Analysts and activists have focused too narrowly on the effects of unions’ collective bargaining on government policy. It may well be that public-sector unions have achieved more of their goals—increased wages and benefits, more government employment, and more government spending—by their work in the political arena than at the bargaining table. Automatic members and reliable money for political activity are the key advantages that public-sector unions have over most other interest groups, which underscores the importance of the agency shop and the dues checkoff to their ability to defend their interests. Where an agency shop is permitted or compulsory, economist Henry Farber finds, public-sector employees’ earnings are 10 percent higher.[25]
Public-sector unions’ political power rarely leads them to get everything they want—even if they can get a lot.[26] However, they have been highly successful at blocking efforts to reform the way government delivers services.[27] For example, the teachers’ unions have staunchly opposed competition in the form of vouchers and charter schools, transparency, and performance pay, while assiduously protecting underperforming teachers. There is little doubt that these political stances have an impact on government’s effectiveness and efficiency. For example, Stanford University economist Eric Hanushek found that replacing the bottom 5 percent of American teachers with merely average instructors would catapult the United States to the top of the international educational rankings.[28]
Even if agency-shop provisions were eliminated, public employees’ First Amendment rights would remain intact. They could still band together to press for better pay, benefits, and working conditions—as they do in such states as Texas and Virginia. But like other interest groups, they would have to persuade people to join voluntarily and would have to solve the free-rider problem for themselves, rather than counting on the government to do it for them.
To level the playing field between government employee unions and taxpayers, elimination of dues checkoff and the agency shop are possible steps to take. In fact, these may be more politically palatable, and ultimately more effective, avenues of reform than are restrictions on collective bargaining. Eliminating the public-sector union’s money advantage would let workers retain their right to negotiate with their employers but put them on a level playing field in the political arena. It is the way to restore fairness to the process.
