Well, it has finally happened: The war on workers has arrived in California.
The California Center for Public Policy announced Wednesday (July 13, 2011) a drive to place three initiatives on the ballot to eliminate collective bargaining and to punish public-sector workers.
Over the last two years public-sector employees have joined illegal immigrants as the primary scapegoats for various and sundry fiscal ills faced by the states and the federal government. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, citing a state budget deficit (that was created by a corporate tax cut passed at his behest days before), and his Republican allies in the Wisconsin legislature passed legislation that eliminated collective bargaining for state employees. A similar bill, again predicated on state fiscal woes, passed shortly thereafter in Ohio.
In Wisconsin mass resistance to the legislature and the governor produced a near-constant state of protest in the Wisconsin capital, Madison.Recall elections are underway for six Republican Senators who supported the governor’s bill. If, as is expected, those Republicans are recalled it will produce a Democratic majority in the Senate. All indications are that a recall of the governor will take place in November 2o12, giving Wisconsin Democrats and independent sympathizers two reasons to go to the polls in 2012. A state that was becoming a “battleground state” in the presidential election is quickly shaping up to remain “blue” once again.
Despite the political backlash that has accompanied their efforts in many states, it seems that Republicans across the country have identified an opportunity to use the economic crisis to confront one of their major political foes: Organized labor. The established narrative suggests that the fiscal problems in {fill in the state name} are the result of public employee unions. Conservative rhetoric is supported with alarming, but easily falsified, claims about public sector pay, benefits, and pensions; arguments are buttressed with examples of rare cases of exorbitant pension payments to retired public employees.
In a period of economic uncertainty it is easy to attack public sector workers. They have reasonable job security, fair wages, and health and retirement benefits. Many Americans either do not have these things or, if they have them, they fear losing them.
Republicans have a particular interest in attacking organized labor. Sure, they hate the idea that workers can organize, but organized labor is the single most consistent source of organization and contributions to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates. If the Republicans can destroy unions they and their (business) backers will face scant resistance to their political agenda that seeks to promote corporate interests over those of working people.
The Proposals
Let us take a closer look at the three proposals supported by the California Center for Public Policy. The first would modify the California Constitution to deny any government agency or actor the authority to bargain with a labor union. You see, it would be unconstitutional to ban labor unions since the US Constitution protects the right to free association. As in other cases like this the strategy is to ban public officials from bargaining with these groups.
1) Article 14. Section 6. Prohibition of Public Sector Collective Bargaining
No state, county, municipal, or like government officer, agent, or governing body is vested with or possesses any authority to recognize any labor union or other employee association as a bargaining agent of any public officers or employees, or to bargain collectively or to enter into any collective bargaining contract, memorandum of understanding or other agreements with any such union or association or its agents with respect to any matter relating to public officers or employees or their employment or service.
The second proposal is particularly fascinating. It imposes progressively higher taxes on those receiving public sector pensions. A surtax of 15% on those who earn between $100,000-149,000 and a 25% surtax on individuals earning pensions over $150,000. At a time when it is impossible to find a conservative willing to increase taxes, even to save the nation from default, these folks are more than willing to raise taxes on retired public employees! While I tip my hat to their willingness to consider new sources of revenue, I wonder why they harbor such animus toward such a specific group of people. Is it just me, or does this seem particularly punitive? Frankly, I think this proposal, due to its punitiveness, undermines the other two proposals that, despite being ill-conceived, might draw broader support. This just seems mean.
2) Article 13, Section 36. Income Tax on Public Sector Pensions Above $100,000 Per Year
A state income tax of 15 percent above the standard state income tax rate is hereby instituted on all public sector pensions paid by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System on annual pension income from these sources, exclusive of health benefits and health insurance, between $100,000 and $149,999; and of 25 percent above the standard state income tax rate on all public sector pensions paid by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and California State Teachers’ Retirement System on annual pension income from these sources, exclusive of health benefits and health insurance, above $150,000.
The third proposal increases the retirement age of public employees to 65. One might have started working for the state at age 23 and put in 40 years of service, but they are ineligible to receive their full retirement benefits until the age of 65. “Thanks for putting in those years, but you can’t retire yet!” Interestingly the proposal makes an exception for public safety officers; they can retire at 58. A cynic would think that this provision is intended to keep public safety unions from opposing the proposal. Of course those unions will be sufficiently aggravated by the prior two proposals that they probably will not care.
3) Article 7, Section 12. Retirement Ages of Public Sector Employees
No new memorandum of understanding or other contract or agreement between any public agency and public sector employees utilizing the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and California State Teachers’ Retirement System may allow retirement of employees with full retirement benefits at an age younger than 65, with the exception of sworn public safety officers, who may receive full retirement benefits starting at age 58.
Of course there are two questions: 1) can they get enough signatures to get the proposals on the ballot, and; 2) will California voters support these changes. Given enough money it is possible to get anything on the ballot in California. If the effort can attract the interest of some deep pockets, like those of the billionaire Koch brothers who are behind these efforts in other states, yes it will make it on the ballot. Will the provisions pass? It is possible. But public employee unions and the Democratic political machine will pour every ounce of effort (as they should) into defeating the proposals. In a Democratic leaning state with liberal tendencies it should be possible to block this effort, but if the economic crisis deepens and the backers of the proposals are able to convince voters that public employees are to blame all bets are off.
