The Journal of The James Madison Institute
Florida’s Public Sector
Labor Unions
by Travis Keels
L
abor unions are not intrinsically harmful. In fact, in their early
years they were a blessing for many
workers, especially for those toiling
in the private sector’s mines and
mills. In the United States during
the time of the industrial revolution,
many workers faced challenges ranging from long hours and low pay to
dangerous working conditions. By
organizing, the workers were able to
engage in collective bargaining with
their employers as well as in lobbying federal, state, and local officials
for various reforms, including a ban
on child labor. Despite some ugly
chapters characterized by violence,
widespread unionization in the
private sector was an important turning point in the history of the American workplace, particularly in the
[26]
early years when the workplace was
typically dominated by low-skill
industrial jobs.
In the public sector, however,
the history of unionization is more
controversial. One turning point
came in 1919 when the union representing Boston’s police officers went
out on strike. That’s when the ever
succinct then Massachusetts Gov.
Calvin Coolidge famously declared,
“There is no right to strike against
the public safety by anybody,
anywhere, anytime.” When Coolidge
won the Republican nomination for
Vice President, it was evident that
the public agreed.
Nowadays the proportion of union
membership in the private sector has
reached lows not seen since the early
days of unionization. Meanwhile,
Spring 2015
The Journal of The James Madison Institute
public sector unions — those representing police officers, firefighters,
teachers, nurses, and general government employees — have emerged as a
powerful political force. Many enjoy
wages, pensions, health insurance
coverage, and working conditions
that are the envy of taxpayers working in the private sector.
Much of the public sector unions’
power is based on a myth: that
stripped of the right to strike, they
were so lacking in bargaining power
that they needed other privileges.
In many states, those privileges
included “union shop” laws forcing
employees to pay union dues whether or not they wished to join and
actively participate in the union’s
affairs. A large portion of the dues
money is used to support political
activities — supporting candidates for
public office and lobbying them for
favors once they are elected. This has given public sector unions
a large amount of political power.
Often, with great power comes abuse
of that power. Modern public sector
unionization has had, and continues
to have, detrimental consequences
for the general public and, often, for
employees who deserve the public’s
utmost respect — teachers, firefighters, police, nurses, and so on. These
consequences are negatively impacting our economic, political, and
societal systems in ways that must be
addressed.
Florida is a right-to-work state.
Nobody can be required to join a
union or pay union dues in order
to get or hold a job, even if a union
nominally represents the employSpring 2015
ees in a particular workplace.
Many individuals assume that in
Florida employees in industries
with union representation enjoy the
freedom and opportunity to decide
for themselves whether or not to join.
In reality, however, this is simply
not the case. Even in a right-to-work
state such as Florida, many public
employees are faced with an unavoidable quandary: join a union and pay
dues, or choose not to join the union
and have no voice in the union that
will still be representing you regardless of your individual opinion. In
many workplaces, especially the
public schools, those employees who
resist joining and paying dues
upward of a thousand dollars a year
also may face peer-group pressure,
even threats, from union organizers.
So while it is unquestionably better
for Florida to be a right-to-work state,
the notion that this frees employees from the grasp or impact of the
unions is not correct.
The Right-to-Work Predicament
Unions seeking to represent
employees in a particular workplace
begin by filing petitions for a representation election. If a majority of
those voting support the union,
it gains the right to be the exclusive
representative of all the employees in that workplace, whether in
bargaining over wages and working
conditions or in grievance proceedings. Employees, rather than dealing
directly with their employer, must go
through the union’s “shop steward,”
a term that is a remnant of industrial unionization and a reminder
[27]
The Journal of The James Madison Institute
that the industrial model is not a
good fit for the public sector or, for
that matter, today’s private sector
economy. Likewise, on most labormanagement issues, the employers
must go through the union to deal
with their employees. This arrangement limits opportunities for union
members such as teachers to seek
out individual benefits based on
their own individual achievements
and merits. Instead, they must accept
those benefits that the union decides
on their behalf. Even for those who
choose not to unionize, this is a challenging process.
Employees unhappy with their
representation encounter obstacles
in trying to change it. Unions do not
schedule regular elections for their
officers. Instead, if members are
unhappy with their representation,
they must organize a replacement
election. This is a daunting task to
accomplish based on the sheer time,
effort, and support that members
must have.
In 2014, according to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, some 455,000
(5.7 percent of employed Floridians) were members of unions, wjile
561,000 (7 percent of employed
Floridians) were being represented
by unions. The latter set of numbers
illustrates the predicament many
Floridians face. If workers do not
join, they don’t get a say in the
affairs of the union that nonetheless will still represent them. Even
so, these non-joiners — sometimes
derided as “free riders” — are still
affected by the union’s overarching
power. This causes many workers to
[28]
decide to pay their union dues and
become members so that they can at
least have a voice in affairs that will
ultimately impact their employment
conditions.
Free-Market Approach to Unions
Floridians deserve a free-market
approach throughout the economy, including public sector labor
unions. Freedom of choice would
mean that those who wish to join a
union are free to do so, and those
who do not want to join are free
to decline without being subjected
to sanctions ranging from peer pressure, threats, and intimidation.
The concept of a free market rests
in voluntary exchanges, and it is
the government’s role to enforce
them. Voluntary exchanges allow
for individuals to freely engage in
the market. When that freedom is
hindered or lessened, as is often the
case in modern public sector labor
unions, the free market (and,
hence, overall prosperity) suffers.
The working conditions for individuals who choose not to be union
members are still largely mandated
by the union through its representative’s collective bargaining with the
management. In addition, many
unions possess such large amounts
of money and influence that they are
able to involve themselves in political
discussions and debates regardless of
the views of their members.
This points to a key difference
between private sector unions and
those in the public sector. In the
former, management represents
the interests of the employer’s
Spring 2015
The Journal of The James Madison Institute
owners — typically the shareholders. In
the public sector, management ought
to represent the interests of the taxpayers. However, because of the union’s
political power — not only derived
from campaign contributions but also
from “boots on the ground” activities such as rides to the polls — elected
officials, especially at the local level,
owe a debt of gratitude to the unions
that got them elected. Therefore,
unlike the private sector unions, those
in the public sector are often dealing
with political allies on the management side of the bargaining table.
This helps explain the lucrative wages,
unsustainably generous pensions,
and other benefits granted to public
employees in some of Florida’s largest
cities and counties.
There are, however, several ways
that Florida can deal with this problem and promote free market policies
while making working conditions
better for all citizens.
Paycheck Protection
When an individual becomes
a member of a union, he or she
is typically required to pay union
dues. These dues vary in cost with
each profession, union, and location. Public sector labor unions,
through the money raised in dues,
play a significant role in politics at
the local, state, and federal level. In
Florida, public sector labor unions
are able to spend millions of dollars
in each election cycle to elect political candidates, regardless of whether
or not their respective members
actually support them. For example,
a union could be spending dues to
Spring 2015
help elect a political candidate that a
majority of the members would not
even vote for. Paycheck protection is
a policy that has been implemented
in many states, as an effort to combat
this tactic. What paycheck protection policies do is codify that no one
should be required to pay for a political agenda against his or her will.
To opt-out of a union using an
individual’s dues for political spending is a complicated process. First
off, unions are not always required to
inform members that they are even
allowed to opt-out of union political
spending. If a member does want
to opt-out, they must notify their
union annually, and then attempt
to recover this portion of their dues.
Moreover, a union’s spending on
political activities is not always clear
and can often be disguised, misinterpreted, or misrepresented as
something else. Only when all of this
process is completed can a member
be sure that his or her dues go solely
to collective bargaining activities and
not to political activities with which
he or she might or might not agree.
Paycheck protection seeks to make
union spending more transparent
to members, who ultimately foot
the bill. With paycheck protection,
public sector labor unions must
receive consent before using union
dues for political or campaign action.
It is important to remember that
paycheck protection is a policy that
must be implemented state by state.
Each enacted law, in each specific
state, will vary to some degree in
both the way in which paycheck
protection is implemented and to
[29]
The Journal of The James Madison Institute
what degree.
The most common practice of
paycheck protection is to prohibit
automatic deductions of dues from
union member paychecks. These
automatic deductions include both
political spending and campaign
contributions. A variation of this
idea is to simply prohibit the automatic deduction of anything that is
not directly related to the union’s
collective bargaining efforts.
Historically, when union members
are given a clear choice, they
choose not to support union political
spending. This has been illustrated
time after time in states that implemented paycheck protection policies.
Implementing paycheck protection
historically reduces voluntary contributions from union members, often
by 80 or 90 percent.
Forcing a union member to pay
for the support of any politician
or candidate, regardless of the
member’s views on the candidate,
undercuts the rights of union
members. Giving Floridians the
opportunity to choose whom and
what to support politically is vital in
respecting individual rights.
Transparency and Accountability
Recertifying a union is called
re-election. Public sector unions are
not required to run for re-election.
If members want a re-election they
must request a decertification vote,
an arduous and time-intensive
process. The lack of re-elections
gives public sector unions relatively
unchecked power and a sense of
invincibility. Leaders can push what[30]
ever agenda they desire, with little
fear of the union being decertified.
In 2011, Wisconsin and Tennessee
required government unions to run
for re-election. Realistically, even
with re-elections, most unions will
continue to get voted in. However,
such a process holds unions accountable and allows the opportunity for
the majority of employees to have
a voice in who represents them.
In Wisconsin and Tennessee most
unions were in fact re-elected, but
approximately 20 percent of Wisconsin’s unions lost contested re-election
votes. The members are given power
to determine what representation is
best, as should be their right.
Current federal law requires that
private sector unions itemize all
expenditures. These reports are
posted online for anyone to access
and examine. This holds private
sector unions accountable and
gives members an understanding
of where their dues money is being
spent. However, public sector unions
are only required to produce these
reports if they represent at least one
private sector worker. The majority of local public labor unions do
not represent any private sector
workers, and consequently are not
required to itemize all expenditures
for the public to examine. All union
members (indeed all taxpayers, who
ultimately pay the taxes that fund
the union), whether they be at the
federal, state, or local level should
be able to see exactly where dues are
being spent. This would inevitably
lead to increased accountability for
public sector unions, in line with
Spring 2015
The Journal of The James Madison Institute
their private sector counterparts.
Secret Ballots
Allowing individuals the right to
vote by a secret ballot is a fundamental right in the United States. This
right should not only encompass
voting in an election for public office,
but should also be utilized when
deciding whether or not to unionize. It is of the utmost importance to
allow individuals to decide privately
whether or not they want to join
a union. To unionize in America
today, an organization must obtain
union representation card signatures
from 30 percent of its employees.
Then, the union and employer will
state their opinions and ideas. This
is followed by a secret ballot vote
where if the majority of workers vote
to join a union, then the union is
established.
“Card check” is an idea that has
been around for decades and is often
spoken about in relation to unionization. Under card check policies,
unions would only have to obtain
50 percent of workers’ signatures
on union cards to unionize, and no
representation election would be
required. Essentially, the union’s
representatives would be able to
come to a worker’s home and pressure him or her to sign union cards.
This method leads to coercion and
pressure for individuals to sign,
and eliminates a worker’s right to
a secret ballot.
To preserve the right to a secret
ballot and stop card check from ever
becoming reality, states have begun
to pass legislation or constitutional
Spring 2015
amendments to preserve the right of
a secret ballot. If the right to a secret
ballot is not preserved, and card
check were enacted, those seeking
to unionize would be free to employ
coercive methods and intimidate
holdouts, and it could be deduced
that the rate of unionization would
skyrocket. Consequently, we would
see far more political involvement
pushing union agendas, which
often run counter to their member
preferences. Voting on union representation via secret ballot allows
individuals to be free to decide in a
method free of coercion, harassment,
or retribution.
Conclusion
Labor unions in the United States
have a long and complex history.
They originated during the height
of the industrial revolution, during
a time when America faced serious
challenges with respect to worker pay
and working conditions. While the
concept of unionizing is not intrinsically wrong, union activities must not
infringe upon the rights or freedoms
of another individual. Public sector
labor unions must move toward
complete voluntary association and
greater accountability.
Florida should move toward this
goal through paycheck protection,
re-election requirements, increased
transparency and accountability, and
the right to a secret ballot. If these
items are pursued, implemented, and
enforced, then Florida’s public sector
labor unions will become truly voluntary associations that represent what
See page 36 £
[31]
The Journal of The James Madison Institute
if disaster were to strike, some can
significantly reduce many of them.
A sensible approach that recognizes the state’s role in Florida’s
property insurance system, but trusts
the market to solve many problems,
will work best and bring the greatest
stability.
In particular, the Legislature
should continue to further shrink the
Florida Citizens Property Insurance
Corporation, reduce the size of the
Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, and
promote reforms that would result in
a surge of capital to the state after a
storm to help it quickly recover both
physically and economically, rather
than saddle it with debt.
Recent history has shown that
multiple hurricanes can strike within
a short period of time. Florida must
take steps to be prepared for this
very real possibility. We must use
this time wisely and not squander
our good fortune.
Now is the time to think long
term and leverage our past efforts in
conjunction with the good fortune
of the past 3,400 days to make a
difference for future generations of
property owners and Floridians. e
Christian Cámara is Director of
R Street Florida.
ENDNOTES
Ch. 2007-1, Laws of Florida, allowed any Floridian
receiving a quote 25 percent above Citizens
rates to be eligible for coverage with Citizens;
subsequent legislation lowered the threshold to
15 percent (Ch. 2007-90, Laws of Florida).
2
Ch. 2007-1, Laws of Florida.
3
Barry Gilway, CEO of Citizens Property Insurance
Corporation. “Cabinet Presentation,” August 19,
2014 (www.citizensfla.com/shared/press/legislation/86/08.19.2014.pdf).
1
[36]
PENSIONS from page 25
istration and Policy at FSU and now an assistant
professor at the Rockefeller College of Public
Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany.
3
The grades were generated for plans using the Entry
Age Normal (EAN) and Projected Unit Credit
(PUC) funding methods. While many plans
utilize the Aggregate (AGG) and Frozen Initial
Liability (FIL) methods, those methods are
biased toward reporting a fully funded liability.
The grades in our 2014 report were generated
for the 1,688 records from 2005 to 2012 for plans
sponsored by 151 municipalities. While our decision to focus on EAN and PUC plans reduces
the number in our sample, it is not advisable to
grade AGG and FIL plans on the same criteria
as EAN and PUC plans.
4
Doing It Right: Recognizing Best Practices in Florida’s
Municipal Pensions. LeRoy Collins Institute.
August 2013. http://collinsinstitute.fsu.edu/sites/
collinsinstitute.fsu.edu/files/LCI%20BOoklet%20
-%20Best%20Practices%20FINAL%20web%20
report%208-5-13.pdf.
5
Looking at Florida’s Municipal Pensions: How Some Florida Cities Are Dealing with Pension Funding Issues.
A Joint Report from Florida TaxWatch and the
LeRoy Collins Institute. February 2013. http://
collinsinstitute.fsu.edu/sites/collinsinstitute.fsu.
edu/files/TaxWatch-LCIMuniPensionsFINAL.
pdf.
6
OPEBs can also include subsidies for retiree vision
and dental care, life insurance and other nonpension benefits but health insurance subsidies constitute most of a government’s OPEB
liability.
LABOR from page 31
is best for their members. Public
sector labor unions represent some
of Florida’s most highly respected
and honored professions — teachers,
police, firefighters, nurses, and so on.
They deserve the right to choose to
associate with their union and have
a right to hold their unions accountable in every aspect of influence. e
Travis Keels is the Director of Public
Affairs at The James Madison Institute.
Spring 2015