Tuesday, March 15, 2011

A Dissenting View on Public Unions

Among many others, an anonymous former colleague took exception to my recent posting ("All Politics are Local -- and Personal") on the battle between some state governors and public unions. This comment is particularly articulate, cogent, and reasoned. It deserves wider attention and consideration. – Gerald E. Lavey

"Jerry--

"I appreciate your efforts to look at this important public policy debate on a balanced basis, but I urge you to refresh your (our memories) of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO). There the Secretary and the Administrator engaged PATCO President Bob Poli and his buddies in a sincere, arduous, lengthy negotiations. As I recall the bidding, those representatives of management put on the table a proposed increase of such historic proportions that they admitted that special legislation would be needed to deliver.

"PATCO rejected that historically generous offer in short shrift with the notation that the dollars were inadequate. Bob Poli called an illegal strike (several of his key players were convicted of the relevant felony). WHY-- because unlike the private sector, he knew (actually "bet") that he could take his "case" to the Congress. The process for public employees, according to the Bible of Poli made the bargaining process irrelevant.

"History showed that Bob was a bad bettor and the Reagan Administration was more able to manage the ATC than the PATCO cronies anticipated.

"This tale was recently repeated — different actors, same script. NATCA engaged in what must be called scorched earth tactics — casting egregious safety aspersions, attacking on a vituperative personal basis the Administrator and her staff, and placing media spots designed to terrify the average flyer. They played their ugly string out again, basically again dismissed the Administrator’s office and again (this time with statutory authority) went to the Congress to be their real negotiating party. Once again, the union bet lost and the contract was affirmed by Congress.

"Game over? Not hardly. NATCA has tried to hold up the FAA Reauthorization bill in an effort to reverse their loss.

"What’s the point of these long recitations—THAT PUBLIC UNIONS DO NOT FUNCTION LIKE PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. Yes, the idea of government employees being represented by professional union representatives sounds nice. But in practice (repeatedly, i.e. more than the cited examples), the statute that allows a union basically destroys the relationship between the public civil servant and her/his manager. The lesson of “we do not have to honor the negotiating process” translates to “if we do not agree with a manager’s action, let’s grieve it.”

"As you well remember the federal government (thank you OPM then) can devise processes with timelines approximating infinity. Public unions contribute to stagnation of important work. Your old office and mine now both have titular managers and shop bosses. The grinding of the FAA’s work makes a grist mill on our own Rock Creek appear to be working at warp speed.

"Sorry, Jerry, while we worked together well back in the 80’s, we have very differing views on this issue."

Anonymous
March 11, 2011 5:07 PM

1 comment:

  1. Too bad the government keeps making the case for unions by allowing it's managers and executives to behave badly towards employees.

    The case for union protection is made every day. It would take a book, not a blog, to detail it all.

    I used to agree with the writer until I witnessed it for myself. Public Sector unions play a very important role advocating for the people who actually carry out the business of American government every day. Meanwhile, too many government executives (protected even more than union employees) stay in their positions wasting taxpayer money on projects likely to benefit them when they retire (How many FAA "Nextgen" supporters now work for Lockheed and Raytheon making more than twice their government salary in exchange for their inside influence?). But instead of focusing on that, the debate is on unions advocating for middle class wages that people may actually be able to live on???!!

    Give me a break. Wake up people. Follow the realt money. Take a look at some of the DoD contracts and who works on them. It isn't hard.

    ReplyDelete