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

Introducing a New Plan for Public Education: Put Educational Practitioners (Teachers) in Charge

The author, Kent Grusendorf, served as a member of the Texas House of Representatives for 20 years (1987-2007), all but two as a member of Public Education Committee, which he chaired for four years (2003-2007). His prior elected experience was as a member of the Texas State Board of Education for three years (1982-1984). In addition to this blog, Grusendorf is author of an 1889 Institute report also based on his forthcoming book. Saving Public Education: Setting Teachers Free to Teach is the title of my forthcoming book, which explores a potentially new professional opportunity for teachers. Most teachers are in the profession because they love to teach. However, far too many leave the profession due to lack of respect, excessive external pressures, and general frustration. Many teachers stay in the profession, but yearn for greater freedom to just do what they love: Teach. Much of that frustration comes from mandates, and a lack of professional freedom. Well Intentioned,...

What if Legislators Were Licensed? Well, Just to Make a Point...

1889 Institute, as a general matter, objects to occupational licensing. We have written about it more than any other subject. The scant benefits simply do not outweigh the enormous costs to consumers and entrepreneurs, and  the  burdens that disproportionately impact the poor.   It must be noted that the remainder of this post is a work of satire. This should be obvious to anyone who has read even one of our papers, but each of the proposals below has an analogous provision in Oklahoma licensing laws. To those supportive of government-created cartels, these proposals might sound almost reasonable.  A material threat to the public safety and welfare has for too long gone entirely unregulated, unrestrained and unchecked. This menace has the power to corrode not only mere industries, but to corrupt the entire state economy. It’s no overstatement to say that the practitioners of this perilous profession hold the power to destroy democracy as we know it. After a...

COVID-19 Proves Our Schools Are Social Service Centers First, Education Institutions Second

There is no way the 180-day (or 1,080 hours) school year can be completed by the end of previously established school calendars for this year given the fact that spring break has now already been effectively extended an additional two weeks. One option would have been to extend the school year into the summer. Given the level of family togetherness being experienced now, and the fact that incomes are being lost and many would be interested in making up the losses, it’s not unreasonable to expect vacation plans to be radically remade or canceled anyway. Instead, Oklahoma’s State Board of Education precipitously closed the schools and did not call for an extension of end-of-school dates. Thus, the summer option has been foreclosed. The State Board is within its rights. Oklahoma statutes (70 O.S. § 1-109 E) state, “A school district may maintain school for less than a full school year only when conditions beyond the control of school authorities make the maintenance of the term imp...

Robbing the Poor to Give to the Rich: Corporate Welfare in Oklahoma

Imagine that someone forcibly takes your hard-earned money and then simply gives it to a multi-billion dollar corporation such as Home Depot, Wal-Mart, or Boeing. You receive no benefit from this forcible redistribution of wealth, and the sole beneficiary is the corporation. You would most likely be outraged, and justifiably so. Unfortunately, this forced redistribution of wealth happens in Oklahoma (and the nation as a whole) all the time via a variety of state and local corporate welfare schemes.   Policymakers either take your hard-earned money (via taxes), and directly subsidize large corporations or give those corporations tax breaks nobody else can get. All of this is done in the name of jobs and economic development, but these favors bring very little (if any) benefit to you. This is tyranny, plain and simple. In fact, it is not unlike the sort of advantage nobility took of commoners before the American Revolution, only the modern nobility is just very good at lobbying. In ...