The  Public Sector And

Collective Bargaining

To the Editor:

Have you wondered why collective bargaining has been so successful, at least for public employees, and, in particular, teachers? The answer is, of course, that the state has nowhere else to turn to for these services, not even China can supply a single teacher or other public servant. The unions thus have a monopoly on their services. Add to this tenure in office and the monopoly is complete.

The status is, however, unlawful under title 35, trade regulations, chapter 624, Connecticut antitrust law, section 35-26 which states: Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is unlawful.

We must also consider the political clout of the unions when it comes to contract negotiations. No matter who is in power, they must contend with the threat of a call for their defeat if not responsive to the demands of the unions. Sit back for a moment and visualize this situation in the private sector. A union at the bargaining table threatens to unseat the board of directors. If the board gives in, the company may go bankrupt (remember General Motors!). With public employees the result is a tax hike. In other words: your and my money have been traded away. Herein hides a violation of the law in the form of a conflict of interest.

The reason is as follows:

In the public sector, the state contracts mainly for a third party in its negotiations, namely, us the taxpayer.

The state thus is an agent or trustee and as such has a fiscal responsibility to provide the best service at the best deal they can make with the unions. In this case it cannot, since it must satisfy two parties with conflicting interests: The unions which want the most for their services and who can unseat the “board of directors” and the ordinary citizen who wants taxes kept down.

To sum it up: Collective bargaining for state and municipal workers is improper and unfair and in my opinion unlawful, and is to a large degree responsible for our fiscal mess and has badly hurt the elderly who have seen their pension and social security checks eroded by monopolistic and coercive actions. This situation is a social injustice and it must be corrected, if need be in federal court through the equal protection under the law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Oscar Berendsohn

34 Appleblossom Lane, Newtown                                                                  May 24, 2011