The Collective Bargaining Myth
Speaker John Pérez and Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg are showing their true colors today. Apparently, the final hang-up in budget negotiations is pension reform — Governor Schwarzenegger and Republicans are insisting the Legislature roll back pension promises for state workers, while the Democrats want that to be achieved through “collective bargaining.” That would mean the unions themselves would have to agree to the rollbacks, instead of the Legislature imposing them.
It’s no surprise that Pérez and Steinberg would be arguing for collective bargaining: they don’t want the California Democratic Party to be on record voting to reduce compensation or benefits for its master and biggest benefactor – government employee unions. They also know that SEIU has so far refused to budge on anything in their talks with the Administration, so by insisting on collective bargaining, they are hoping to strengthen the union’s hand in its goal of extracting concessions in exchange for pension reform.
Doing pension reform through collective bargaining rather than legislation means government employees would be getting something in return, which of course has to be paid for by taxes and/or cuts to programs. That’s why the Perez/Steinberg gambit is so hypocritical: their talk is about protecting programs and small business but their walk is all about protecting government employee unions.
And finally, let’s note that much of today’s most egregious pensions problems exist today because of a bill, not collective bargaining. That’s right: SB 400, which passed in 1999 with the votes of Steinberg and others (including some spineless Republicans) boosted pensions to the level they are at today.
So if this mess was caused by legislation, then shouldn’t it be fixed with legislation?