Too Many Opponents of Collective Bargaining Reform (CIR) in Nebraska Have a Horse in the Race

Some horses are more equal than others

Image from horseclipart.com

As with any other very important issue of public policy, it is necessary to consider the potential biases and interests of the parties who make assertions or advocate for particular outcomes when you begin to inform yourself about each of the various proposals to solve the problems presented by collective bargaining by public employees in Nebraska.  Anytime someone has a vested interest or apparent bias, information presented by that person or group must be taken with a grain of salt.  After surveying the “players” involved in current efforts to reform the CIR, we’ve begun to wonder whether there could possibly be enough “salt” to go around, even if it’s taken a grain at a time.

All of the parties opposing necessary reform to the way public employee compensation is determined in Nebraska have vested interests.

Before going any further, it’s necessary to review the reasons why reform is necessary.

• First, our state and local governments are in a financial bind.  Public employee salaries, benefits, and pensions are the primary administrative expense of state and local government which, along with other types of expenses, must be cut to balance budgets.
• Second, public employee income has increased roughly twice as fast as the income earned by Nebraskans over the last decade.  In addition, the benefits and pensions earned by public employees are rarely seen in the private sector.  (Wisconsin public employees are demonstrating because they think the Wisconsin taxpayers should keep footing the bill for 99% of their health care costs and 96% of their pension contributions.)
• Third, it’s obvious no one at the bargaining table has been representing the Nebraska taxpayers.  Too often, the state and municipal officials that should represent the taxpayers actually identify more closely with the union members with whom they work on a daily basis.
• Fourth, the CIR, an unelected body, typically favors the public sector unions in disputes with state and local government employers.
• Finally, the CIR is used as a bargaining chip in negotiations between public employee unions and public employers to force concessions which are not in the taxpayers’ best interest and which go beyond the wages and salaries the CIR has jurisdiction over to influence the level of benefits and pensions public employees are paid.

Here’s the bottom line: Unions, union members, and municipal government officials see advantages in the current system and are reluctant to have it changed in any meaningful way.  Unions like to collect more in the way of dues from their membership.  Union members like to collect higher salaries and have their benefits and pension contributions paid for them by someone else (Can you say “entitlement”?).  Municipal government officials just want things to run smoothly.  Rocking the boat by negotiating aggressively with local unions causes conflict and hard feelings in the workplace.  In addition, economizing often results in fewer dollars in state aid flowing into local coffers.  There’s just no percentage in that for the local officials.  After all, they might have to raise property taxes and tick off their constituents if that were to happen.

At the risk of sounding perverse, I have to say that perhaps the best way to decide which CIR-related bill to support is to find out which one the unions and the municipalities seem to dislike the most.

While we still have much more work to do in going through the 214 page transcript from the February 7 hearings, a quick scan through it matches up with my first-hand recollections. The more rigorous in reforming collective bargaining and the CIR the bills became, the more opponents came forward and the more commonality that was seen among them.

GiN advocates prohibiting collective bargaining by government entities, which would eliminate the CIR entirely. That is why we primarily support LB664 and LR29CA. While each has the same effect on collective bargaining, LR29CA would appear on the November 2012 ballot and, if passed by Nebraskans, would become part of the State’s Constitution. (Secondarily, we support LB564 since it does the most to reform the CIR of all the other bills.)

Since LB664 and LR29CA are the two most effective pieces of legislation in remedying the problems with collective bargaining and with the CIR in Nebraska, a look at the opponents to those bills, either through testimony or letters entered into the hearing record, is very illuminating.

A look at the opponents of LB664 and LR29CA:

Nebraska Association of Public Employees, AFSCME Local 61

ACLU-Nebraska

Greater Lincoln District NAPE/AFSCME Chapter, Local 61

State Troopers Association

League of Nebraska Municipalities — “a nonprofit service association formed in 1909 to serve as a voice for Nebraska Municipalities at the Nebraska Legislature.” ( As such, it is essentially a “union” of Nebraska municipalities primarily engaged in lobbying.)

Nebraska State Education Association

IBEW Local 63

Change to Win

IBEW 1483

General Drivers and Helpers Local 554

IBEW 1597, 1536

Omaha Police Officers’ Association

Nebraska State AFL-CIO

Nebraska Professional Firefighters Association

Omaha Police Officers’ Association

Nebraska Association of Public Employees

IBEW 763, 1483

General Drivers and Helpers Local 554

Nebraska’s unions, including teachers’ unions and local government associations do not want to rein in spending. It is contrary to their perceived personal interests to do so.  HOWEVER, IT IS CONTRARY TO YOUR BEST INTEREST TO ALLOW THESE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS TO HIJACK THE PUBLIC PURSE — CONTAINING YOUR MONEY — TO CONTINUE SPENDING US ALL INTO BANKRUPTCY.