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

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v

Undo 802

Why is it that when conservatives suffer a major loss, they give up, accept the new status quo, and fall back to the next retreat position? When progressives suffer a major loss, they regroup and try again. And again. Until they finally wheedle the American public into giving in. I propose a change in strategy. The Oklahoma Legislature should make undoing State Question 802 its top legislative priority for 2021. This will not be an easy task (legislators seem to prefer avoiding difficult tasks) but it is a critical one. The normal legislative process, with all its pitfalls and traps for the unwary, will only bring the topic to another vote of the people. So why spend so much political capital and effort if the same result is possible? Three reasons.   First is the disastrous consequences of the policy. Forget that it enriches already-rich hospital and pharmaceutical executives. Forget that it gives the state incentives to prioritize the nearly-poor covered by expansion over the des

Liability In the Time of Covid: When Should Businesses Be Sued for the Spread of Infectious Disease?

When businesses reopen, what liability should they face related to the spread of Covid? Can businesses who remained open during the pandemic, or those who were open before the lockdowns began, be held liable if their customers caught the virus within the businesses’ walls? If so, what would a customer-plaintiff need to prove?   Defending even a meritless lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive. For this reason, it is important to define ahead of time what harms can lead to successful lawsuits. Limitations on causes of action can reduce unwarranted suits by kicking them out of the legal system earlier in the process. So what should businesses be liable for? There are two distinct categories of business liability that might arise from Covid. The first is products liability. The second is liability for infection spread within a business.   Products Liability First, any willful fraud perpetrated in relation to Covid should be severely punished. This would include selling f

A Reminder of the Ineffectiveness of Covid-19 Lockdowns

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the 1889 Institute has argued against lockdowns even as “experts” advocated for them. Now, months after the weeks-long lockdowns were supposed to end, there are still states in various levels of lockdown. State and local governments have devastated their economies with shutdowns in the name of public health. Yet some politicians, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have stated a willingness to lockdown the economy again on a national scale to eliminate COVID-19, in a "virus first, economy later" approach. Even as some lawmakers in Oklahoma urge governor Stitt to take more extreme action, it is essential to remember that lockdowns are not very effective. A group of epidemiologists have released a declaration denoting the harmful effects of lockdowns. These include; lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. These consequences are more