Skip to main content

Public Unions and Obscure Election Dates Create a Perfect Storm

Wouldn’t it be great to pick your boss? I don’t mean choose between two competing job offers based on which boss you prefer. I mean that you and your coworkers get together and pick a boss based on who is going to be the easiest to work for: someone who won’t interfere with your work, won’t call you out when you’re acting against the interest of your customers, someone who will sing your praises to the public, and let you work for another organization on company time.

Public sector unions everywhere wield undue power over the elected officials charged with overseeing them. In many states unions dominate every aspect of politics. Right to work laws, and the state culture that created them, are meant to shield Oklahoma from this fate. But when public employees are able to band together and withhold essential services, especially those services they have fully monopolized by virtue of the fact that only government provides them, elected officials have little choice but to cave. This is the central theme of 1889’s latest paper, which not only identifies the problem, but also suggests a solution. 

But there is more to it than our paper reveals. Oklahoma’s ridiculous number of election days creates a system in which very few people turn out to vote in most elections. School boards and municipal offices don’t appear on the November ballots when most Oklahomans expect to vote. They don’t appear on the lower-turnout June primary ballots either, nor the March Presidential Primary. 

Instead, local and school board elections occur in February and April, when people have their attention on anything but exercising the vote franchise. The elections are poorly noticed. The Oklahoma County election board’s website disclaims any responsibility for informing voters about actual voting dates: in spite of the last scheduled election for the year having passed nearly three weeks ago, the board notes that the dates listed on its website are tentative. How is an engaged citizen supposed to know when to vote? Is it likely that the average taxpayer-voter will remember these important local elections? 

You know who rarely - if ever - forgets to vote in local elections? The people employed by school boards and city governments. Public sector unions have an outsized vote in most local elections. They’re paying attention to those voting days. They are reminded to vote every day at work. They know their future pay is determined by the winners of these elections, as are the other terms of their contracts. They turn out in droves to make sure the officials elected are either sympathetic to their cause or too weak to out-bargain them. This, when combined with the power to collectively bargain, the credible threat to strike, and to actually strike, concentrates far too much power in their hands. 

In law, it is taken for granted that no one may be the judge in their own case. Isn’t it equally obvious that no group of employees, especially government employees, should be able to pick their own supervisors? It is important to remember that while public employees are bargaining for their own pay, the people across the table from them, the officials they had an outsized role in electing, are not spending their own money. They are negotiating on behalf of all taxpayers. Isn’t it fair to ensure that all taxpayers have a hand in electing them? 

So, of course Oklahoma should ban collective bargaining by state and local governmental entities, as suggested by the paper. Texas did just that in 1993 - when Democrats controlled its statehouse. Oklahoma should also consolidate election dates and stop allowing unions to act as the people’s overseers, effectively denying our right to vote with obscure election dates.

Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org. 

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

What’s So Bad About Occupational Licensing?

Why does accepting payment for a service make an otherwise-benign activity suddenly illegal? Accepting money is what distinguishes cutting a friend’s hair for free from a criminal mastermind who takes money for illegally performing cosmetology or barbering without a license. Have you ever paid for a bad haircut? Did the cosmetology license prevent it?  Have you ever had a bad meal in a restaurant (which is, by law, highly regulated)? Have you ever had an outstanding home cooked meal prepared by someone without a license? So how much do licensing and regulation do to ensure high standards?  Occupational licensing is something of a pet peeve for us here at the 1889 Institute. We devote a whole section of our website to it. Why do we care so much?  The Institute for Justice estimates that occupational licensing costs consumes an average of $203 billion per year nationally.  Licensing undeniably hurts the economy through deadweight loss - when the labor market...

Hey Minnesotans: Come To Oklahoma; Police Disbanders: Get Serious

I’d like to take this opportunity to invite anyone from Minnesota, especially those from Minneapolis, to come to Oklahoma. Here's the thing: you’d better come fast. Once your police force is dismantled , and unless it is immediately replaced by another suitable law enforcement organization, how long do you think will it be before your city will quickly resemble a third world country, a dystopian hellscape, or perhaps the mythical old west? It’s not difficult to imagine, in a city with no police force, a scene from The Dark Knight Rises becoming a reality.   Oklahoma is far from perfect. Our police are far from perfect, just like our citizens. We’re trying to be a top ten state. We haven’t met that goal in all areas yet. But we are also not in danger of declaring the rule of law dead and buried. We realize that lawlessness and anarchy are not better for society than even an imperfect police force, especially one constrained by law and disciplined by courts. Our police have made mi...

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. ...

I Abstain: Why I Refuse to Vote in Judicial Retention Elections

Over a million Oklahomans voted in the recent November 3rd election. For most, the presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is what drove them to the polls. However, some were likely confused when they reached the bottom portion of their ballot marked “Judicial Retention Elections.” What are judicial retention elections? Every two years, certain judges are placed on the ballot for a simple yes/no retention vote. These elections stem from Oklahoma’s   judicial selection method , and ask voters whether they want to keep, or retain, certain judges. Elections are staggered so judges only face retention every six years. Many claim that the merit selection method is a more sophisticated, apolitical judicial selection method than the federal model or the partisan election model, but in reality it is   much worse   than either of the two. In essence, the retention vote was a patronizing attempt to make “merit” selection more palatable to   voters back in the...