The latest example, The Baltimore Sun reports, a Howard County, Maryland audit finds:
According to the Feb. 24 investigation,
four employees of the sheriff’s office improperly used union leave, thus
granting Howard County Sheriff James Fitzgerald “county-subsidized
campaign labor” not available to his opponents.
Union leave, which allows government employees to perform union
business on the taxpayers’ dime, was used to influence the 2014 primary
and general elections.
A majority of public-sector collective bargaining agreements contain a
provision allowing union leave, or union release time. While union
leave is a waste of tax dollars—no matter the use—political activity is
usually prohibited under the practice. However, unlike many other state
and municipal governments, Howard County is seeking ways to recoup the
misused funds.
In recent reports, I’ve found that government unions in other states
similarly misuse union leave to participate in political activity.
In Missouri, union leave was used to lobby public officials:
CWA and PNEA members spent most of their
release time conducting partisan political activity or attending union
meetings and conferences. For example, CWA was allotted 39 days of
release time. Of those days, CWA members spent 31 of them participating
in “Lobby Day, Jefferson City,” which is an event set up by the CWA and
other public-employee unions to lobby legislators. On Lobby Day 2013,
the CWA sent 10 members on release time to the state Capitol, where they
lobbied legislators to vote against right to work and paycheck
protection laws.
PNEA political activity on release time
involved attending seven days of the National Education Association
(NEA) Capitol Action Day, part of the union’s lobbying strategy. PNEA
members on release time also attended the Missouri National Education
Association (MNEA) Spring Rep Assembly, where union representatives from
around the state discuss internal union business.
In Connecticut, the state personnel reported prohibited political activity on union leave:
However, a 2014 general notice from the
state Office of Labor Relations acknowledges concerns from agency
personnel on 1) the increased requests for union business leave and 2)
that union representatives may be conducting political activity on union
business leave, which is prohibited.
Besides the obvious problem with government
subsidizing political activity that could sway public elections, union
leave is a subsidy that does not serve a public purpose and exclusively
benefits a private organization—government unions.
It is a costly subsidy, as well. In Connecticut, the union leave cost state government employers $4.1 million. In Austin, Texas,
the union subsidy cost the cities of Austin and San Antonio a combined
$1 million. Notably, Austin fire union President Bob Nicks, who only
performs union leave business and never fights fires, disagrees with the
practice. Nicks said, “I’ve been fighting to be put back to work at our
fire department.”
Kentucky government unions received 31,458 hours of union leave from 2011-2015. In Maryland,
in 2011-2012, nine school districts awarded 973.8 days of union leave,
or the equivalent of nearly 5.5 full school years just performing union
business.
Not to be left out, the federal government participates in the
taxpayer giveaway. In FY 2012, the last year data are available, it cost
$157 million.
Luckily, some are trying to do something about the wasteful practice.
In Arizona, the Goldwater Institute successfully sued over the
practice of union leave. In 2011, Goldwater argued that union leave
provision in the contract between the City of Phoenix and the Phoenix
Law Enforcement Association violated the state constitutional provision
known as the “Gift Clause,” which prohibits state and local governments
from giving away tax dollars to private entities.
The judge agreed, “The city’s expenditure for the release time [union
leave] was grossly disproportionate to what it received in return,
given the lack of obligation imposed on PLEA.”
The successful lawsuit puts police officers back to work and saves Phoenix taxpayers nearly $1 million annually.
A Pennsylvanian public interest law firm, The Fairness Center, is
looking to replicate the Goldwater Institute’s success with a lawsuit
against the Allentown school district that awards union leave.
According to the Fairness Center:
The cost [of union leave] to state and local taxpayers since 2003 exceeds $1 million.
The Fairness Center represents Allentown
taxpayers Scott Armstrong and Steven Ramos, and Public School Employees’
Retirement System member James Williams, in a suit challenging the
Allentown Education Association’s (AEA’s) practice of using taxpayer
dollars to fund the salary and benefits of Allentown Education
Association’s President. The AEA President receives taxpayer dollars for
her position despite the fact that she works full-time for the AEA.
Tax dollars should exclusively support public services. With so many
state and municipal governments having budget shortages, there is no
room to fund for any activity that does not advance a public purpose.
Union leave is such an expense and an expense that is commonly misused
to advance political agendas."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.