Public sector unions constitute the bedrock of progressive power in the United States. The estimated total nationwide membership exceeds 7 million, or 32 percent of all public employees. This compares to an equal number of unionized employees in the private sector, 7 million, but that only represents 6 percent of private sector employees. The fact that one in three public employees are dues-paying union members gives them influence in the public sector far in excess of the power wielded by unions in the private sector.
Moreover, the power of public sector unions is unevenly distributed among states. Their membership is concentrated in states and large cities, where progressives control public policy. In California, 58 percent of public sector employees are unionized, while even in this union-friendly state, only 11 percent of private sector employees belong to a union. The total dues revenue collected by California’s public sector unions is estimated at nearly $1 billion per year.
This level of funding, while impressive, does not in aggregate compare to the sums getting thrown around in national elections, critical elections in big states, or congressional and U.S. Senate races in battleground districts. But that misses a key point: the billions that are directed by corporations and billionaires into key elections are situation-specific choices, roughly split between progressives and their opponents, they are often one-time deployments of funds, and are rarely directed down-ballot. Meanwhile, the torrent of funds pouring into public sector union coffers is perennial and almost always supports progressive candidates and causes.
This perpetual financial inflow is felt at all levels, but most decisively at the local level. Any local politician or candidate campaigning in a city or county with a unionized public sector will have to recognize that if they oppose the union agenda, even just one time, or even just on one issue, they will face an opposition candidate who has access to virtually unlimited funds. How many millions will local businesses spend to outmatch government union campaign spending, year after year, in order to control a majority on a city council or county board of supervisors? Even more challenging, how much money can grassroots parent volunteers muster in political campaign contributions, year after year, in order to keep public sector union candidates from dominating a local school board?
How this works was explained to me in visceral terms a few years ago by a man who had served a few terms as mayor of a medium-sized city in Southern California. “I had a choice,” he said. “I could have the local government employees fund an independent expenditure committee to drop $1 million into a campaign to get me elected, or I could watch them spend that money on a rival candidate to defeat me. Do you have $1 million available to spend right now? Would you spend that much year after year? Who is going to do that?”
The significance of public sector union control of local elections cannot be overstated. These entry-level politicians constitute the farm team for higher office. City councilmembers and county supervisors rise to become state legislators or members of Congress. In turn, those officeholders become candidates for U.S. Senate or governor. In California, 75 percent of all state legislators are progressives who, almost without exception, owe their victories to public sector union campaign spending. In nearly every one of California’s most populous cities, counties, and school districts, progressives hold majorities of the elected positions, if not supermajorities.
When asked in a recent interview what I would do for America if I were king for a day, I said I would outlaw public sector unions. It prompted a thought-provoking email from someone who had agreed with everything else we’d covered in that interview, but not that. Here is his question:
“I was watching a podcast with Edward Ring, and I completely agree with his policies and comments. I am a firefighter in California and a union leader. I was very intrigued by his statements about getting rid of public sector unions. I am curious as to what the benefits would be and what the negatives as I don’t understand the correlation, and I would enjoy information on the topic. Thank you for your consideration.”
In response, the first thing that comes to mind is the obvious: None of us is going to be king for a day, and while political rhetoric is often just an excursion into fantasyland, political action is the art of the possible. To put it mildly, it is unlikely that public sector unions are going to go away anytime soon, certainly not in the State of California. And yet the man who emailed this question has political sentiments that quite clearly are not aligned with the progressives who control public sector unions in California and, through those unions, control politics. So what can we do with that energy?
It is here that we may recognize the potential for political realignment within public sector unions. It is here as well that we have to recognize why this is inherently difficult. The reason progressives dominate unions, especially in the public sector, is that progressives want big government. And having a bigger government is consistent with the natural motivation of any organization, which is to grow and prosper. When there are more regulations and restrictions on private sector activity, there is a need for more regulators and enforcers. When there are more state benefits, there is a need for more benefit administrators. The examples of these perverse incentives are endless and lead to a simple and troubling conclusion: to the extent the goals of government unions are to expand government so as to expand union membership and dues revenue, failing programs and intrusive regulations that harm the general population actually constitute success for these government unions.
Public sector unions, for all practical purposes, are waging war on American prosperity and freedom. The only way to fix this in the short run is for their own members to reject the progressive agenda of their leadership and demand limited government.
This is why changing the progressive political agenda of public sector unions is problematic. It requires union members ignore what are arguably their own personal self-interests to instead prioritize the highest ideals of what selfless public service represents and stand willing to challenge progressive ideology with alternatives that will nurture a thriving, competitive private sector that could, with fewer regulations, provide products and services—including housing, gasoline, and water for farm irrigation—at a price that average households, small businesses, and family farmers can afford.
A concrete example that might concern California’s firefighters’ union is the strong alliance they’ve formed to date with extreme environmentalists. The reason we have had superfires in California’s forests is that progressive politicians over the last 40 years have destroyed California’s commercial logging industry. It is not unreasonable to recognize that California’s firefighters do not have an economic incentive to correct this catastrophe. But in the public interest, in the interests of the environment, and in adherence to their own mission and ideals, they should nonetheless reject extreme environmentalist orthodoxy and demand a new regulatory environment that restores California’s timber harvest to the levels seen up until the 1980s. They have sufficient political power to make this happen. Why don’t they?
Instead, they do not aggressively challenge flawed and biased studies that claim a total hands-off approach to forest management is the optimal way to protect natural ecosystems and species. Clearly, there is a need to evolve logging practices to embrace everything we’ve learned about total ecosystem management. But there is ample evidence that responsible logging at scale will dramatically reduce fire risk, increase the counts of endangered and threatened species, and create good jobs and tax revenue.
In 2019, the firefighters’ union marched in solidarity with the United Teachers of Los Angeles, a union with an extreme progressive agenda. The firefighters’ union should march in solidarity with loggers and mill workers and distance themselves in every way possible from progressive extremists—all of them, everywhere—whether they’re the ones ruining our schools or the ones turning our forests into tinderboxes. That would be a good start.