Before starting with the Idaho Freedom Foundation in 2014, I had a long career in industry. A significant part of that time was as a factory manager. I worked in both union and non-union facilities, and I saw first-hand that there is a big difference between how unions operate in the private sector versus unions that serve government employees — those on public payrolls. 

You see, the private-sector unions that I negotiated with understood two key things: that I was the representative of the company and shareholders, and the union represented the workforce. But the unions also understood that if they demanded too much in wages and benefits, the entire business could be put in jeopardy, and they would be out of their jobs. And I understood that an engaged workforce needed to believe that they were compensated and treated fairly or quality and productivity would not meet the demands of the marketplace. 

Conversely, in public-sector union negotiations, the union is often negotiating with elected officials who the union can support or oppose at the ballot box. The taxpayer is not at the bargaining table and may only feel the costs of a contract after the elected officials have moved on. 

Two government union reform bills before the Legislature appear to be stalled as I write this. House Bill 98 (HB 98) dealing with teachers' unions and House Bill 340 (HB 340) with firefighters.

HB 98 prohibits public officials from using school district funds, personnel, and other resources to support teachers’ unions. Remember, the union is a private organization that collects dues from its members. The bill would prohibit things like paying teachers taxpayer-paid wages to engage in union business (as opposed to using personal time off or union-paid time), using district resources to deduct dues for the unions, or providing resources for union solicitation. 

HB 340 would restrict firefighters’ unions to bargaining only over wages. Currently, Idaho law allows firefighters the right to bargain over virtually everything, including all terms and conditions of employment. In other words, the union essentially takes over the management duties. A key feature of private sector union contracts is a “management rights” clause, which essentially says that what is not covered by the agreement is reserved to management. Otherwise, how can managers manage if everything is always subject to union demands, from staffing to overtime, and what equipment should be used?

Neither bill impedes the right of teachers and firefighters to organize, yet the opposition from both the teachers and the firefighters to HB 98 during the hearing was fierce. That’s right, the firefighters testified against the teachers’ union reform bill even though it had nothing to do with their union. HB 98 now sits in Senate State Affairs having passed the House with a solid margin a month ago.

And the bill limiting firefighters to bargaining for pay and wages never got a hearing. 

Even the very liberal and pro-organized labor President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) understood that public-sector unions were inherently problematic and were essentially organized against the taxpayer. He had this to say in a 1937 letter to 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. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. 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. 

A conservative state like Idaho should be to the right of an old liberal like FDR when it comes to government unions. House Bills 98 and 340 should immediately be given a hearing.