LaborPains.org

Wherever there are wage freezes, there’s hysterical reaction by union leaders. And wherever there’s hysterical reaction by union leaders, there’s Richard Trumka. President Obama recently proposed a two-year pay freeze for employees of the federal government. Naturally, Trumka and his fellow labor leaders aren’t very happy.

“Today’s announcement of a two-year pay freeze for federal workers is bad for the middle class, bad for the economy and bad for business,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. “No one is served by our government participating in a ‘race to the bottom’ in wages. We need to invest in creating jobs, not undermining the ones we have. The president talked about the need for shared sacrifice, but there’s nothing shared about Wall Street and CEOs making record profits and bonuses while working people bear the brunt. It is time to get our nation back on track, but we should not do so by placing an even greater burden on the middle class.”

“This proposal to freeze federal pay is a superficial, panicked reaction to the deficit commission report,” stated AFGE National President John Gage. “This pay freeze amounts to nothing more than political public relations. This is no time for scapegoating. The American people didn’t vote to stick it to a VA nursing assistant making $28,000 a year or a border patrol agent earning $34,000 per year.

We saw similar sturm und drang among New Jersey teachers unions when Governor Chris Christie proposed a pay freeze for teachers. But if union leaders are outraged over Obama’s plan, they should take a look at what’s happened in the private sector. In the first quarter of 2010, less than 42 percent of America’s personal income came from private sector wages and salaries, down from almost 45 percent when the recession began. About 8.5 million jobs have been shredded in the economic whirlwind of the past two years. And yet, according to a USA Today analysis, the number of federal employees making $100,000 or more has jumped 5 percent since the beginning of the recession. The average salary for federal workers is currently $71,206. The average salary for their private-sector counterparts? About $40,331. And that money comes from the very private-sector taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet.

But public sector unions need more government workers and higher salaries to boost their membership and most importantly, membership dues. Unions see their future in public sector jobs. To put it mildly, it’s a cash cow. Here’s an idea for labor leaders. Instead of crusading against a measly pay freeze, how about returning the $171.5 million that they spent on mostly failed attempts to reelect Democrats in 2010 to their members?

Image courtesy of Ferdi’s – World.

The next time you see an advertisement for a pro-union Democrat, keep in mind where some of the money is coming from: the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

“We’re the big dog,” said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME’s political operations. “But we don’t like to brag.”

The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren’t likely to support extending such aid to states.

As the Center for Union Fact’s Sonny Bunch noted about teachers unions, a majority of public-sector employees probably vote Democrat. But 100% of public-sector employees do not. And yet the AFSCME’s members are forced to watch their dues bankroll a last-ditch blitz to save the Democrats’ congressional majorities.

According to Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, the compensation difference between a state that has no public sector union representation and one that has the average number of government employees unionized is 8.1%. And James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation calculates that “Salaries and benefits – for identical jobs – are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector.”

Now the public is catching on. A recent Washington Post poll found that 52 percent of Americans think government employees are overpaid. Three-quarters believe that government workers make more than those in the private sector. And lawmakers like New Jersey’s Chris Christie have taken on public-sector unions and won.