Yesterday, House lawmakers in Massachusetts voted to strip public workers of their collective bargaining rights, particularly as they relate to health care decisions. This comes as a general attempt to lower costs, as government officials are worried about spiraling health care costs. Given that this is happening in Massachusetts of all places, it suffices to say that this move has surprised some pro-union commentators. For instance, here is Forbes' E.D. Kain:
The really surprising thing is that Massachusetts is a deep-blue state, and the House is controlled by Democrats. Far from the Tea Party governments of Wisconsin and elsewhere, Massachusetts has one of the most progressive healthcare systems in the country, thanks to former governor Mitt Romney.
Even so, the House voted 11-to-42 to strip healthcare bargaining from public workers. The move was spearheaded by Democratic House Speaker Robert A DeLeo who claimed it would save cities and the state millions of dollars.
I don't have anything to say about the law in question, but this goes back to an earlier debate about public employee unions, and the extent to which they had an advantage over their private counterparts because of their dual status as voters and employees of the state. David Brooks' argument was typical of the conservative and libertarian side of the question:
That's because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.
As I wrote in response: "[T]axpayers may foot the bill, but they are ultimately not the employer in the government/worker relationship, any more than customers are the employer in the business/worker relationship. That role goes to the state bureaucracies, and they face pressures that aren't dissimilar to the pressures faced by private-sector employers. Most states have balanced-budget requirements and work with incentives to cut costs, as a means to lower taxes and continue services for taxpayers."
The situation in Massachusetts provides further evidence for this view; lawmakers and public sector unions have different constituencies and different objectives, and as such, are sometimes at odds with each other. The important thing is to understand that their interests are not equivalent, and in the absence of a countervailing force, it's possible for even ostensibly friendly legislators to harm the goals public sector unions. Whether this is a good thing (I think it can be) is a separate question.
