# The Public Trough: Goodbye George Meany **URL:** **By** Bruce Bartlett **Published:** February 1, 1980 --- “The recent retirement of George Meany closes an era in American labor.” The recent retirement of George Meany, longtime head of the AFL-CIO, has been widely interpreted as marking the end of an era for the U.S. labor movement. In fact, it is much less important than certain more fundamental changes that have been taking place within the labor movement during the course of Meany’s leadership. The most important of these are the decline of unionism in general and the rise of public sector unions as a percentage of union membership. If these trends continue there will be profound implications not only for the future of organized labor but for the nation as a whole. In 1956 union workers represented 25.2 percent of the labor force. Since then there has been a slow but continuous decline in union membership as a percent of the labor force. Union workers now represent only 19.7 percent of the labor force. Unfortunately, the decline of unionism as a whole has been accompanied by an ominous change in the composition of organized labor. Public sector union workers now comprise a large and growing proportion of total union membership, as private sector union membership declines. In 1956 unionized government workers—federal, state and local —comprised a mere 5.1 percent of all union membership. By 1978 public sector unions made up 16.7 percent of the union workers. To illustrate how quickly the trend is going, consider the fact that between 1976 and 1978 union membership in manufacturing industries declined by 449,000, but union membership in the federal government increased by 82,000 and by 531,000 in state and local government. Between 1968 and 1978 unionism among teachers increased more than 200 percent while unionism among state and local government workers increased more than 180 percent. By contrast, the Teamsters Union, the nation’s largest individual union, made up predominantly of private sector workers, increased its membership only 10 percent. This trend is dangerous. The fact of the matter is that public sector unions are not like other unions and their growth undermines the historic relationship between labor and management. Although unions in general have too much power, due to special government protection which has been been given to them over the past half century, unions would probably continue to exist in a free market. The ultimate check against excessive union power in the private sector is that if unions demand too much their employers will go out of business or find some way of eliminating the union. (Business is in fact becoming increasingly sophisticated about eliminating unions, see “_American Union-Busting_,” _The Economist_, November 17, 1979.) Thus, in the long run, union power cannot negate market forces. However, with public sector unions it is an entirely different matter. For one thing, public sector unions exercise power not only through traditional means, such as strikes and work slowdowns, but through political means as well. In many cities, like New York, the public employee unions exert enormous political power. If a government official stands up to the unions they will throw their support to a more favorable candidate in the next election. A more serious problem with public sector unions is that there is no ultimate check on their power to demand excessive wages and benefits save the taxable capacity of the people. Public sector unions, therefore, can and do demand wage increases far in excess of productivity. In New York City garbagemen are paid more than $20,000 per year and are paid at a rate equivalent to policemen and firemen, whose services the public would certainly value more highly. Time and again it has been demonstrated that private companies could pick up trash in New York for far less than it costs now, but the sanitation workers union has always successfully fought any move in that direction, without regard to the taxpayers’ interest. Ultimately, there must be a confrontation between the private sector unions and the public sector unions. The problem is that every time the public sector worker gets a pay increase the private sector workers pay for it. As inflation and taxes eat into his standard of living and he comes to realize his lack of common interest with the public sector union worker, the unionized worker in the private sector will strike back by supporting tax cuts, government spending limitations, and restrictions on union membership in government. Libertarians are in a unique position to exploit the coming confrontation between public and private sector unions. Liberals will side with the public sector unions but conservatives hate unions in general too much to support the private sector unions. Libertarians, however, have no ax to grind: They can show that the basic struggle is between the private sector and government, and that those with an interest in preserving and strengthening the private sector must work together, whether they be businessmen, stockholders or union members. It’s an opportunity we cannot afford to ignore.