From a rant by Arnold Kling (which is unsettling throughout):
If my state, Maryland, needs a bailout, it is because it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the teacher's union. As the Washington Post editorializes,
a new law took effect in Maryland that undercuts local control in collective bargaining by giving a significant new advantage to teachers unions, one they had been seeking for decades.
...it creates a Public School Labor Relations Board, which will consist of two members nominated by unions, two members recommended by school boards and superintendents and a fifth to be independent but with experience in labor relations. ..
This new board's decisions on wages, benefits and even what matters can be collectively bargained will be binding. That is a power that the state education board never had in resolving disputes. Local school boards and counties, which opposed the bill, are right to worry that binding awards could force counties to accept contracts they can't afford.
So, just at the point where voters are starting to wake up to the need to curb teacher compensation, we are going to have a state-level unelected board that can overrule the decisions of elected officials on teacher pay.
For some tasks, we have the choice between letting the government do them or letting the private sector do them. When we let the government do them, we are forced to pay, we pay before seeing the product, and we pay regardless of whether we like the product or not. When we let the private sector do them, we have the choice to pay or refuse, and we get to see the product before we decide. Given that, why would anyone choose to let the government do anything?
It's a question the people of Maryland may be asking themselves shortly.
Comments