Anyone with a green eyeshade and a sharp pencil can discern that public-employee unionism is a pernicious force in Connecticut government. Strong unions are good for the Democratic lawmakers they serve so well— providing campaign money and manpower in election years— and good for union members and leaders, but not so good for business people, retirees, private-sector-union members, and nonunion working men and women.
To the extent public-employee unions are subject to negative publicity, teachers unions are in the forefront, since their constantly improving pay, benefits and working conditions have failed to give rise to better academic achievement among young people. But generally, taxpayers pay too much even for union workforces that perform reasonably well. Five studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic found that “Connecticut state employees earned from 30% to more than 40% more than comparable private-sector workers in the state, the highest premium of any state,” columnist Red Jahncke reported in 2021.
It doesn’t have to be that way. No less a pro-union icon than Franklin D. Roosevelt foresaw what Mr. Jahncke and others have described.
“The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry,” Mr. Roosevelt wrote in a 1937 letter to Luther C. Steward, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees. “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.”
In a Feb. 26 editorial, “Utah Breaks the Union Cartel,” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board celebrated the Beehive State’s recent achievement in governance. “GOP Gov. Spencer Cox signed a repeal of collective bargaining across all of state and local government, from public schools to state police and transit systems,” the board stated. “The change will let each department set pay and benefits at the levels they believe employees merit, instead of giving unions outsize influence to extort lucrative salary and pensions.” Utah thus became the third state, after North Carolina and South Carolina, “to ban collective bargaining throughout the government with no exceptions.”
On one level, Connecticut seems the state least likely to follow Utah’s lead. Its overwhelming Democratic majority in the legislature and constitutional offices stands as an impregnable bulwark against reform. But the facts— especially the ones discerned by Mr. Jahncke in his reading of multiple studies of state-employee compensation— surely have potential to drive the electorate in a different direction.
Without cost-inflating union contracts, state and municipal governments could deliver lower taxes, and more and better services to their constituents. It’s really that simple. Utahans will find out soon enough. It remains to be seen whether Connecticut’s Republican Party, or some other political entity, can carry that ball to electoral success and bring home that message.
