The Public Employee Union of the Wisconsin State - Research Paper Example

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 History of Public Employee Unions 5 3.1 Current Debate between Public Employee Unions and the States, Public, Media, Political Parties, and the President of the USA 10 3.1.1 Description of the Events 10 3.1.2 Results of the Debate 14 4.0 Conclusion 16 References 18 1.0 Introduction A labor union is referred as an association of workers who are involved to negotiate collectively with their employers about the terms as well as conditions of employment (Farber, 2001). In Wisconsin, a state of the United States, the employee labor union is a strong prospect. The numbers of members are growing day-by-day. This paper is related to the struggles faced by the public employee union of the state during an issue related to the collective bargaining. Wisconsin in February 2011 fell under a dispute of collective bargaining and budget deficit. The governor of the state, Scott Walker introduced a bill regarding the budget shortage of $3.6 billion over the subsequent two fiscal years and said that it would be overcome if certain measures were followed. The governor in order to balance the budget deficit of the state proposed to confiscate collective bargaining from the public sector employees. The negotiation would only be restricted to their wages but it would only be increased up to consumer price index. The employees need to contribute more for pension and medical benefits but there would be no bargaining power. The employees in their working period had made a few contributions for pension benefits and now it is not possible to remove such benefits. The unions were of the opinion that the issue was a political attack to weaken the substantial support of the government workers from the public employee union. However, the government said that they were just conducting their duty for the welfare of the state otherwise the state would suffer from budget pitfall. If such proposal is approved, then it would affect the government workers, teachers, nurses and various other professionals. However, the government had decided to prepare the ultimate proposal related to the collective bargaining and would not accept the proposal of union members. The governor was of the opinion that stripping the public employees of the rights of collective bargaining and restraining the subjects of basic wages would provide the state a flexibility regarding the finances to be attained in sequence and also spare the tax payers from misery (Williams, 2011). These types of issues can be solved by logical obligation of cost on each side. Such issue can arise in any situation in the state but it would need to be solved by negotiating, taking into concern the welfare of both sides. The eligible public employees are also required for the government sector. Thus, the favorable decisions from the part of government are important for heartening the employees. This type of union is organized in order to improve the public service related to their improvement of wages, general welfare, working conditions and collaboration between employees and employers (Public Employee Union Local 1, n.d.). The collective bargaining right was given to the employees by law. The governor of a state suddenly could not remove such right of bargaining power from the employees. The paper covers the historical context of public employee union by citing examples. In this paper, the entire dispute of Wisconsin and their results has been discussed. Finally, the summary of the paper is discussed with critical analysis of both negative and positive basis. 2.0 History of Public Employee Unions Labor unions have been termed as "private combinations of workingmen" that endeavors to raise wages and boost the working conditions of the union members. The jobs of Government constituted the ‘healthy’ part of structured labor where outside competition provides little or no discipline against union incompetence, privilege and price. In 1960, the union members were 900,000 which became 4 million by 1970, 6 million by 1976 and in the year 1993 it became 7 million; but in 2008 the number of members decreased to 7.8 million. The order generated the laws of collective bargaining in the states of New York, Michigan, Washington and Pennsylvania. The states had private sector unionism. The National Education Association (NEA) was considered as the largest public-sector labor union with members of 3.2 million in United States. This organization had not been the part of AFL-CIO federation of unions (Reynolds, 2009). The beginning of public employee union is a current event that has taken place in the history of public organization. The public employee union has added a new aspect to the world of public manager. This situation has introduced new practices in employment as well as public services and has an influence in the financial position of government institutions as well. From the late twentieth century to the early 1960s, public-sector unions did not possess any legal or authorized right related to strike, bargain, or arbitrate and the government workers could possibly be fired for joining a union as a member. Slater examined the clashes of public-sector unions in the workplace, courts and political ground from the disreputable Boston police strike in the year 1919. The other disputes were related to teachers in Seattle fighting a ‘yellow-dog rule’; the BSEIU in the year 1930 indicating public-sector janitors; the prospect of the great ‘Transit Workers Union’ after New York City acquired the subways and also the long fight by AFSCME that formed the first ‘public-sector labor law’ of nation in Wisconsin in 1959 (Slater, n.d.). The history of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) began in the year 1932 when Wisconsin was suffering from economic depression. A group of white collar professionals formed a small group with a view to promote, defend and improve the civil service system across the countries. This group then later turned to be as Wisconsin State Employees Union/Council 24. The fear in the mind of the state employees was regarding the politicians those would spoil the system and as a result thousands of people would lose their job. For saving the system in nationwide basis they extended such organization in the major places by the end of 1930 (AFSCME, 2011). The perspective of AFSCME began to change from the year 1950. Several members were joining the organization and also a few blue collar workers with strong trade unions and traditions had joined as members. The merger with the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in 1955 possessed 40,000 members and made a commitment towards collective bargaining as the means to improve working conditions. A series of strikes and revelation in the year 1958, in the New York City forced the mayor to grant collective bargaining rights to unions representing city employees. In 1960s the struggle of the organization was related to the movements of civil rights. Progressive unions such as AFSCME joined students along with civil rights activists as they took to the streets to make objection of economic together with racial domination. Several states had enacted collective bargaining laws by the end of 1969 and the membership of union grew to more than 250,000. At the bargaining table, AFSCME along with other unions acquired considerable breakthroughs in their living standards such as living wages and family health insurance that greatly exceeded those achieved by non-union workers (AFSCME, 2011). The members of AFSCME enhanced their efforts politically for gaining collective bargaining law, arrange new members and exert influence on behalf of existing members. AFSCME also enjoyed achievement in affiliating independent union of public employees. 60 associations, representing 450,000 members got connected to AFSCME by affiliation or merger. In 1978, with the affiliation of New York’s state, Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME membership approved the ‘1-million-member mark’. Due to its growth in all over the countries, it had provided the union a powerful voice when the time came for injustice. In 1981, AFSCME staged the strike for the first time regarding the matter of pay equity. It affiliated in 10 states with pay equity action of their own including lawsuits, legislations and bargaining demands. In 1980s, it was successful in the rights of collective bargaining and structured workers in Alaska, Nebraska, Ohio and Illinois. In 1990, by means of state legislature increasingly in the hands of the right wings, it became further complicated to enlarge collective bargaining. Governments at each level required to cut costs by means of constricting public service jobs as well as assaulting the hard-won advantages and wages of union members. The members of AFSCME in 1998, dedicated to much violent program related to political action and organizing the unorganized workers. About 320,000 public service workers joined AFSCME in 1998 as members. They were food service workers of private sectors, health care workers, child care workers, public sector officers, social workers of every race along with religious background and university employees (AFSCME, 2011). In the 20th century, the members of the union became 6% of the labor force. In the United States, the tradition of 20th century unionism was the work of American Federation of Labor and its leaders (Reynolds, 2009). Canadian Union of Public Employee (CUPE) is the largest union of Canada which was developed in the year 1963 by connecting ‘National Union of Public Employees’ and ‘National Union of Public Service Employees’. This union was created with an intention to provide strong influence to the rights of workers, their equality as well as superior class of public service. CUPE is related to the collective bargaining, their wages along with price control. There were 570,000 members associated with the union. This union described the struggle of working people as well as the union and also showed that unions played an imperative role in building a country as well as a state (CUPE, n.d.). The membership of the union was deteriorating day-by-day. The union membership rate in the US has dropped down from 12.3% to 11.9%. The workers, who were related to the union with regards to salary and wage also decreased from 612,000 to 14.7 million. In the year 2010, 7.6 million public employees were associated with the union as compared to the private sector employees. The rate of public sector employee union was 36.2% and the private employees union was 6.9%. The union membership rate of local government employees was 42.3% in public sector. The number of workers related to wage and salary was 16.3 million in 2010. The government employees of about 783,000 were under half of 1.6 million workers, who were under the contract of union but not the members of union. The whole-time wage and salary of the workers under union possessed an average of $917 in 2010. The workers who were not represented by the union had an average wage as well as salary of $717 in the same year. The collective bargaining was represented by the difference between the influences in the allocation of union members and non-union members by depending on their occupation, firm-size, industry and others (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). 3.1 Current Debate between Public Employee Unions and the States, Public, Media, Political Parties, and the President of the USA 3.1.1 Description of the Events The government of Wisconsin targeted the benefits of public sector employees and Medicaid programs for dealing with the budget deficit in Wisconsin. The state would face a budget shortfall of $137 million in the fiscal year of June 30, 2011. Gov. Scott Walker said that the entire collective bargaining rights would be eliminated from the state except the negotiating of wages of local public sector employees. However, the salary could not be raised beyond consumer price index unless and until voters in the authority approved the hike. The contract would be restricted to one year and pay would be set till the next contract got settled. The employees of public were barred from collecting the union dues and the collecting bargaining members were not supposed to pay dues (Bauer, 2011). Around 175,000 public employees were prohibited from collective bargaining related towards pension and health care contribution. However, public employees were also required to submit yearly certification votes for maintenance of the rights to represent workers in future ‘scaled down negotiations’ (International Communist Current, 2011). Scott Walker was of the view that the union workers are required to make contribution of 5% to their pension and health insurance. They had to contribute up to 12% because the workers used to pay 4% for the pensions and 6% for health insurance costs (Bauer, 2011). These two items would produce $30 million by 1st July and near about $300 million for the subsequent two years after combining with other allowances. These changes were essential according to the government since it would facilitate to prevent layoff of 6,000 employees of the state along with 200,000 children from the Medicaid program. The main concern of Scott Walker was related to balance the budget of the state rather than target the benefits of public employees (Bauer, 2011). The governor refused to remove the proposal related to rights of collective bargaining and required the entire concession. The governor was forced to bring thousands of people to the Capitol and urge them to comprise on sweeping bill that had been made. This proposal was considered as the first to be build against public employee union by the Republican governors. The aspects of Walker’s proposal would allow the state to make any changes related to Medicaid without approval of Legislature in spite of current law. The Wisconsin State Employee Union said that the state workers had already sacrificed for balancing the budget by means of 16 unpaid days as well as there was no pay hike for the last two years (Bauer, 2011). The collective bargaining of a few state or local government employees was allowed by three-fourth portion of the state. From Florida to California, several political leaders were looking to slash the wages along with benefits of public sector employees with the purpose of balancing the strained budget. The governor was trying to control the power of union government in the state. For him, public employee union is regarded as a nuisance to the taxpayer since their demand of health and pension plan gets fulfilled soon. This plan resulted in rise of taxes and made budget deficit higher. For this reason, the governor limits the union to bargain over only base wages while removing their capability to negotiate for health, pension, working hours and vacations. He also wanted that the union must win employee election each year so as to continuously represent workers. The intention was to balance the benefits and wages of public and private sector wages and also balance the budget (Greenhouse, 2011). The alternative plan of the governor to cut the benefits of public sector employees and cut the rights of collective bargaining of state workers was layoff. When the labor battles exploded in state capitals throughout the nation, a significant number of Americans said that they were against the efforts to deteriorate the ‘collective bargaining rights’ of public sector employee unions and were also against reducing the pay or profit of public workers to decrease state budget shortage. From the survey conducted, it was found that a few American opposed the weakening of negotiating rights of public employee union whereas others were in favor of taking the bargaining rights. Governor recognized that public workers were either overpaid or provided generous health as well as pension benefits. However, a few governors said the salaries in addition to benefits of several ‘public employees were either about right or too low’ from their contribution in work. 71% of Democrats opposed the weakening of collective bargaining rights and 62% independents said that they were in opposition to the elimination of bargaining rights from the public employee union. According to 45% respondents, the reduction of pay or benefits of public workers by governor was for the reduction of budget deficit. While 41% said that it was only due to decline in the power of union (Cooper & Thee-Brenan, 2011). The governor was interested to pass the bill as soon as possible with an intention to balance the budget and save the massive tax increase and lay-off (BBC, 2011). The bill would affect the government teachers, workers, and nurses. Ten thousand protestors demonstrated in Wisconsin in opposition to similar legislation restricting collective bargaining rights. A judge in Wisconsin blocked the execution of that bill as she considered legal challenges against it (BBC, 2011). Democratic senator was less in number to obstruct the bill. It was observed that the public sentiment towards union was changing for the last few years. The membership was decreasing and the unions were at peculiar situation with the common tax-paying citizen of the state. They were struggling for common good and not for money. 3.1.2 Results of the Debate The public sector workers along with more than 200,000 students occupied the state Capitol of Wisconsin in order to protest against the proposed agreements related to collective bargaining between the state governments and public employee union. In spite of the protest from the workers against removing of union collective bargaining, the bill was finally approved (BBC, 2011). The proposal of Walker was approved by special conference committee after it was exposed for financial measure. State unions agreed to the proposal of Mr. Walker's alteration to their benefits that amounted to 8% pay slash, provided that they maintain collective bargaining rights (BBC, 2011). The Wisconsin Assembly on February 2011 accepted the contentious bill containing the restriction of the power of public employee unions that has encouraged massive protests in the state Capitol for several weeks, paving the mode for the bill that had to be signed into law. The "budget repair bill" that was modified balance backs the benefits of the public workers as well as their rights for collective bargaining. The legislation, proposed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker, had been delayed in the state ‘Senate’ after all 14 Democratic state senators fled to Wisconsin in order to avoid a vote on the bill. The state House, i.e. the lower legislative chamber passed the issue in a 53-43 vote. Democrats, labor unions and their supporters of the protest, who were disapproving the bill as an assault on labor unions as well as on the middle class, had spent three weeks by protesting at the state Capitol building (BBC, 2011). The controversial law related to the union rights of the governor, Scott Walker of Wisconsin would be on hold for two months unless the judge provided time constraint and the Supreme Court interferes with the matter. When the bill was passed on March 9, 2011 the laws of state public meeting was not taken into concern and the law broke as alleged by Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne. From the meeting conducted by Mr. Ozanne, it was observed that GOP legislator violated the right of the public and failed to provide prior notice before the voting session was conducted (Belkin, 2011). The debate was still in process and the government of the state would come to final results after analyzing the overall debate. The debate had started from the month of February and the argument is still going on as it seems to be a never ending discussion about public labor union. The public labor union is a broad concept thus a final conclusion would take time. The final decision that will be taken by the government may be favorable for both the cases and may remove the raised disputes over collective bargaining. 4.0 Conclusion Wisconsin was the first state to start the employee public union for collective bargaining. The union became much strong and thus half of the nation’s worker became the member of union. However, the new governor of Wisconsin slashed the ‘collective bargaining rights’ of public employees of the state. As a result, there was a decline in the power of their union both at the bargaining table as well as in politics. The government took such a step in order to balance the budget of the state as there was a shortage of budget. The private sector employees were also of the opinion that majority of the benefits related to health and pension along with high wages were provided to the public sector employees. Thus, for balancing the compensation of both public and private such measure was also developed. The union members of the state joined the protest against the proposal that would limit the power of union and took various steps in order to stop the proposal of the governor for the removal of collective bargaining, but that remonstration was of no issue. The union members were not given any importance and there were no value of the labor union that was started first in the state, several years ago. The government ultimately approved the bill without concerning the public employees. The debate was started regarding the deficit of budget in the state and to balance it, the governor of the state proposed to remove the collective bargaining among the public employees. The government was of the opinion that to balance the budget it was necessary to remove the collective bargaining related with health and pension benefits of the employees. The negotiation would only be possible related to the wages but not beyond consumer price index. The contribution of employees for pension and health benefits was also raised from previous value. After observing the entire debate related to the Wisconsin labor union, it can be assumed that the government was doing their duty for balancing the deficit budget and it would be only possible if such measure could be adopted. The government had no personal dispute with the employees. They developed such steps merely to maintain middle class workers. If this was not done then the state would suffer from fiscal deficit. However, if the case of public employees were observed then it could be said that they were opposing such steps of government for maintaining the entire government employees otherwise each one of them would suffer in the long run. The government must balance the budget of the state but not for the sake of employees. Various other measures could also be adopted by the government beyond the matter of collective bargaining. There was no scope of negotiation provided to the union members regarding the debate and the government suddenly took the decision and also approved the bill. The collective bargaining is a right of employees according to the labor law. Thus, it is not legal to remove such a right from the employees. Wisconsin is the first to develop such a union and several employees were related to this union as member. The employees possess the right to bargain over wages, working conditions and other facilities. The union member power of the public employee union has developed to be stronger day-by-day, but they were not successful related to their protest. From the positive and negative side from both the perspectives it can be concluded that the government did not take favorable decision to eliminate collective bargaining. References AFSCME, (2011). A Short History of AFSCME. AFSCME: 75 Years of History. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.afscme.org/about/1028.cfm BBC, (2011). Ohio Passes Bill Restricting Public Worker Rights. News. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12916663 BBC, (2011). Wisconsin: Republicans Pass Public-Sector Union Curbs. News. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12695313 Bauer, S., (2011). AP News Break: Walker to Cut Union Rights in Budget. Business Week. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9LA8UD00.htm BBC, (2011). Wisconsin State Assembly Votes Through Anti-Union Bill. News. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12706251 Belkin, D., (2011). Wisconsin Union Law Could be on Hold for Months. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576237371806139358.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Bureau of Labour Statistics, (2010). Union Members Summary. Economic News Release. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm Bauer, S., (2011). Walker Refuses To Back Down From Anti-Union Bill. Business Week. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9LCRTL00.htm Bauer, S., (2011). Walker Targeting State Worker Benefits. Business Week. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9L4CB181.htm Cooper, M. & Thee-Brenan, M., (2011). Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector Unions. The New York Times. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?_r=2&hp CUPE, (No Date). History. About CUPE. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://cupe.ca/history Farber, S. H., (2001). Notes on the Economics of Labor Unions. Abstract. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/452rev.pdf Greenhouse, S., (2011). A Watershed Moment for Public-Sector Unions. The New York Times. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/us/19union.html International Communist Current, (2011). Wisconsin Public Employees: Defence of the Unions Leads to Defeat. Home. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2011/02/wisconsin Public Employee Union Local 1, (No Date). Local 1 Mission Statement. About. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from https://www.peu1.org/ Reynolds, M., (2009). 20th Century. A History of Labour Unions from Colonial Times to 2009. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://mises.org/daily/3553#part13 Slater, E. J., (No Date). Public Workers. Cornell University Press. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4063 Williams, W., (2011). Public Employee Unions. A Minority View. Retrieved Online on April 14, 2011 from http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/11/PublicEmployeeUnions Read More