entirely willing and able to provide fire services in that area via its own municipal fire department at lower cost. As part of the agreement reached after the annexation, the residents of the area pay a portion of the property tax (as is normal), but the city itself pays anything above the initial tax level. Since that agreement was reached a long time ago, voters in Robertson have approved extremely high property tax rates, which is easy to do because the city—not the property owners—is responsible for the increased property taxes for the portion of the fire district that lies in Hazelwood. Confusing? Yes, it is, and that’s the point. Fragmented government, low-turnout elections, obscure special taxing districts, politically active public-employee unions: taken together, they create the perfect environment for government mismanagement and abuse.

The situation has gotten so bad that Hazelwood is saying it may have to declare bankruptcy. Some residents of Hazelwood have put together a citizen’s group to demand change, and they have successfully placed a recall election for the Robertson board on the November ballot. Average citizens are now engaged in this issue, and that is what the Robertson board should fear the most.

What is the solution here? Well, there are several options. There is the political solution, which will be addressed in the upcoming recall vote. Then there is the direct policy solution, which is to repeal RSMO §72.418 and allow municipal fire departments to serve annexed areas. But there is a bigger issue here, and that is the political influence of the firefighters union and its ability to dominate independent fire districts (and some municipal fire departments, too, no doubt). From this Post-Dispatch story:

Also opposed is Local 2665 of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Only a handful of districts in St. Louis, St. Charles and Jefferson County—including the Northeast district—have fire boards controlled by directors whose campaigns weren’t backed by the union.

The Robertson issue is just one local example of this larger debate. I saw what happened when local politicians in University City tried to oppose the fire union, and it wasn’t pretty. I commend the Hazelwood elected officials for their stance here, but to stop the abuses of firefighters unions in our area many more voters and local officials will need to get involved.

The post Where Is Robertson Fire District, and Why Do They Take So Much of Hazelwood’s Tax Money? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Too often, local officials have resisted oversight of Missouri public schools and districts. School bureaucrats from across the state have pushed back against Sunshine requests filed by the public, including many from the Show-Me Curricula Project, and now lawsuits are flying. I’ve heard stories from concerned parents and teachers about their treatment by school officials and their fears of persecution for speaking up about controversial issues.

This is not how parents and taxpayers should be treated by our public education system. Enough is enough.

In an effort to put the power of schooling back in the hands of the public that funds it, today I am introducing the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights (MPBR).

The MPBR emphasizes two objectives—transparency and accountability—and sets out reforms that would allow taxpayers and parents to see exactly how their schools and districts are operating and what they are teaching. Titularly highlighting parents’ role in the education of Missouri kids, the MPBR is geared toward promoting good, responsive governance in taxpayer-supported schools and school districts. Certainly, many of these reforms could be just as easily applied to other local governments like cities and counties—and eventually should.

But the taxpaying public should have an unambiguous right to see what’s being taught to their kids, how schools are performing, and how money is being spent. Taxpayers and parents should be able to use every tool available to them to ensure Missouri kids can have a productive educational career and life. For that to happen, taxpayers and parents must have oversight of the educational bodies in our state.

As I’ve written before, the privilege of taxing comes with a duty of forthrightness and responsibility. Denying that forthrightness and responsibility is to entertain the idea that government rules the people and not the other way around. The MPBR seeks to proclaim unequivocally where power in our system resides—with the people—and to emphasize that transparency and accountability are non-negotiable preconditions to accessing tax dollars.

Stay tuned in the days, weeks, and months ahead as we go into greater depth on this initiative.

We’ve only just begun.

Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

The parents of Missouri’s children have a fundamental right to participate in and direct the education of their children. In order to effectuate and protect those rights, the state hereby adopts an approach that affirms “sunlight is the best disinfectant” to ensure parents can see, understand and trust representations made by state and local education officials about their children’s education and equips parents with the tools to make informed choices to educate their children especially if, in their judgment, the unique needs of their children are not being met.

Those rights include but are not limited to:

• the right to transparent access to school and school district curricula and lesson plans, made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
  • Curricula shall be available to the public at least 30 days before the beginning of a semester’s classes.
  • Because they are often formulated up to the date of instruction, lesson plans shall be available to the public no later than 30 days after the date such course materials were taught. Parents nonetheless have the right to request such materials directly from teachers prior to that time.
  • The right to instructional material includes the right to transparent access to school and school district faculty and staff training materials, also made available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on a website hosted by the state.
• the right to transparent access to school and school district academic performance information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and based on data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
  • the percentage of all students scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
  • the percentage of students in each reportable subgroup, including race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English language learners, scoring at the Proficient level or higher on all assessments administered under the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)
  • the Growth score in English/language arts (ELA), measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 through 8
  • the Growth score in math, measured in National Curve Equivalents (NCE) for grades 3 thru 8
• the right to transparent access to school and school district financial information in an easy to understand and electronically searchable format, available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance. That information shall be regularly updated and shall include:
  • transactional data similar to that produced from an accounts payable report, and if practicable rendered in a manner similar to the existing Show-Me Checkbook website maintained by the Treasurer’s Office.
  • the district’s latest financial statements filed with the state.
• the right to transparent access to contract negotiations between the district and labor groups with whom the district is considering entering into labor agreement (a new section under RSMo Chapter 162) including access to all materials used in negotiation and all finalized documents that describe the legal obligations of parties pursuant to an agreement. Such documents shall be available in an electronically searchable format and available at all times online on the homepage of the website hosted by the district (an expansion of RSMo §162.208) and submitted to the state to affirm compliance.
• the right to choose existing educational choice options provided by law that best suit the learning needs of their children.
• the right to request to opt their children out of the classroom for any presentation of content listed in the syllabus with which they disagree.
• the right to control their children’s likeness in district materials, subject to exceptions like court orders.
• the right to control their children’s health and identifying markers, including but not limited to the right to opt out of health measures not required by state order or statute.

Failure by a school or school district to abide by these rights and expectations could subject the school or school district to financial penalties by the state and administrative penalties affecting the privileges afforded districts under state law.

Download a Copy of the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights

The post Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But starting in paragraph four, a massive story—with greater implications than a simple story of institutional failure—begins to emerge. The reason the union is going “out of business” isn’t just because it’s short on money; it’s because over 95% of the employees were choosing not to pay the MCOA for its representation. (Emphasis mine)

In December, Parson’s Office of Administration announced it would end dues withholding for 5,500 employees who oversee some of the state’s most dangerous rapists, murderers and drug dealers.

The administration said it ended payroll deduction because the union’s contract had expired. It was not clear, however, why the decision came in December because the contract had expired in September.

But as of Friday, the effect of that decision was clear: Just 209 of those workers are paying dues to the union, despite attempts by the MCOA to convince guards to continue paying.

That’s an extraordinary figure. Months after it became clear the government wouldn’t be withholding dues for the union, fewer than 4 percent of the covered employees chose to continue funding the organization. That so many of these workers have decided not to renew their union memberships makes the implied, potentially decades-long wrong committed against these employees all the more extraordinary.

How much money was redirected to a union that apparently didn’t have the support of its members? How much money is being redirected to other unions right now that don’t have the support of their membership?

Whether it’s a statewide union or a local union, government workers should have a regular opportunity to opt into paying union dues—or to simply keep their money. It’s appalling that the MCOA was able to survive so long without the apparent support of its members, and it’s broadly concerning for all other public union members for whom the government remains a union dues collector.

The post The Appalling Lede Buried in Prison Guard Labor “Dispute” Story appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But while the ruling is disappointing, it isn’t altogether unexpected, either. As I wrote in a paper on the subject of government union reform published earlier this year, “ongoing statutory tweaks and court interventions—driven by interests on both sides of the government–labor debate—seem likely to shape how, and whether, reforms are implemented for years to come.” Government unions weren’t going to give up their power easily even in the face of changes to the law, and it seemed reasonably clear after the lawsuit was filed that an adverse ruling was certainly on the table.

That doesn’t mean reform efforts will or should come to an end as litigation on such matters makes its way through the judicial system. In fact, there was plenty for the state still to do even before the Court’s decision on HB 1413, especially ensuring collective bargaining agreements are catalogued by state regulators, and we observed as much in the paper:

Whatever HB 1413’s eventual disposition, any oversight regime that cannot identify all the subjects of that oversight will fail to meaningfully execute its mission. Without effective oversight, the likelihood of patently illegal contract provisions rises. That’s bad for taxpayers and government workers, but it’s also bad for the rule of law.

Currently the legislature is hearing bills dealing with “paycheck protection” reforms, which we’ve talked about before and were part of HB 1413. But as the legislature takes stock of the government union landscape as it moves toward the completion of its legislative year in May, policymakers should also take a hard look at whether the state can effectively oversee any of the reforms that it’s contemplating and whether it has delegated sufficient power and resources to officials to ensure the will of the legislature is being carried out. Changing the law is fine, but a law that can’t be or isn’t enforced will be ignored.

The post On Government Union Reforms, Present and Future appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the aftermath of the decision, government unions were unable to convince many non-members to become full-fledged members and pay dues. As I discussed in a previous post, union financial reports submitted to the Department of Labor show the National Education Association lost the 88,000 non-member agency fee payers it had in 2017. And the Americans Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union lost 110,000 agency fee payers. The financial reporting of another large public-sector union, the American Federation of Teachers, does not reflect the impact of Janus because its reporting period ended in the same month as the decision. However, a new report from the Freedom Foundation states that “union spokespeople indicate the union lost nearly all 85,000 agency fee-payers it had at the time of the decision.”

As Kovacs notes later in the piece, the Janus decision doesn’t only affect non-member fee payers, who in many states were the primary beneficiaries of the case, but also union members themselves. As the ruling notes, “Unless employees clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them, this standard [for waiving one’s First Amendment rights] cannot be met.”

But are union members aware of these rights? Kovacs persuasively suggest that the answer is no, and that state law can still act as a barrier to securing these rights.

Prior to the Janus decision, workers who wished to opt-out of union membership were restricted by what are known as window periods. For example, in Michigan, many public employees could only leave their union once a year during a short period of time in August. Other window periods only permitted members to leave the union for a brief time period around the anniversary of their hiring.

Despite the text of the decision that allows workers to resign union membership nearly at any time, labor unions are still blocking workers who want to leave by enforcing these invalid window periods. In a recent case, Hendrickson v. AFSCME, New Mexico public employee Brett Hendrickson, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, was prohibited from exercising his Janus rights to resign from union membership. Hendrickson, a quality control specialist for the New Mexico Human Services Department, attempted to leave AFSCME Council 18 and stop dues from being deducted from his paycheck, but was told he could only opt-out during a narrow window period. This is just one of many examples of unions coercing worker to continue paying dues and undermining their First amendment rights.

To what extent Missouri government workers are having their rights curtailed is the subject of rigorous debate. For instance, a court injunction against House Bill (HB) 1413, which reformed much of Missouri’s labor law framework, has created uncertainty as to what the law is on basic issues like union membership and representation. Also, collective bargaining agreements in the state were (to be generous) lightly overseen by the state even before HB 1413 became law, meaning that violations of workers’ rights could be ongoing—and hardly anyone would know about it. Fortunately, Missouri did not technically allow for “fair share fees” of the sort that Janus put an end to nationwide, so many Missouri workers had at least incidental knowledge of their labor rights in the Show-Me State. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case.

The better educated workers are about their rights, the better off they will be. Especially in this post-Janus legal environment, that educational process is more important than ever.

The post Are Government Unions Adequately Informing Workers of Their Rights? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, the legislation was held up almost from the beginning. On August 27, 2018, a cavalcade of labor interests, including the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, filed suit against to state to block the implementation of the law, and on March 8, 2019, its motion for a preliminary injunction against the law was granted. This meant that even though the law had already been subject to enforcement for about six months, HB 1413’s reforms are no longer in effect, pending litigation. Currently, the court is considering an order of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, meaning that the judge could soon conclude that the facts and law weigh so heavily in their favor that a full trial would be unnecessary. Your guess is as good as mine on how the judge will rule on that motion.

To be plain, it’s terribly disappointing that HB 1413’s reforms were blocked at all by the courts. As Show-Me Institute researchers have noted in the past, court rulings have made substantive reforms in this area nearly impossible. In the last 20 years, Missouri courts have established new constitutional rights for organized labor from old constitutional language, upending decades of precedent in favor of state judicial activism. That HB 1413’s credible reforms have been tied up in this legal environment at the lower court level is unfortunate for Missouri taxpayers and government employees alike.

Perhaps more disappointing, however, is the stasis that the litigation has imposed on legislative action in these areas, suffocating opportunities to tweak legislative language or otherwise accommodate the courts in effectuating the will of the people. Keep in mind that this was a law passed to protect taxpayers and workers alike by updating the state’s government labor framework. That litigation surrounding this case could continue for years, and will come at the cost of workers’ rights and taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

The post Missouri’s Government Union Reforms Still Tied Up in the Courts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When?Janus vs. AFSCME?was decided earlier this summer, its immediate effect was on the 22 states that allowed government unions to collect agency fees from workers. Thanks to?Janus, those government workers can no longer be compelled to support a union as a condition of employment. But fortunately, workers in Missouri had those rights already by statute, namely Missouri Revised Statute §105.510. That section makes clear a number of things, but relevant to the agency fee discussion?is this?(emphasis mine): 

For instance, Crystal City in Jefferson County appears to have amended an existing agreement on March 26 of this year to add a provision requiring employees to pay and become union members, to pay the union the amount of union dues but not be a member, or be fired.?Page 13:

Meanwhile in a contract agreed to this past June, the City of Grandview also included in its contract with Grandview Firefighters, Local No. 42, a provision compelling non–union members to support the union’s activities through a “modified agency shop.” Page 2 of the agreement: 

The post Agency Fees in Government Aren’t Allowed in Missouri, But That Didn’t Stop Some Local Governments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One big problem, however, is that many of these agreements are effectively unknown to the public, and to date there hasn’t been a concerted effort to gather these local agreements and their variations, including memoranda of understanding and other, less-formalized agreements between labor organizations and government. Hundreds of these agreements could be out there, and yet research in this area is surprisingly sparse.

That’s where the Show-Me CBAs Project comes in. By gathering these bargaining agreements, we hope to make it easier for the public to see what their elected representatives have committed taxpayers to in the past, In addition, the Project can also make compliance with HB 1413 an easier undertaking both for government workers and for government regulators charged with implementing HB 1413’s reforms. This project is ongoing, and to date, the Institute has already gathered over a hundred bargaining records, available here. But more are on the way. Stay tuned.

The post Introducing the Show-Me CBAs Project appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I and others will have more analysis of this over the next few hours and days, but suffice it to say that this is a win for supporters of the First Amendement, for government employees, and for taxpayers.

2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting publicsector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Pp. 7–47.

(a) Abood’s holding is inconsistent with standard First Amendment principles. Pp. 7–18.

(1) Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. E.g., West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 633. That includes compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers. E.g., Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U. S. 298, 309. In Knox and Harris v. Quinn, 573 U. S. ___, the Court applied an “exacting” scrutiny standard in judging the constitutionality of agency fees rather than the more traditional strict scrutiny. Even under the more permissive standard, Illinois’ scheme cannot survive. Pp. 7–11.

The post Supreme Court Rules Against Agency Fees in Janus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Government Union Reform Passes the Legislature appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That isn’t to say the issue doesn’t crop up from time to time. In 2013 non-union officers in Kansas City had their employment threatened by the union when they refused to cough up money for the union’s activities. And while that incident is an exception to the Missouri rule, it’s an episode that supporters of good government in Missouri have to keep in mind as they survey the policy landscape post-Janus. 

Indeed, Janus brings with it the opportunity to reassess public policies that generally provide considerable latitude to government unions. Most states have a laws on the subject that are literally to the left of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, since Roosevelt himself was highly skeptical of collective bargaining and traditional unionization among government workers. Not only does the risk persist that a union could elect members into government to negotiate them sweetheart contracts, but the prospect of a company’s failure that faces private labor negotiations hardly ever truly attaches to a government agency—if economic conditions go sideways, taxes can be raised, services can be reduced, or some combination of the two could take place to protect the government union’s interests.

Point being, government unions have been given a wide berth to operate over the last half-century, and it is overdue that the latitude they’ve been granted was reviewed—in light not only of the law and the Constitution, as will happen in Janus, but of good policy as well. Government union members, non-union government employees, and taxpayers certainly deserve better than the status quo.

The post In Janus, A National Reexamination of Government Unions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Regular public union recertification elections.

Regular public union elections would give workers the right to elect union representation to fixed terms. Regular elections would help keep union actions in line with worker interests and lead to competition among unions. It would also help prevent backlash from union leadership in response to decertification petitions.1

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Currently, Wisconsin and Iowa require regular public union elections.

THE OPPORTUNITY: The Commonwealth Foundation recently gave Missouri a letter grade of ‘D’ regarding its public labor laws. Show-Me Institute research indicates that regular union elections need not be prohibitively expensive and offer a way to ensure that unions serve workers—not the other way around.

KEY POINTS

• Public workers in Missouri should have the right to choose who represents them.
• Regular elections would make unions more accountable to those they represent, just as regular government elections pressure politicians to be accountable to voters.
• Regular elections can be held at a reasonable cost to taxpayers.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: A Primer on Government Labor Relations in Missouri

Essay: The Low Cost of Labor Reform

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Public Union Recertification appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Also coursing through the state House and Senate, however, are two important measures that would protect government employees as well. My former colleague John Wright wrote at length about the substance of the first measure, dealing with recertification votes and transparency in government unions. That basket of reforms will likely also include common-sense financial transparency requirements for government unions as well, consistent with disclosures private unions already file. Taken in total, that worker empowerment proposal is a game changer on its own.

The second measure, Paycheck Protection, also deserves attention from good governance supporters. Rather than forcing workers to opt out of a union, Paycheck Protection flips the presumption by allowing employees to opt-in to a union instead. It’s sort of like a mini-recertification vote; if an employee wants the union to represent her, she can confirm her support and continue the representation, or do nothing and keep her money. Either way, it’s the employee that’s empowered, not organized labor.

This year’s government union reform proposals are superior to versions that were proposed in previous years, in no small part because they don’t carve the rights of first responders from the bill. Why those rights have been carved away in the past is a subject of debate, but dealing strictly with the policy itself, passing a government reform bill that doesn’t protect first responders would be disappointing. First responders should be able to see what their union is spending money on, to keep or drop a union that represents them, and to retain or give the money in their paychecks that may currently underwrite a union’s activities. That this year’s law includes these workers deserves praise. I never understood why first responders would be deserving of fewer rights.

If these reforms are enacted, Missouri workers will have a lot to be excited about in the months and years ahead.

The post First Responders Have Rights, Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s not that I’m anti-union—I’m simply anti–bad ideas.

I grew up in a union household.  My dad was a union carpenter until the day he retired.  The union helped secure a good income for him, along with great benefits and a healthy pension. It also provided many wonderful memories for me. I can vividly recall the union picnics where the RC Cola flowed like wine and my brother and I cleaned up at all of the games. 

It wasn’t until later that I realized what a union was or why unions were formed. For my dad and other laborers working on rooftops, in factories, or in situations where working conditions were hazardous, unions provided a means for increasing safety and improving working conditions.  As I sit in my air-conditioned office, I see little in common between my father’s work environment and mine.  Moreover, I see little reason to believe unionization could cure any of the ills we see at UMSL.

It is no secret that times have been rough on our north St. Louis County campus.  Student enrollment is down and state appropriations for operating expenses have yet to rebound to pre-recession levels. These circumstances helped to create a multi-million-dollar budget shortfall that forced university officials to lay off dozens of staff and adjunct faculty members.

My colleagues who wish to organize point to this and a host of other issues as reasons for unionization. They argue that salaries for adjunct instructors are too low, salaries for non–tenure track professors are too low (and such professors don’t get tenure), faculty salaries are too low, and we haven’t been able to hire new faculty for two years because of a hiring freeze.  Regardless of whether these things are true, unionization is hardly the answer. 

Unionization doubles-down on rigid policies that will not work, and it stifles the type of creativity we need.  It would create more bureaucracy through collective-bargaining processes and stifle the entrepreneurial spirit by locking individuals into rigid pay structures. This system will not help us, because faculty members and adjuncts are not widgets; we are not interchangeable.  The various members who make up the faculty and adjunct ranks at the university are unique professionals with varying skill sets.  We are professionals and our individual interests can hardly be represented by a single bargaining entity.

Don’t get me wrong: we do need to rally together as faculty—we need to rally in support of innovation. We need to organize in favor of creativity and efficiency.  The problems we face at UMSL are not unique.  Throughout the country institutions of higher learning are experiencing the same crisis.  While we complain about our salaries, college tuition costs continue to rise faster than costs for medical care. Meanwhile, technology is creating competitors we never dreamed of.  We cannot continue to do business the same way and expect the same—let alone better—results. 

Despite the challenges we face, many great things are happening at UMSL.  The campus itself is being rejuvenated with new buildings at every corner. The new Recreation and Wellness Center is top notch.  The Science Learning Building and Anheuser-Bush Hall will provide wonderful learning opportunities, and the new Optometry Patient Care Center will allow us to serve our community better than ever before. 

All of this construction has brought new life to campus. Our challenge is to do the same thing for our programs.  Unionization can’t do that, but we can. 

The post Unionization-the Wrong Solution for UMSL Faculty appeared first on Show-Me Institute.