Until 2025, fire protection districts in parts of Missouri—mostly rural areas—were allowed to impose a sales tax of up to one half of one percent within their district. In the 2025 legislative session, a bill was passed to give all fire districts the ability to impose a sales tax, and also increased the maximum tax to one percent. Have any Missouri fire districts (and the smaller ambulance districts) taken the opportunity to ask voters to approve this new or higher sales tax?

Of course they have. It seems like almost all of them, especially in the five urban counties where fire and ambulance district sales taxes were previously prohibited.

Property taxes were how fire districts were entirely funded in those five urban counties. The rest of the districts also primarily relied on property taxes where the sales tax was limited to one half of one percent. That is apparently going to change. It shouldn’t. Fire protection literally protects your property, and should be paid for as such, through property taxes.

But of course, fire districts (and municipal fire departments) don’t actually fight many fires anymore. They answer medical calls and respond to car accidents, which are not so closely tied to one’s property. Here is a chart from Marginal Revolution.

If a higher sales taxes pass, the fire districts are required to reduce their property taxes by an amount equal to half of the new sales tax collections. That’s nice, I guess, but it still means a substantial increase in funds for the fire districts. Fire districts will have to justify all the new spending, which they will mostly do by continuing to send the full fire truck out for a huge number of calls that don’t require a fully staffed fire truck. While this chart and the prior one end in 2010, the changes they noted since 1985 have not reversed in the past 15 years. The number of annual fires has leveled off, simply because it gets harder to reduce something once it has declined dramatically (which is wonderful). The number of career firefighters has continued to increase, reaching 364,000 by 2020.

Fire districts, particularly the larger ones in suburban areas, are often controlled by fireman’s unions. They get their allies elected in low-turnout April elections. Yes, the fire district officials care about public safety. Nobody disputes that. But they are often intensely focused on increasing pay and pension benefits for their members. Unlike city officials who have to fund a municipal fire department along with many other city departments under an umbrella of citywide tax revenues, fire district officials only care about their fire district. They don’t have to put funding into a bigger picture. They just want to maximize funds for the district.

Everyone wants quality fire protection, and firemen certainly deserve good pay and quality benefits. But taxpayers can’t afford to maintain the very generous benefits as is, and expanding the tax base for fire districts by allowing more and higher sales taxes is likely going to end up increasing those salary and benefits substantially. Will it lead to better public safety for the people of Missouri? Maybe. Will it lead to much higher local spending? Definitely.

The post Fire District Sales Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Bloated Bureaucracy and Failing Kids The Case for School Choice with Christopher Talgo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Prevailing wage laws are harmful because they inflate the cost of projects taxpayers pay for or, in these cases, subsidize. Research on the subject suggests that prevailing wage laws can increase the total cost of public construction projects by as much as 25 percent. For local governments with many projects needing to be built, that could mean lower-priority but beneficial projects will go undone for lack of funding. Repeated year after year, the harm done by leaving these projects uncompleted compounds, leaving the community with fewer and inferior government services compared to what market labor rates would have otherwise allowed.

DBE programs require that a certain amount of work involved in a project go to contractors and subcontractors owned by women or minorities. DBE programs also inflate the cost of projects for taxpayers and have often been vehicles for fraud and abuse. Increasing costs and encouraging criminal activity . . . where do I sign up?

Finally, the proposed law requires that bidders offer apprentice-training programs, which are generally found in union shops. There is nothing wrong with apprenticeship programs, but instituting such a mandate is blatant favoritism for union shops over nonunion competitors. It would be a substantial burden for a typical independent, nonunion company to create an apprentice program before it could bid for a project. Whatever that burden may be, the county council has absolutely no business mandating it. This is a blatant ploy to guarantee that union companies will win all county bids.

Not surprisingly, much of the language in the bill was put in by unions, according to the Post-Dispatch story.

I am a strong opponent of tax incentives and subsidies for businesses, but imposing these types of regulations on all sorts of projects in St. Louis County is a terrible abuse of the political process. St. Louis County has no business making these rules, and, indeed, I question its legal authority to do so in some of these cases. Local government should address the major issue of incentive and subsidy abuse by saying “No” far more often. Saying “Yes, but with a bunch of new regulations and red tape” is the worst policy of all.

The post Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Download the full report here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Michael Hartney is a Hoover Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, an associate professor in the department of political science at Boston College, and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is also a research affiliate at Harvard University’s Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), and, in 2020-21, a W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell Hoover National Fellow.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post How Unions Choose School Board Candidates with Michael Hartney 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.

Less funny are the continuing efforts by the St. Louis City fireman’s union to return to the extremely generous and biased-against-taxpayers pension system of the past. After years of political fighting, the Slay administration successfully revised the fireman’s pension system in 2012. The new plan put control of the fireman’s pension under a board of city appointees— under the old system, the pension was run by the fire department and the union itself. What was wrong with the old system? Well, nobody was watching out for the taxpayer’s interests, and they are the ones who paid for everything.

Ever since those changes were made, the union has been “never stopping” in its efforts to get the old system back. How generous was the old system? Well, the former director of the fireman’s pension system, Vicky Grass (who was subsequently elected to the board of aldermen), received a cash payout of $579,000 when she retired in 2015, on top of her monthly $4,870 monthly pension. That’s $579,000 in taxpayer dollars! What did Ms. Grass think of the changes to the new system?

“The new system is not as good as the one we had,” Grass said.

Well, I would think not if you were enjoying the benefits of the old system.

But the city and taxpayers are not being exploited by the union now, and firemen are still receiving the fair benefits and pension that we all agree they deserve. How much money has city government been able to save with the pension reform? This article from 2015 documents the savings the city experienced shortly after making the pension changes:

The city pays when there is a shortfall. In 2013, the city pumped $20 million into the system. Pension reforms have since reduced the city’s liability. Paul Payne, the city’s budget director, said the city paid $1 million into the system in 2015. And it’s not expected to pay anything in 2016.

Mayor Krewson vetoed the attempt last year to change the pension system back to the old system, and hopefully Mayor Jones will do the same if it comes to that. Honestly, it should not come to that at all, but this is a classic example of a special interest group carrying outsized influence with elected officials—in this case, members of the board of aldermen the union helped put into office in the first place. Controlling pension costs for public employee unions is a key responsibility of local government. The City of St. Louis deserves credit for the reforms it made, and those reforms need to be kept in place.

The post The Fireman’s Union Never Stops Never Stopping appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Post-Dispatch story notes that some politicians and employee unions are upset that they have not been included in these plans so far. Fine, include them in the planning going forward. Problem solved. But don’t let them—especially the employee unions— stymie this plan. I don’t see why they would—there are so many vacancies in the current 911 systems that I would be surprised if any jobs would get cut. If employee unions have constructive ways to improve the 911 system changes, then we should listen to them. If the Board of Aldermen does its job and asks tough questions about the plan, then those questions should be answered.

But keep the new plan moving forward. This is the low-hanging fruit of changes that could improve public safety for the people of St. Louis and save tax dollars at the same time.

The post 911 System Cost Savings Are No Joke appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The residents of St. Louis County are either served by municipal fire departments, such as the Clayton Fire Department, or by independent fire districts, such as the Monarch Fire District. The fire departments are run by the mayors, city councils, and city managers of their respective towns. The fire districts are run by independently elected fire boards.

In past years, there have been plenty of scandals in fire service management in St. Louis County. Clearly, the scandals must have been in the municipal fire departments, which is why the plan is to eliminate these departments and replace them with the Ceasar’s wives of the fire districts. Right?

Wrong.

The scandals in the fire districts have been well documented over the years by the Post-Dispatch and others. (Unfortunately, I am unable to locate online the main series of investigative stories from the Post-Dispatch that was published about 20 years ago—the lessons in it still stand.) It is the fire districts that have seen consistent financial mismanagement and worse. So why would somebody propose eliminating fire departments and expanding fire districts? Who would possibly propose such a thing?

The fireman’s union, of course. It is likely easier to take electoral control of an independent fire district than a city hall. People pay much more attention to their votes for mayor than their votes for fire district board. Mayors and city council members must consider the costs of fire service as one of many important services their cities provide and put that within a context of overall taxes and spending. Fire district officials just think about spending money on fire services, usually with much less oversight than a city hall gets. In a few places in recent years, such as the Mehlville and Monarch fire districts, newly elected members of the districts have attempted to better control costs. Things have improved at those two major fire districts, but at the price of constant vigilance by the residents. There have been more recent examples of taxpayer abuses in the Northeast Fire District, and the Robertson Fire District is continuing to squeeze the City of Hazelwood to this day.

While nobody says democracy should be easy, you also don’t want to make it harder than it needs to be by constantly growing the number of special taxing districts that voters have to carefully pay attention to. Special interests can benefit from this lack of attention by the average voter, and that is why fire departments should remain under municipal control in St. Louis County.

Merging a dozen municipal fire departments in mid–St. Louis County into one large fire district is a bad idea. You almost have to admire the audacity of it.

There were some good ideas and some bad ideas in the Better Together proposal of a few years back. The work the organization did with the fire departments was probably some of its most poorly done work.

We do need more consolidation, service sharing, and less fragmentation in St. Louis County government. This proposal by the fireman’s union is absolutely the wrong way to go about it.

The post Ready, Fire, Aim appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

America’s infrastructure needs are genuine and significant. Investment in basic infrastructure (power, transportation, water supply, etc.) has failed or barely kept up with depreciation, leaving the country with an aging infrastructure stock with dwindling years of remaining service life. Moreover, although the United States spends roughly the same on infrastructure as it did in 1956 in inflation-adjusted per capita terms, it gets less bang for the buck today. In particular, the cost per mile of interstate construction has more than tripled in inflation-adjusted terms since the 1960s.

This combination of flat spending and rising costs means less actual new infrastructure. Worse yet, costs vary widely across states. From 1956 to 1993, high-cost states spent more than $8.8 million more per mile of interstate than low-cost states, and $3.3 million of this differential is due to factors under policymaker control. Thus, rather than measuring the ambition of a bill by the sticker shock of its price tag, a superior metric is to evaluate the quantity and quality of infrastructure it is likely to produce and what spillovers it will generate for economic productivity. On both counts, the Biden Administration’s plan falls far short.

First, the composition of spending in the bill appears not to have gone through any credible cost–benefit analysis to determine where best to allocate scarce (or not so scarce, given the size of the bill) dollars. For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers reports that 20 percent of the more than 4 million miles of roads in the United States are in poor condition; the same report estimates a nearly $800 billion backlog of maintenance and repair needs. Why, then, does only 5 percent of the bill (see Figure 1) go to roads and bridges, only promising to fix 20,000 miles worth of road? Moreover, why spend nearly the same amount on public transportation even though only 5 percent of people rely on it to get to work? The bill also includes Medicaid expansion of home and community-based services (HCBS) masquerading as “infrastructure.” The administration every right to make its case for a “care economy” agenda, but simply calling it infrastructure to piggyback off of the popularity of spending on roads and bridges does not make it so.

Figure 1

Secondly, and more egregiously, the American Jobs Plan’s prevailing wage, project labor agreement, and PRO Act provisions are a huge giveaway to unions that would likely raise costs, reduce growth, tilt the playing field, and overturn the will of voters in states that passed right-to-work laws to safeguard worker freedoms. The practical effect of these measures will be to reduce the number of infrastructure projects that can get completed for a given amount of spending and to needlessly harm economic performance through the elimination of worker freedom protections.

Lastly, the Biden plan partly finances the eye-popping $2.3 trillion price tag by raising the corporate income tax, thereby undermining the very competitiveness that infrastructure investment is supposed to enhance. Even the administration tacitly admits the harm such a tax hike will cause for the economy, offering only to beg other countries to raise their own taxes to prevent them from attracting companies looking for friendlier business environments in what the Biden administration misleadingly calls a “race to the bottom.” It’s hard to imagine any countries taking us up on the offer. In all fairness, the American Jobs Plan does promise workers whose jobs are displaced counseling and case management services, though many will unsurprisingly prefer to keep their job instead.

In sum, America’s infrastructure could use a jolt of investment, but the spending priorities in the bill are off target and in many cases unrelated to true infrastructure. The bill is littered with union giveaways that will raise costs and reduce the quantity of new infrastructure that could otherwise be produced, and the promised corporate tax hikes counteract the same economic growth that infrastructure spending aims to ignite. But it’s not too late. The Biden administration should learn from previous mistakes, when the Obama stimulus failed to improve the nation’s highways, and instead refocus on a pro-growth and fiscally responsible approach to solving America’s pressing infrastructure needs.

The post The Biden Infrastructure Bungle appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Download the 2021 Missouri Blueprint Here

The post 2021 Missouri Blueprint: Moving Missouri Forward 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 a recent article in the journal Perspectives on Politics, Sarah Anzia and Terry Moe examine whether pension plans that have pension beneficiaries serving on the board are more likely to underfund their pension systems. In the paper, they explain the logic behind underfunded pensions:

Another basic feature of pension politics is that public workers and their unions have incentives to support the chronic underfunding of their own pensions. Due to state statutes, constitutions, and judicial decisions, pensions promised by state politicians are backed by strong legal protections almost everywhere; and public workers thus know they will eventually get what they are promised even if their pension plans are currently underfunded. Indeed, because full funding on a regular schedule would be tremendously costly for state (and local) budgets— crowding out other services, forcing higher taxes, making the true costs of pensions painfully transparent to citizens —public workers and their unions have incentives to prefer that their pension plans be underfunded. Underfunding enables the fiscal illusion that pension benefits are much less expensive than they really are. If public workers and their unions want increasingly generous benefits in future years, they need to convince the public that these benefits are not costly to provide. At the same time, underfunding keeps employee contributions to their own pension funds at low levels; and by keeping contributions by their employers down, they are freeing up public money for other government services, keeping public workers employed—and providing funds for their own salaries and raises.

Each of Missouri’s three teacher pension systems (Kansas City, St. Louis, and Public School & Education Employee Retirement Systems of Missouri (PSRS)) have board members who are also members of the pension system. In St. Louis, the system is currently funded at 78.1%, the lowest funded ratio since 1992. Kansas City’s funded ratio is just 66.2%. PSRS, the system which covers teachers throughout the rest of the state, has the highest-funded ratio, 84.4%. These figures, of course, rely on the pension plan’s rosy assumptions. More conservative (and arguably more realistic) estimates put the funded ratios for each of the plans below 60%.

Overall, support among teachers for Missouri’s teacher pension systems is high. But would teachers continue to support the pension plan if they had to increase their contributions to fully fund their plan? 

The post Why Are Public Pensions Often Underfunded? 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.

But regardless of the extent to which the case affected a given state, the Court’s ruling highlights a pair of important questions that Missouri educators have to grapple with each year: namely, why might teachers join a union, and if they joined, what would their dues pay for?

Unionized teachers do receive some tangible benefits from their membership, such as legal services in the event they’re fired or sued, and liability insurance. The cost of union membership varies depending on location and the union involved; dues are typically either flat, such as the annual $219 for the Missouri State Teachers Association, or a percentage of salary, such as the one percent for the St. Louis chapter of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Of course, if a teacher doesn’t join, he or she is still covered by the salary schedule; not joining has no impact on things like health insurance, tenure, or seniority.

But if a teacher does join a union, a portion of their union dues often goes to advocacy work and to support political candidates. Given the diverse opinions of teachers, the funneling of dollars to particular causes often runs afoul of an individual teacher’s own personal beliefs. For example, at the national AFT conference just a few weeks ago, a resolution was passed that stipulated what policies a candidate must support to receive the union’s endorsement. These included, among other things, universal health care, universal and free child care, doubled per-pupil expenditures for low-income students, and free college

What a lot of teachers don’t know when faced with the decision of joining a union is that the vast majority of the benefits unions offer are also available through other vendors. For example, dues for Association of American Educators (AAE), a non-union professional organization for teachers, are just under $200 per year, and the benefits are similar to those offered by unions—disability insurance, legal protection—but without the politics. And if joining a group of any kind isn’t your style, teachers can always buy many of the benefits they want a la carte on the open market.

In short, Missouri teachers have a lot of options in determining how they’ll advance their professional interests—and they can do so with or without the political speech embedded in the operations of a government union. And especially after the passage of HB 1413, teachers in Missouri are particularly empowered to have a say in who represents them to their districts, and to see how unions spend the money they receive from members. Perhaps one day, public school teachers will even be able to negotiate their own employee contracts and have a freer hand to choose their health insurance and retirement plans, like many of the rest of us already have. But until then, Missouri teachers still have a lot of choices that they can make, and fortunately, subsidizing a union’s political speech doesn’t have to be one of them.

The post Missouri Public Teachers, Take Note: Union Membership Is Optional appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s not hard to understand why teachers are angry. In Missouri, the average teacher salary in 2000 was $51,100 (in 2016 dollars) and in 2016 it was $48,300. But the question is: Who should they be mad at? Can the folks in Jefferson City give raises to all Missouri teachers? They cannot. In most Missouri districts, school boards negotiate with the local teachers’ union to determine salary schedules. So somewhere along the line, even as spending per student increased from $8,900 to $10,500 (both in 2016 dollars), higher teacher salaries have gotten lost.

One important factor has been the growth in staff since 2000. Since that time Missouri’s public school enrollment had a net increase of  4,250 students, but public school staffing increased by 5,500 individuals, about half of whom were teachers. That’s right—there have been more adults hired to teach and run schools than there have been new students. I’ve written quite a bit about legacy costs (pensions and buildings) consuming more and more education dollars, but staffing increases are a huge driver of lower teacher salaries—the payroll money is being spread among more and more employees.

In 2015, the average pupil/teacher ratio in Missouri was about 14:1, and the average spent per student was $10,500. This means that about $150K was spent to run the average classroom. If I were a teacher and only about 30 percent of what was spent in my classroom went to my salary, I’d want to know where the rest went, and why. I’d also like the option to bump my class size up to 15 or 16 students if I were able to keep the increased funding.

I’m not second-guessing staffing decisions, but school districts have to make tradeoffs between hiring more staff or paying teachers more—and they seem to have chosen the former. If teachers don’t like that, they need to go to the actual decision makers—school boards and superintendents, maybe even those who represent them at the table–and demand something different. And if they’re paying dues to their local union to do their negotiating for them, they may want to consider how that’s working out for them.

[[{“fid”:”4907″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”Teacher’s desk”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”Teacher’s desk”},”type”:”media”,”field_deltas”:{“1”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”Teacher’s desk”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”Teacher’s desk”}},”attributes”:{“alt”:”Teacher’s desk”,”title”:”Teacher’s desk”,”class”:”media-element file-default”,”data-delta”:”1″}}]]

The post Who’s to Blame for Stagnant Teacher Salaries? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We already have a RTW law – passed by the Missouri Legislature and signed by the governor in early 2017. It was supposed to take effect on Aug. 28, 2017. However, on Aug. 18, organized labor groups collected enough signatures to give voters the choice of implementing the law (with a “yes” vote on Prop A) or rejecting it (with a “no” vote). A simple majority wins.

At a labor rally in St. Louis on June 23, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka joined with other labor leaders in proclaiming that RTW would set off a “race to the bottom” for all workers, not just union members. He said: “Proposition A will lower wages, destroy jobs, (and) increase poverty.”

Naturally, no union boss who can limit the supply of labor to members of his own union wants to give up that ability. Who wants competition – when you are in the cushy position of not having to compete? But the idea that competition is bad for growth and job creation is complete nonsense.

In fact, RTW states have consistently outperformed forced-union states in job growth, personal income growth, and economic growth. That’s not a matter of opinion; it comes from hard data provided by three federal bureaus (Census, Labor Statistics, and Economic Analysis) over the ten-year period from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, average job growth in the 22 states with RTW laws in place for most or all of that time was more than twice as fast (at 9.1 percent) as in the 28 forced-union states. The RTW states also had considerably faster growth in personal income (at 54.7 percent compared to 43.5 percent), and a much stronger economic growth (50.7 percent compared to 38.0 percent).

And there were other ancillary benefits, including faster population growth (more than double that of forced-union states). From 2004 to 2014, many Americans voted with their feet in moving into RTW states and out of forced-union states.

The devastation that befell the U.S. auto industry during and after the 1980s exemplifies what happens when companies are kept from responding to market forces as a result of compulsory unionization, forced to pay an artificially high price for labor, and forced to absorb “legacy” costs (health care and pensions) they cannot possibly afford over the long run.

During the Great Recession of 2008–2009, two of the three big automakers – GM and Chrysler – would have collapsed but for government bailouts totaling billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Meanwhile, Toyota and other foreign manufacturers that had opened plants in RTW states continued to perform well without bailouts.

In 2012, Michigan – the state that gave birth to the United Auto Workers union – became the 24th state to adopt RTW. Gov. Rick Snyder said that he believed that the legislation would lead to “more and better jobs for Michiganders.”

It is not just employers who benefit from right to work. It is anyone and everyone who seeks employment. Compulsory unionization represents an unfair and counterproductive abridgement of the freedom of people to offer their services to the highest bidder; they should not be locked out of an opportunity because a union with political clout has been granted a broad monopoly over the supply of labor.

The post How and Why Prop A Will Boost Jobs and Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I was, after all, a male entering elementary school teaching. There was a chance that I’d give a child a hug or have them sit on my lap and someone would leap to the wrong conclusion. Before I knew it, I’d be falsely charged with some crime. Or, heaven forbid, a student would get hurt while under my supervision and I’d be sued for negligence. Still more likely was that I could be discriminated against, harassed, or targeted by a reckless administrator. Whatever the situation, the message was clear—I needed to join a union for the protection it offered. A union, I was told, would watch out for my interests; it would have my back.

My professors, whom I believe were well intentioned and likely just following the advice they had received, prodded and pushed me to join a student chapter. So, I did. Having spoken with many teachers over the years, I’m fairly confident this is the number one recruitment strategy of teachers’ unions in the state. If I was ever told that a union would help me grow professionally or become a better teacher, it was only an afterthought.

When I began teaching first grade in southwest Missouri, I went from student membership to a full-fledged membership. Over the next two years, however, I began to realize that my beliefs were not in line with the union’s agenda. I supported limited government, individual responsibility, and free-markets. The union, I discovered, did not.

At the same time, I also began to realize that the fear that led me to join a union was based on erroneous information. Lawsuits against teachers are not that common. In a 2009 article in the Journal of School Leadership, Diane Holben, Perry Zirkel, and Grace Caskie noted, “Empirical research on school litigation frequency suggests a decreasing, rather than increasing, basis for fear of litigation, contrary to the common conception.” The likelihood of a teacher getting sued independent of the school is miniscule, and the school district wins these cases nearly 90 percent of the time. Even if I was worried about lawsuits, I found I could get liability insurance through other means. The union wasn’t the only option for watching my back.

Fortunately, I was a public-school teacher in Missouri, where I had the right to work without joining a union. This meant I could not be compelled to join the union or forced to pay dues to support collective bargaining. It also meant that I did not have to financially support causes that violated my conscience. All workers should be so lucky.

The post Teachers’ Union Recruitment Thrives on Fear appeared first on Show-Me Institute.