MuniLand

Public unions: How strong is their influence?

By Cate Long
April 19, 2013

Recently I participated in a podcast for the non-profit Freedom Works. One of the topics was how much influence public unions have on federal, state and local politicians. I said that I had not seen academic studies, but my own belief is that their over-sized political influence has allowed them to increase wages, benefits and advantages for public workers. It doesn’t look all that different from how corporations and Wall Street buy political influence through elections and legislation.

This is from a University of Pennsylvania study that maps union support to favorable fiscal decisions:

Our empirical analysis focuses on municipal elections in the 150 largest cities in the U.S. between 1990 and 2012. We find that challengers strongly benefit from [union] endorsements in competitive elections. Challengers that receive union endorsements and successfully defeat an incumbent also tend to adopt more union friendly fiscal policies.

In 2010, the Wall Street Journal commented on public union political spending at the national level:

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

“We’re the big dog,” said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME’s political operations. “But we don’t like to brag.”

Was there a quid pro quo for the spending? From the WSJ again:

The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren’t likely to support extending such aid to states.

The payoff multiple that public unions get for political spending appears to be as potent as Wall Street’s corporate giving.

There is another outcome that shows the influence that public unions can exert. By manipulating the political process, they can in effect elect the members on both sides of the negotiating table. From National Affairs:

Through their extensive political activity, these government-workers’ unions help elect the very politicians who will act as “management” in their contract negotiations — in effect handpicking those who will sit across the bargaining table from them, in a way that workers in a private corporation (like, say, American Airlines or the Washington Post Company) cannot. Such power led Victor Gotbaum, the leader of District Council 37 of the AFSCME in New York City, to brag in 1975: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”

The vast majority of public workers do a very good job, but their political influence has clearly created imbalances in the economy, particularly in areas like retirement benefits. It’s clear from data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that the distribution of these public benefits far exceeds anything the private sector has. Compare the bottom row to the top row:

The scale of retirement benefits for public workers is unsustainable. As I wrote in January, municipalities have three choices to deal with underfunded retirement liabilities: negotiate, litigate or go bankrupt. There are actually two more choices: either raise taxes or cut other spending such as education. At the end of every year, state and local budgets must balance. The political arguments over how to do it are sure to heat up.

Further:

Sun Foundation: A Roadmap for Releasing Municipal Lobbying Data

Comments
2 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

I had a taxpayer group from the outside come to speak at my town (Milford ct-hr from NY)meeting a number of years ago..once the town workers got wind of it they packed the meeting and some of the aldermen left due to aggravation. We have many teachers in our town that teach closer to NYC in Conn. If our teachers are faced with some kind of issue, out of town teachers who are Milford taxpayers will attend the meeting, the same holds true in other towns..Milford teachers who live in Fairfield will attend their meeting as taxpayers. People in private industry cant coordinate this as they have more risk, accountability, can lose thier job, have no union. In that way govt and ed workers are doubly and triply represented.

Posted by olderbutwiser | Report as abusive
 

If The Democrats Didn’t Give ” Sweetheart Deals ” To Your Public Service Union.
Goon Employees To Get Reelected; You Would Have Plenty Of Money and The.
Taxpayer would have Some Spare Change in His Pockets! Democratic Hustler
Politicians + Corrupt Union Goons = BANKRUPTCY BABY! Time To Bring.
RICO Conspiracy Charges Against The Hustler Corrupt Democrats and the.
Criminal Unions!

Posted by eatingdogfood | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  • # Editors & Key Contributors