The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) began as a number of separate locals organized by Wisconsin state employees in the early 1930s.  At the time most public-sector jobs were notorious for low pay, if not long hours.  The industrial organizing drives of the thirties passed over most government workers, who lacked bargaining clout.  But with the massive growth of government bureaucracies and a corresponding decline of manufacturing over the past several decades, public employee unions have become the driving force in the U.S. labor movement, representing more than four in ten union members nationwide in a government workforce that is almost 40 percent unionized.¹ Reflecting this historical shift, public employees are also among the country's most handsomely compensated workers.

With 1.4 million members, AFSCME is the largest union in the AFL-CIO.  Under the leadership of International President Gerald McEntee, the union has shown itself willing to pour millions of dollars and man-hours into the political process, making AFSCME one of the most potent special interest groups in the country.  Thanks in part to the political efforts of AFSCME and its influential network of left-wing allies (such as Americans for Democratic Action, of which McEntee is a board member), government outlays continue to spiral out of control.  For example, non-defense discretionary spending has grown by 58 percent from 1990-2000, from $200.2 billion to $316.7 billion this year.² The situation is the same for state and local governments across the country, which have increased spending by 77 percent from 1988-1998, to the point where state or local government controls about one of every ten dollars spent in our economy.³ While politicians assure the public that the era of big government is over, many continue to accept AFSCME support in return for ensuring that such political rhetoric never becomes reality.

AFSCME lobbies on a wide array of issues - from opposing reform of welfare and Social Security to supporting higher taxes - that make the group a natural adversary of taxpayers and those concerned with limiting the role of government in the everyday lives of citizens.  With new technologies and market forces changing the way in which public services are delivered, America is at a crossroads.⁴ Our system can either become more like France's, which is periodically held hostage by public employee unions working for an array of state industries, or it can encourage efforts to streamline government services, lower costs, and introduce competition into the public sector.⁵ The path Americans choose will determine the level of taxes we all pay as well as the size and role of government in the 21st Century.

Politics - Who Gets What, When, How. - Harold Lasswell

In 1995, AFSCME International President Gerald McEntee initiated the "palace revolt" that toppled former AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland.⁶ McEntee worked to have John Sweeney, who served as head of the largely public-sector Service Employees International Union, made the new AFL-CIO president.  The insurgents believed that Kirkland was responsible for the steady decline in union membership - from 35 percent of the combined public-private workforce forty years ago to below 14 percent today - and labor's waning political influence, which had opened the door for the apocalyptic GOP takeover of Congress in 1994.  The new Congress threatened to remold the workplace and the welfare state, and reform-minded mayors elected in the early 1990s in cities such as Indianapolis and New York had already begun to do so, posing a direct threat to AFSCME.  Faced with this grim scenario, McEntee maneuvered Sweeney into office to put labor back on the political offensive.

The triumphant McEntee-Sweeney forces sought a sharp break with labor's past.  The new leadership disdained Kirkland and his predecessor, George Meany, as unrepentant cold warriors who focused too heavily on the bread-and-butter economic issues important to industrial unionists.⁷ Such concerns remain secondary to public employee union leaders, whose main goal is to expand the size of

such as racial preferences and so-called "hate crimes" legislation.⁸

With McEntee serving as Vice President of Political Affairs, the AFL-CIO embarked on a highly publicized and controversial $35 million campaign in 1996 to restore a Democratic congressional majority.  The AFSCME political action committee spent over $4.3 million in concert with this effort.⁹ As a result, AFSCME was able to send 217 of its members to the 1996 Democratic convention - a delegation that ranked in size only behind the states of California, New York, and Texas.¹⁰ While the effort to re-take the House came up short, the political blitz helped AFSCME achieve two of its most important legislative goals: President Clinton's re-election and the stifling of Congressional zeal for budget-cutting and other reforms.  McEntee calls the expenditures "the best money that was ever spent in terms of the American labor movement."¹¹

During the 1997-98 election cycle, the AFSCME political action committee PEOPLE (Public Employees Organized to Promote Legislative Equality) gave almost $2.4 million to federal candidates - 96% to Democrats.¹² The union was the second largest donor of unregulated "soft money," contributing just under $1.3 million, all to Democratic campaign committees.¹³ AFSCME outspent all other unions in this category, including its 13 million-member parent organization, the AFL-CIO, whose contributions it more than doubled (See Figure 1).  By making full use of the union's $100 million-plus dues-funded budget, McEntee has squarely focused AFSCME on national politics, where the union is a powerful force.¹⁴

The value of this political operation cannot be measured in dollars alone.  AFSCME political operatives mobilize union households across the country and organize workers for phone banks and other election-related work.  The union also employs internal communication devices such as its newsletter, Public Employee, and the AFSCME web site (www.afscme.org) while publishing pamphlets on issues such as privatization and welfare reform.  McEntee helped found and serves as a board member of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a Washington, DC think tank funded with union money.¹⁵ EPI provides an intellectual cover for AFSCME politicking by producing studies that buttress the union's legislative goals, such as opposition to the tax-cut package vetoed by President Clinton in 1999.¹⁶

Source: National Institute for Labor Relations Research

The 1998 AFSCME convention in Hawaii showcased the organization's embrace of left-wing cultural issues.  The union did resolve to further goals such as increased occupational health and safety standards and worker rights - questions of obvious importance to any labor organization.  But the convention also passed resolutions on issues like U.S. relations with Cuba, special rights for homosexuals, and domestic violence.¹⁷ Aside from being forced to fund the union's blatantly partisan political activities, employees represented by AFSCME are compelled to subsidize the extremist political and cultural agenda embraced by the organization's leadership.  While the union has a right to be politically active, these particular efforts have nothing to do with the reason workers pay dues to AFSCME, whose mission is to represent employees in contract negotiations.

Responding to criticism of the union's political practices, McEntee said, "Well, we think it's fair," and has claimed that "any member, or agency fee payer, who does not agree with our positions can get that portion of their dues refunded."¹⁸ Yet McEntee is surely aware that if workers had a choice whether or not to bankroll the union's political activities, many would choose to keep more of their paycheck.  Thus AFSCME makes it very difficult for objectors to

To prevent future lawsuits, AFSCME recently amended its constitution to set up a Byzantine process for members seeking to get back the portion of their dues dedicated to politics.  Objectors may only send in their refund form via registered mail during a two-week period each year, and must identify each individual partisan political or ideological activity in which they believe the union has engaged.  The AFSCME International Executive Board has final say over whether dues payers recover any portion of their money.²¹ 

Although AFSCME represents workers at the state and local levels, its lobbying strategy is heavily concentrated upon the federal government.  There are two main reasons for this focus: 1) with the massive growth of federal spending, states and cities receive a large portion of their budget from federal grants; and, 2) many of the issues most important to the union, such as welfare reform, Social Security, and universal health care, are controlled at the federal level.  AFSCME also seeks to influence the federal government because federal regulations often determine how the states spend federal grants.  The union was thus able to block a reform proposal in Texas that would have let private companies manage several welfare programs for the state.  McEntee appealed to President Clinton (who had received staunch AFSCME support during the 1995 government shutdown) and the President subsequently denied permission for Texas to implement reforms that would have saved the state an estimated $10 million per month.²²

At the state level, AFSCME's number one priority is the passage of laws mandating collective bargaining for public employees.²³ This allows AFSCME the right to charge all covered state employees an "agency fee" that is automatically deducted from their paychecks - even if they do not join the union.  Maryland recently became the 30^th state to pass such legislation.²⁴ The Maryland effort exhibits the strength of AFSCME's state-level political apparatus.  After providing critical support for Maryland Governor Parris Glendening's tight 1994 election bid, the first-term Governor ignored the will of the Maryland legislature by issuing a controversial 1996 Executive Order mandating collective bargaining.²⁵ AFSCME was the biggest donor to Glendening's 1998 reelection campaign, contributing $150,000 in cash, plus valuable "in-kind" support such as phone banks and voter mobilization.²⁶ Glendening returned the favor by steering a collective-bargaining bill through the legislature.  With $7.5 million in its political account on hand at the end of 1998,²⁷ and increased revenues from dues hikes approved for 1999 and 2000,²⁸ AFSCME is sure to have many political suitors like Glendening courting their political support this election year.

Privatization: "Public Enemy Number One"

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support. - George Bernard Shaw

Although state and local government budgets across the country are enjoying average surpluses between eight and nine percent of overall expenditures, taxpayers are demanding better-quality services delivered with greater efficiency.²⁹ Many public officials have responded by introducing privatization initiatives.  AFSCME sees any move towards privatizing government services as a grave threat to its power.  In a 1998 speech before a Washington State AFSCME affiliate, McEntee declared privatization "public enemy number one."³⁰ Although the union can take credit for blocking or hindering many privatization initiatives, the introduction (or mere threat) of competition in the public sector has forced AFSCME to begrudgingly support higher standards and greater efficiency.³¹

The main reason privatization enjoys what AFSCME concedes is "widespread"³² appeal is that it puts a check on taxpayer-funded public sector salaries and benefits that are subject to political rather than market forces - and have grown disproportionately high as a result.  Although AFSCME insists that there is essentially wage parity between the public and private sectors, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the weekly earnings of private and public sector workers tells a different story.³³ Employees of state and local governments earn a higher average weekly salary ($604) than their private sector counterparts ($519) as Figure 2 shows.³⁴ The public sector also spends twice as much on health care, retirement, vacation, and other benefits for civil servants as it does for short-term workers or those on private contractors' payrolls.³⁵ While AFSCME takes pains to demonstrate that public sector workers are not overcompensated, the union leadership concedes, "Public employees have historically received more comprehensive health care and pension benefits than their private sector counterparts."³⁶

AFSCME puts forward a number of dubious arguments in favor of the status quo.  The union claims that privatization results in "higher costs, poorer quality of service, increased opportunities for corruption," and makes an emotional appeal to politically correct principles by claiming that contracting out government services disproportionately harms women and minorities.  Ironically, AFSCME also argues that privatization initiatives will weaken the tax base by reducing the number of high-paying government jobs.³⁷ Owing to the increasing pressure for reforms in the public sector, AFSCME passed what amounted to a $7 million dues increase at its 1998 convention for an anti-privatization lobbying and public education fund.³⁸ These lobbying efforts seek to pass "living wage" ordinances that artificially inflate wages in the private sector, contract language that forbids outsourcing, and "attack[ing] the bidding process and the companies vying to take over the work."³⁹

These efforts to undermine privatization continue full force in spite of numerous instances of cost-saving through introduction of competitive bidding for state and local government service contracts.  Under the leadership of Mayor Steve Goldsmith, first elected in 1992 despite strong opposition from AFSCME Indiana Council 62, Indianapolis has led the nation in opening up municipal services to market competition.  Goldsmith began his attempt to shake up the old order with the highly symbolic act of requesting bids for work filling in potholes.  Faced with competition from the private sector, the local AFSCME affiliate submitted a winning bid that cut work crews from eight workers to four, equipment from two trucks to one, and eliminated a supervisor, for an overall savings of 25 percent.⁴⁰

Goldsmith has moved on to privatize management of the city's airport, saving $100 million over a ten-year contract, and has privatized the city's wastewater treatment plant, resulting in a dramatic downsizing of personnel from 328 to 174 - a reduction of 44 percent.  Thanks to these accomplishments, city taxes have held steady for almost a decade.⁴¹ By 1996, the mayor had reduced the bloated city payroll of 4,416 jobs that existed when he took office by 1,025, without laying off a single AFSCME member.⁴²

Forced to compete, city workers have won bids on other projects, such as a 1995 three-year, $15 million contract for maintenance of city vehicles and in three of the city's 11 garbage districts.  Even McEntee, who supports "labor-management partnerships" that preclude competition between the public and private sectors, says "AFSCME is particularly proud of the efforts of our members in Indianapolis."⁴³ Goldsmith's reform initiatives seem to have cracked the cycle of wasteful spending in the public sector in order to validate increasingly higher budgets.  A centerpiece of this new philosophy is "gainsharing," which gives employees bonuses for meeting or exceeding budget goals.  As Steve Fantauzzo, Executive Director of AFSCME Indiana Council 62 stated,

look at what happens in the eleventh month of a budget in a traditional government: everyone is looking to spend the last dime to justify that plus more next year.  Here, people are looking to save every dime because they figure a piece of the pie is going into their pocket.⁴⁴

Other state and local governments have fared just as well under privatization.  By 1994, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley had privatized over 40 separate functions of city government, including custodial work, office-product purchases, tire collection, and traffic signal design.  Competitive bidding for towing abandoned cars saved the city $3 million and removed 180,000 vehicles from the streets in a dramatically shortened timeframe.  These moves saved over $20 million by early 1996.⁴⁵ In New York City, a private group called the Central Park Conservancy is managing concessions, tree-planting, and educational programs, among other duties.  The

noted,  "If you don't pick up the garbage, somebody is going to know.  But if the person is just shuffling paper and giving out grants - it is very difficult to know if he is actually working."⁴⁸ Owing to this phenomenon, as of August 1998 more than 30 states had turned over parts of their welfare bureaucracy to private contractors,⁴⁹ halting the ugly spectacle of public employees soliciting clients for the welfare state. 

AFSCME President McEntee insists that privatization unfairly scapegoats public employees:

If they [elected officials] will only give us as public workers a level playing field . . . we know how to do the job better than anybody.We do it every day.  We can compete and win against any privatizer in America because we can deliver public services more economically and more efficiently than any privateer in America.⁵⁰

In spite of this bold stance, McEntee seems not to believe that public employees can really compete and win.  The union's own literature terms making a bid a "last ditch effort" to be used when other efforts at obstruction fail.⁵¹ And public employees often do not offer the best alternative - after three years of competitive bidding in Indianapolis, government workers came in with the low bid on only sixteen of sixty-four projects.⁵² What AFSCME considers a level playing field is one that is tipped in its favor.  For example, when St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman proposed to privatize certain city services in early 1999, AFSCME responded with a list of sixteen "principles of participation" used to halt privatization in other cities.  The principles stipulated that private contracts cannot be considered without potential savings of at least 10 percent, private workers must be paid the same as city workers, and that layoffs and salary reductions are forbidden.⁵³ As further evidence that the playing field is tilted in favor of government workers, public employees often do not have to include performance guarantees or comply with the same regulations as privately-owned businesses, whose bids they are sometimes allowed to view prior to submitting their proposal.⁵⁴

With public services opened up for competitive bidding and citizens able to use the Internet to pay taxes and fines or apply for building permits (state and local governments hope to put all their services on-line over the next ten years), the landscape of public service is being rapidly transformed.⁵⁵ In many senses, AFSCME is fighting a rearguard action.  As David

original Luddites smashed the spinning machines that put them out of work.  Their spiritual descendants realize that it is not practical to smash computers or garbage trucks, but they continue to smash politicians who seek to reform the public sector.  Privatization means that AFSCME can no longer practice business as usual, but as long as the union can spend tens of millions of its members' dues on politics, AFSCME will play a key role in future privatization initiatives.

AFSCME Scandals: Pleading the Fifth

Corruption wins not more than honesty. - Shakespeare

While AFSCME seeks to position itself as a "progressive" component of the labor movement, in one sense - corruption - it is no different from the Teamsters, Longshoremen, or other unions with a well-earned reputation for graft and thuggish behavior.  Scandals plague the organization at the national, state, and local levels.  Criminal behavior of AFSCME officers encompasses everything from sophisticated money laundering schemes to crude embezzlement and kickback rackets.  Rather than privatization, or some nefarious right-wing assault on public employees, what AFSCME members should fear most is their own union leadership.

Corruption at the national level can be traced directly to AFSCME President Gerald McEntee.  In the midst of the 1996 election, when he was coordinating the AFL-CIO's attempt to take control of the House of Representatives, he became involved in the scandal-plagued Teamster union election.  McEntee solicited an illegal $20,000 contribution from an AFSCME vendor for the campaign of Teamster president Ron Carey.  McEntee originally denied any knowledge of the contribution in the press but ultimately admitted his role to federal investigators.⁵⁷ AFSCME also arranged for the Carey campaign to use its phone banks to contact potential supporters - which Hoffa supporters have denounced as an in-kind gift of $130,000.  AFSCME officials claim the Carey campaign reimbursed them for this service, a key point considering federal law bars union leaders from giving to candidates in other union elections.⁵⁸ Many left-wing union officials supported Carey as a so-called "reformer," and thus were willing to risk violating the law to guarantee his re-election.  Ironically, the main reason many union leaders opposed challenger James Hoffa, Jr. was because of the association of Mr. Hoffa's name with corruption.

Figure 3. Union Members as a Percentage of the Workforce

Source: New York Times

The Carey re-election scheme was wide-ranging, involving top officers of the nation's largest unions.  AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka allegedly used his office to help funnel $150,000 from the Teamster treasury to liberal groups like Citizen Action, which completed the quid pro quo by sending $100,000 to assist Carey's campaign.  This activity took place as part of a larger plot where over $800,000 in Teamster money was sent to various political and social groups, including the Democratic National Committee and Clinton/Gore re-election campaign (at least $236,500 found its way to Democratic coffers), in exchange for promised contributions to Mr. Carey's campaign.  Because the Teamsters are under federal supervision, this malfeasance invalidated an election that cost taxpayers $17 million.⁵⁹ Mr. Hoffa ultimately won election as Teamster president, increasing the internal divisions within the labor movement between left-leaning public sector unions like AFSCME and their more conservative counterparts in the private sector, such as the Teamsters.

The most wide-ranging case of corruption within AFSCME occurred in its District Council 37, which represents 120,000 New York City employees.  It appears no scam was too small for union officials in DC 37 and its locals, from selling the union overpriced sandwiches for Labor Day picnics to providing no-show "consulting" jobs to union members with mob ties.⁶⁰ The most egregious abuses of office, however, occurred in the upper echelons of DC 37.  For years, local presidents Al Diop (who sat on the AFSCME national board) and Charles Hughes stole millions from the union.  Diop rang up almost $150,000 in credit card receipts for clothes, jewelry, and electronic equipment.  He kept a Manhattan penthouse suite that cost Local 1549 $617,398 from 1991-99.  In addition, maid service cost the union between $1,200 and $1,600 per month - only slightly lower than what many dues-paying DC 37 members earn.⁶¹

Local 372 President Hughes built himself a plantation-style house in Georgia with money stolen from the union treasury and paid $86,500 of union funds, plus full health benefits, to workers constructing the home.⁶² DC 37 executives created a $2 million annual slush fund for top bureaucrats by deliberately undercounting their membership and keeping the extra dues money for personal use.  Yet the loss of over $10 million of members' dues amounts to far more than a little "irresponsible spending," as AFSCME-appointed administrator Lee Saunders termed the massive embezzlement.  As even one sympathetic observer noted, "That AFSCME had no knowledge of corrupt practices within its largest single affiliate is inconceivable."⁶³

Former DC 37 President Stanley Hill and Diop perpetrated a fraudulent ratification of the union's unpopular 1996 contract, the stage for which was set through years of autocratic rule.  Local bosses such as Hughes and Diop determined slates of council officers and controlled the

Diop's local returning a bogus 7,000 vote majority in favor of the contract, which almost every other large local rejected.  Mr. Hughes' 22,000-member local returned only 347 "yes" votes.⁶⁴ Owing to this pervasive corruption, rank-and-file members have become so demoralized that only 10 percent bothered to vote in the last election for president of the 26,000-member Local 372, which had elected and re-elected its president by acclamation for the past 30 years.⁶⁵

As these scandals unfolded, AFSCME held its 1998 national convention in Honolulu, Hawaii, at a cost estimated between $2 million to $3 million.  This exotic locale kept with recent tradition, as previous AFSCME conventions had been held in Las Vegas and the Bahamas.  DC 37 sent 800 representatives to the conference, who enjoyed $185 per-night rooms at the Sheraton Waikiki and sightseeing tours.⁶⁶ These leaders received handsome compensation for their services: a dozen non-elected DC 37 staffers make over $100,000 annually, while ten more receive over $90,000 per year.  Former DC 37 boss Stanley Hill was getting nearly $250,000 at the time of his ouster.⁶⁷ McEntee's total 1998 compensation package amounted to over $369,000.⁶⁸ Yet the average annual pay in 1997 for all jobs in government was $31,864.⁶⁹ McEntee claims that his main goal is to end the gap between overpaid corporate executives and "the rest of us," while collecting a salary about ten times higher than the average AFSCME employee.⁷⁰

The high profile scandals at DC 37 and the national union are certainly not unique.  In 1998, AFSCME District Council 20 bosses in Washington DC pled guilty to stealing $834,500 from their union.⁷¹ AFSCME honchos in New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts, and upstate New York have all been brought up on criminal charges of corruption within the past few years.  A New Mexico AFSCME affiliate lost a $1.6 million judgment to an employee who was fired after meeting with law enforcement officials to report on alleged illegal activities of New Mexico AFSCME president Luis Arellano.⁷² "Things have fallen apart in many regions," says Carl Biers of the Association for Union Democracy, because McEntee "has been turning a blind eye to a lot of this [corruption]."⁷³ According to McEntee the 1998 dues hike - which boosted some members' monthly dues to over $50 - was necessary to guarantee that AFSCME "remains a clean union," a perverse reward for union bosses who are responsible for the "dirty" nature of the union in the first place.⁷⁴ One of AFSCME's main arguments against privatization is that it presents opportunities for favoritism and corruption.  Yet judging by the actions of AFSCME officials, it seems more likely that they resent being cut out of this sort of activity, not that it exists in the first place.

"Investing" in Big Government: A Taxing Problem

One of the things we have to be thankful for is that we don't get as much government as we pay for. - Charles Kettering

As a union whose fortunes rely upon increased government spending, AFSCME lobbies aggressively for higher taxes and actively opposes virtually all tax relief measures.  AFSCME cloaks this anti-taxpayer agenda by referring to government spending as an "investment."⁷⁵ However, when it suits the interests of the AFSCME hierarchy, union spinmasters employ populist pro-taxpayer rhetoric.  For example, AFSCME claims that competitive bidding for public works projects "makes taxpayers vulnerable," and that "taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize employers."  Ironically, AFSCME even argues that the 1999 tax-cut package vetoed by President Clinton did not provide adequate tax relief for the average married couple: "less than enough for a weekly movie ticket in most places."⁷⁶

In opposing the right of Americans to keep more of their own hard-earned dollars from the increasingly greedy hand of government, AFSCME corrupts the language in an Orwellian manner.  Thus, tax cuts that would give people more money are "expensive."⁷⁷ Trimming taxes is decried as "costly."  The union's literature grudgingly admits that tax cuts are widely popular, but "will have a dramatic effect in reducing government services and jeopardizing AFSCME member jobs."⁷⁸ AFSCME also employs deceptive class-warfare rhetoric to make their case that cuts in federal income taxes benefit the rich at the expense of middle class families.⁷⁹ Yet the only reason that across-the-board tax cuts disproportionately benefit those with higher incomes is because these individuals pay higher taxes in the first place.  For example, Internal Revenue Service data shows that the top-earning one percent of U.S. taxpayers made 17.4 percent of total income earned in 1997 and paid 33.2 percent of total federal income taxes collected that year.

the large segment of the public that pays little or no taxes (or receives money from the federal government in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit) in the first place.

AFSCME argues that federal tax receipts - which at 21.8 percent of GDP have reached a historic high⁸¹ - must be kept at this level to fund a host of programs reminiscent of the failed Great Society:

There are tens of millions of people in this nation whose basic needs of education, health care, food, shelter, clean air and water, and other essentials are going unmet.  It is essential that we now seize upon the opportunity created by our unprecedented economic prosperity and resulting budget surplus to respond to these and other pressing and long-deferred needs of the most vulnerable in this country.⁸²

As part of its effort to increase spending, AFSCME spearheads the Invest in America Coalition, a group of over 200 left-leaning groups such as the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, and the New York City AIDS Housing Network.  The coalition lobbies for "increased domestic investment" in programs such as nationalized health care, subsidized housing, day care centers, and mass transit - areas in which AFSCME already represents several hundred thousand workers.⁸³ In spite of the coalition's dire warnings about "unmet needs," the federal government took an increasing amount of money from taxpayers throughout the 1990s.  Federal budget receipts ballooned from about $1 trillion in 1990 to about $1.7 trillion in 1998, an aggregate growth rate of 70% in less than a decade, as Figure 4 shows.

The premise that more people need government assistance, particularly in an economy where unemployment is at a thirty-year low, is specious at best.  In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that poverty has decreased and personal income is up almost one-third during the period 1990-98.⁸⁴ Among those who are poor, usage of federal programs is quite high: Census Bureau figures report that 15% of women of childbearing age received Food Stamps in the mid-1990s.⁸⁵ A majority of these beneficiaries participated in other welfare programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).  Among some socioeconomic groups, the rate of dependency on these programs is one in three women of childbearing age.⁸⁶ These figures demonstrate that there is certainly not a lack of, or willingness to depend on, government assistance.  If anything, AFSCME and its allies should be searching for constructive ways to make sure fewer citizens rely on social-welfare programs.

Much like the federal government, state governments are raking in record levels of tax dollars.  From 1990 to 1998, state general revenue climbed from $518 billion to $814 billion.⁸⁷ A number of states have given a small portion of this extra revenue back in the form of tax cuts, which AFSCME vehemently opposes.⁸⁸ AFSCME justifies its opposition to any tax cuts by complaining that state spending is not keeping up with the rate of revenue growth in the states - even though the National Governors' Association predicts that state spending will go up this year by 5.5% while revenues will only go up 4.3%.⁸⁹ For state taxpayers, the fiscal irresponsibility advocated by AFSCME will ultimately mean a re-emergence of tax hikes and large deficits.

Tax limitation measures are a prime target for AFSCME.  Currently, twenty-seven states have tax and expenditure limitations, most of which arose through the Initiative and Referendum process.  Fourteen states require either a supermajority of legislators or citizens to approve tax increases.⁹⁰ AFSCME opposes citizen lawmaking through Initiative and Referendum.  The union apparently finds it easier to bankroll the campaigns of a select group of elected officials than to convince millions of taxpayers why they should send more of their hard-earned money to state government.  AFSCME claims that tax-limitation laws "do not guarantee more efficient government."⁹¹ Yet, hard economic research shows that the five-year growth rate in per capita government spending is 2.9 percentage points below the national average for states after they enact tax limitation laws.  Prior to enacting these laws, the states spent 0.8 percent above the national average.  In states where the limitation came through voter initiative, the swing went from 6.5 points above the national average to 2.2 points below average.⁹²

One of AFSCME's solutions to the problem of lost "investment" revenue from these limitations is to impose new taxes on the Internet and booming e-commerce.  AFSCME lobbyists unsuccessfully tried to kill the 1998 three-year Internet tax moratorium, although they did

pull teachers out of classrooms, and cut back emergency rescue staff.  Despite AFSCME's overheated rhetoric, there is no shortage of funds for these essential services: since the birth of Internet six years ago, total state taxes, including traditional sales taxes, have grown at almost twice the rate of inflation and population.⁹⁴ 

AFSCME admits that "state and local treasuries, with rare exception, are overflowing."⁹⁵ Yet the union deliberately misinforms taxpayers about the need for higher spending in order to create an ever-expanding pool of government largesse.  During hard economic times, AFSCME demands deficit spending to stimulate the economy, a measure that is extremely detrimental to taxpayers forced to shoulder the burden of interest payments.  With the economy strong, AFSCME demands that budget surpluses be spent on unmet "needs."  This kind of politicking over surpluses is detrimental to sound fiscal policy - more than two out of three state budget surplus dollars have been plowed into program increases, not tax cuts.⁹⁶ Thanks in part to AFSCME, American families pay a real price for this expansion of government.  If the states had simply kept spending increases to the level of personal income growth since 1992, the average taxpayer could enjoy a $300 per year tax cut for the next several years.⁹⁷ AFSCME likes to employ class-warfare rhetoric about the need to soak the rich with higher taxes.  But the union's advocacy of continually higher "investment" really drenches the middle class.

Social Security: Supporting the Status Quo

The longer-run financing problems of both Social Security and Medicare need to be addressed soon. - 1999 Annual Report of Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees

Social Security is often called the "third rail of American politics," because elected officials are literally scared to touch the issue.  Owing to the program's immense impact on the retirement standard of living for many Americans, Social Security's future is one of the most pressing political issues facing the United States.  AFSCME's actions on Social Security demonstrate that the union frequently does not live up to its stated goal of making "sure that each and every AFSCME member gets a fair deal from the boss and from the politicians."⁹⁸ With regard to Social Security, however, the reason union members do not get a fair deal has a great deal more to do with the machinations of AFSCME officials than with the conniving of employers or elected officials.

Social Security faces a crisis because it is funded like a Ponzi scheme.  Contributions of current workers are used to pay the Social Security benefit of current retirees.  Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the money they put in is not invested or set aside in their name - it is immediately paid out in the form of benefits.  This system functioned reasonably well when more Americans had large families and life expectancy was shorter; however, the aging of the Baby Boom generation means that fewer young people will be working to provide benefits to an increasing number of pensioners.  In 1950, 16 workers paid into the system for each beneficiary.⁹⁹ By 2025 there will only be two workers paying into the system for each retiree.¹⁰⁰ To make up for this shortfall of workers, taxes will have to be dramatically raised - or benefits dramatically cut.

AFSCME appears unsure just how to approach the issue of Social Security reform.  For political reasons, the union cannot acknowledge that one of the few government-run programs ever to gain widespread popularity with the American public is in trouble.  Yet AFSCME also understands that it must enter the debate or be left behind as needed changes are made.  By 2032,

taxable payroll, and under the more realistic high-cost scenario, that percentage zooms to 22.1 percent.¹⁰² Clearly, major changes need to be made to bring stability to the system, or today's young workers will ultimately see their payroll taxes double.

Further analysis of Social Security data reveals that AFSCME is fighting against reforms that would disproportionately benefit the "working Americans" the union claims to represent.  Low and middle-income workers stand to gain the most from replacing the current system with private accounts.  The retirement income of a single-income couple earning $36,000 annually whose Social Security payroll taxes were invested in a stock fund would be $124,187 yearly instead of $24,144 (See Figure 5).  In the case of a dual-income couple earning $58,000 annually, the stock fund would return $201,289 per year while Social Security returns only $39,021.¹⁰³ Clearly, allowing workers to invest in personal retirement accounts would produce a greatly improved standard of living after retirement for millions of Americans.  Many union members would benefit greatly from the transition to such a plan.

Yet instead of furthering new and innovative plans, AFSCME's reflexive opposition to smaller government precludes reforms that would benefit rank-and-file members.  One method AFSCME supports for shoring up Social Security is President Clinton's (now shelved) proposal to have the federal government invest Social Security funds in the stock market.¹⁰⁴ There are a variety of problems with such a scheme, and only about one-third of all Americans approve of Washington investing Social Security funds in the stock market.¹⁰⁵ Yet AFSCME favors this plan because the federal government, rather than individuals, would control investment.  Clinton's plan has two fatal flaws: first, it gives the federal government unprecedented power over the marketplace; second, it offers special interests such as AFSCME too much influence over the economy, raising a number of troubling questions.  For example: Would the government sue tobacco companies and invest in them at the same time?  Would the government invest in Microsoft and then declare it a monopoly?  Also, if AFSCME and other unions flex their lobbying muscles, would the government use our retirement savings to pursue a pro-union agenda?

AFSCME makes a variety of dubious claims to argue against privatization.  The union pretends to be fighting against "Wall Street Interests" and the volatility inherent in the market.  In fact, AFSCME cites the risk of market investing as its number one reason for opposing private accounts.¹⁰⁶ Yet, if market turbulence is such an important issue, why would AFSCME and so many other unions invest the pensions of their employees in the stock market?  Public employee pension plans alone control $2.3 trillion in assets - 68 percent of which is invested in the stock market.¹⁰⁷ The reality is that AFSCME does not want individuals to control their own retirement money because it would give them a greater stake in, and increased influence over, the free-market economy.  These citizens would be more apt to vote for policies that promote economic growth and an efficient, scaled-down public sector.

Although AFSCME locals run their own pension plans, their combined assets allow the national union to exercise a great deal of influence over the financial services industry.

managers if the firms persist in supporting individual accounts.¹⁰⁸ There is nothing wrong with using the financial clout of a large organization to influence business associates.  However, AFSCME is using its power and influence to deny individual Americans the same financial opportunities enjoyed by the union.

While AFSCME claims that "Social Security is the most popular and successful social insurance program the federal government has ever created," the union's own literature indicates that AFSCME wants to keep some of its own members out of Social Security.¹⁰⁹ Historically, many state and local employees have been exempted from the program.  Instead, their money was placed in pension plans that are heavily invested in the stock market - and therefore earn a higher rate of return.  These employees have fought hard to keep their private pension plans and do not want to be forced into Social Security.  Although adding these people into Social Security would temporarily achieve AFSCME's goal of extending the program's viability without changing the system, AFSCME has actively opposed including their own members in the failing system.

In addition to representing the interests of it's own members, AFSCME also claims to be an advocate for working class women and minorities.  AFSCME frequently cites the impact policies will have upon these groups to buttress its arguments.  In fact, one of AFSCME's major

Security into a system of individually controlled accounts, compared with only 53 percent of whites.¹¹¹ These numbers fly in the face of criticism from AFSCME that a system of private accounts would harm minorities and women.

The views of AFSCME's leadership on Social Security are in direct opposition to the best interests of dues-paying union members.  AFSCME's own informational handbook argues for raising payroll taxes on both employers and employees to fund Social Security's future shortfalls.¹¹² AFSCME takes this position in spite of data indicating that, in order for Social Security to continue to pay the benefits it has promised, the payroll tax rate would have to be raised from the current 12.4 percent up to at least 18 percent.  This would equal a tax hike of more than $2,000 per year for a worker earning $36,000.¹¹³ For the AFSCME leadership, raising taxes on their own members is more palatable than allowing individuals to choose their own retirement plan.  Despite polls showing that over half of all union members would prefer the choice of investing Social Security in 401(k) style programs, backward-looking union officials insist on maintaining the status quo.¹¹⁴

Doling Out Opposition to Welfare Reform

Welfare should be a safety net, not a hammock. - Anonymous

When President Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee felt betrayed.  Expressing the panic felt by many on the left, he complained that "this piece of legislation hurts the most vulnerable among us and will, in the long run, depress wages for low-wage workers."¹¹⁵ McEntee clearly missed the mark - welfare reform slashed the number of families dependent upon the government while providing many recipients with the training and sense of responsibility it takes to get and hold onto a job, the only true way to break the cycle of grinding poverty.  Instead of admitting that welfare reform has been successful - the number of people on welfare fell from 13.7 million in 1995 to 7.8 million in 1998 - AFSCME continues lobbying for a return to the old system, which guaranteed handouts yet discouraged upward mobility.¹¹⁶

The new welfare system, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), is designed to focus on work and responsibility and to provide states with flexibility to create the best approaches for their individual circumstances.  General goals include: providing assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes; reducing dependency by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.¹¹⁷ Most importantly, beneficiaries must work after two years on assistance.  There are exceptions for single parents with small children and variations on the amount of work required, but the recipient can no longer make a career out of welfare.

The six guidelines for overhauling welfare outlined in AFSCME's "Blueprint for Welfare Reform" show that the union believes big government is the only solution to the problems associated with poverty.¹¹⁸

1.  "Create Real, New Jobs":  AFSCME insists that government should provide full-time union jobs for welfare recipients, thereby keeping them on the public payroll.  Yet only the private sector - which adds value to the economy - can actually create jobs without simply redistributing income from one taxpayer to another.  Government's role is to implement policies that promote sound economic policies that promote private-sector growth which, in turn, creates jobs.  Thus, in spite of AFSCME's dire predictions about welfare workers representing a threat to jobs, unemployment fell to a 30-year low in January 2000.¹¹⁹

2.  "Make Work Fair":  Because TANF pays childcare, Food Stamps, and rent assistance expenses, workfare participants are paid lower wages than regular public employees while they are receiving benefits.  Owing to this pay differential, AFSCME believes welfare workers represent a threat to high-paying civil service jobs, and is seeking to unionize and collect dues from persons enrolled in workfare programs.  TANF, however, is designed to be temporary, giving recipients experience in the workforce so they can find a self-supporting job.  By unionizing these workers and turning them into regular public employees, AFSCME would defeat the purpose of welfare reform, which is meant to conserve taxpayer dollars and help recipients make the transition to private-sector employment.

3.   "Treat Immigrants Like Every Other Taxpayer":  AFSCME trumpets its position that welfare reform unfairly targets immigrants.  Government data tells another story.  Prior to passage of the 1996 welfare reform law, the 6 percent share of the immigrant population receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was almost double the 3.2 percent rate for citizens.¹²⁰ Moreover, between 1982 and 1994, noncitizen residents receiving cash payments from the SSI program mushroomed an astounding 580 percent, from 127,900 to 738,000.  By 1990, 45 percent of elderly immigrants in California were receiving cash welfare payments.¹²¹ At least $1.1 billion in Food Stamps and AFDC flowed to over 224,000 families headed by illegal immigrants collecting benefits for their U.S.-born children.¹²² In the wake of the 1996 welfare overhaul, immigrant use of programs such as SSI and TANF dropped by 35 percent, although 1997 figures show that welfare use still remained higher among immigrants than in citizen households.¹²³

4.  "Beware of Wealthfare":  AFSCME derisively labels as "profiteers" private-sector companies that perform welfare casework for government.  While the union claims that private companies "are more interested in making a buck than in the welfare of America's poor," private workers are less likely to sign up people for benefits for ideological reasons or simply to perpetuate their role in the welfare bureaucracy.¹²⁴ An open bidding process that allows private corporations to compete with unions for government contracts is the only way to promote efficiency and guarantee the best return on taxpayers' investment.

5.  "Protect Families, not Corporations":  AFSCME argues that welfare reform and tax breaks for business have harmed poor families and demands that so-called "corporate welfare" be cut instead of social welfare programs.  They put forward an economic model in which government is responsible for prosperity and economic security, rather than entrepreneurs and private companies that provide the lion's share of positions and support the tax base that supports government jobs.  The private sector has fueled our current prosperity, standing AFSCME's neo-Marxist analysis on its head.  Increases in income and declines in poverty have been widespread, and median household income is at an all-time inflation-adjusted high.¹²⁵

6.  "Make Children Better Off":  The union's "Blueprint for Welfare Reform" states that "Any efforts to reform the nation's welfare system should be about leaving them better off, not worse."¹²⁶ By that criterion, AFSCME should consider welfare reform a success - since 1993, the poverty rate among children has fallen nearly ten percent.¹²⁷ Additionally, owing to new TANF guidelines, millions of children are being exposed to the positive values of hard work and personal responsibility by parents who must now earn their benefits.  Welfare reform also contained provisions aimed at reducing the number of children born out of wedlock, who are more likely to be victims of abuse and neglect.

AFSCME expresses concern that making welfare recipients participate in workfare jeopardizes union jobs and will lower the wages of AFSCME members.  The union tries to present this as concern for the welfare recipients and not appear self-interested.  As McEntee stated at the union's "Working for Dignity" conference, welfare reform is creating a "new, low wage, disenfranchised workforce right here at home."¹²⁸ AFSCME claims that welfare reform is making people increasingly desperate.  For example, the president of one Minnesota local insisted that 15 unskilled workers were competing for each job paying "poverty-level" wages,¹²⁹ in spite of the fact that the state's unemployment rate was an incredibly low 2.2 percent.¹³⁰ AFSCME even issued a press release stating that the situation in Minnesota "calls attention to the utter failure of welfare reform."¹³¹ Contrary to AFSCME's assertions, instead of 15 workers fighting for each "poverty-level" job, Minnesota employers are fighting for employees.

Welfare reform presents a particularly acute threat to AFSCME because public social services employees number 200,000 nationwide.¹³² Under welfare reform, these employees are being forced to compete with private corporations to deliver benefits cheaply and efficiently, meaning that government union jobs may indeed be lost.  Experts estimate that privatization of welfare administration will save an estimated 25 to 35 percent in each state.  Understandably, states are eager to cash in on the increased flexibility and efficiency provided by contracting with private corporations, and although AFSCME has blunted the full implementation of certain reforms, they are swimming upstream against the current of popular opinion.¹³³

How to Reform Public Sector Unions

Where the union movement gets weak is where you have all those damn paid union staff organizers, who are no longer workers.  They build a union bureaucracy which is just as decadent and as inflexible as management bureaucracy. - Benjamin S. Rosenthal, former New York Congressman¹³⁴

The primary source of AFSCME's power is collective-bargaining agreements that force public workers into "bargaining units."  These workers must pay dues to the union, whether they elect to become members or not.  AFSCME lavishes a large proportion of these forced dues on politics, even though union lobbying goals often contradict with the interests and beliefs of rank-and-file members.  States that currently allow monopoly representation in the public sector should repeal laws that corral workers into unions.  States should also seek passage of right to work legislation (on the books in 21 states), which simply provides that no worker can be forced to join or pay dues to a labor union as a condition of employment.  A federal right to work law would allow every American worker to choose whether or not to pay dues to a labor organization and would go a long way toward breaking the cycle of corruption - by shutting off the forced-dues spigot - that plagues unions such as AFSCME.

Ending automatic withholding of union dues from workers' paychecks and the exclusive recognition of single unions would open American unions to the forces of competition.  For example, French labor unions must be very responsive to member needs in order to convince workers that it is in their best interest to support a particular union.  As former union organizer Bob Fitch writes, "Deeply political, but with no automatic cash flow or contractual right to get workers fired if they refuse to pay dues, French unions must address the concerns of the members each month to get their support."¹³⁵ Considering our system of government is founded on ideals of free enterprise and freedom of association, there is no reason why American workers should be forced to pay tribute to labor organizations that enjoy monopoly status.

AFSCME members must be able to take greater part in the day-to-day affairs of their union.  "There is no substitute for internal union democracy to combat racketeering, get rid of corruption, and oust self-serving officials," writes one leading labor reformer.¹³⁶ Rampant

remain insulated from the needs and concerns of ordinary workers.  The solution offered by many labor leaders - simply hiring more left-wing technocrats - does nothing for union democracy.  "Labor's old guard may have been eased out," writes Steve Early, "but if the main movers and shakers are appointed hotshots instead of the people who punch a clock and pay dues, not enough has really changed."¹³⁷

It is crucial that voters elect more public officials with the courage to stand up to the powerful AFSCME political machine.  Most find it far easier to benefit from AFSCME campaign contributions, get-out-the-vote drives, phone banks, rallies, and other in-kind support than to be demonized for courting trouble with well-financed union bosses.  Thus, even many politicians at ideological loggerheads with AFSCME are often hesitant to take positions that would antagonize the union.  State and local officials in particular are forced to be wary of AFSCME, which can stage job actions that disrupt key government services such as trash collection.  Yet in spite of the obstacles faced by reformist politicians who take on AFSCME, courageous mayors and governors across the country have introduced competition into the public sector.  As a result, governments have begun to improve the quality and efficiency of services delivered to taxpayers - who are, after all, the "consumers" of public goods.

Conclusion: Big Labor = Big Government

Society possesses the right to demand from every public servant an account of his administration. - Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of France, Article 15

Assessing the current state of unionism, AFSCME president Gerald McEntee commented, "It's not healthy at all to have public-sector unions growing and private-sector unions standing still."¹³⁸ While private-sector unions gained 112,000 members in 1999, the public sector added 153,000 new workers.139 And despite the fact that unions posted a surprising net gain of 265,000 new members nationwide in 1999, robust job growth left the share of the workforce that is unionized unchanged, at 13.9 percent, down from 35 percent in the 1950s.  This data conveys two important facts: first, government unions are the future of organized labor; and second, in spite of privatization and repeated assurances from politicians that the era of big government is over, the ranks of unionized government workers are growing at an alarming rate.

Some observers see in AFSCME's politicking a refreshing rebirth of the labor movement.  Sure, they argue, McEntee may be "a big city pol, a union boss, a survivor from a faded political culture," but "the revival of machine politics that he talks about might be healthy for America."  This old-style politics involved "dragging people to the polls if necessary."¹⁴⁰ But do Americans

In McEntee, one can almost hear Tammany Hall politician George Washington Plunkitt "drawin' the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft."¹⁴¹ In spite of such pleadings, ultimately we must remember that government does not exist for the benefit of those who work for it; it exists for the benefit of citizens who pay for and need its services.

The city of Washington, DC provides a model for what could happen across the country if AFSCME-backed policies are widely implemented.  Over twelve percent of the workforce - about one out of every eight workers - is employed by the city government.¹⁴² Local taxes as a share of personal income (14.85 percent) are the highest of any jurisdiction in the United States.¹⁴³ Out of a total population of 520,000 people, 76,000 are on Social Security, 20,000 receive SSI, 54,000 receive TANF, 85,000 are on Food Stamps, and 32,000 work for the city, a total of 267,000 persons.¹⁴⁴ Accepting some overlap between beneficiaries of these programs, one can safely estimate that roughly half of the population derives its livelihood from government.  Despite sky-high taxes and a huge public sector, thousands of potholes remain unfilled, trash collection and snow removal are spotty at best, many parks are littered with garbage, and public transportation is often unreliable.  For years, Washington was in financial receivership, although the city is finally digging out of its fiscal hole.  The District government, however, is still beholden to public employee unions, who recently won $4.2 million in bonuses funded by part of the city's share of the national tobacco settlement.¹⁴⁵ Commenting on the bonuses, AFSCME international vice president David Schlein neatly summarized the union's attitude toward taxpayers: "we really don't care where the money comes from."¹⁴⁶ Most Americans would probably disagree.

Note on sources: AFSCME overhauled its web site in November 1999, so some of the URL paths may have changed.  Authors retain copies of all web citations on file.

[1] Union Members Summary, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nws.htm.

[2] The Budget for the Year 2000, Historical Tables (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1999).

[3] Ibid.

[4] See Adrian Moore, Privatization 1999: The 13^th Annual Report on Privatization (Los Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute, 1999).

[5] On the labor situation in France, see Bob Fitch, "Our Labor Leaders Need French Lessons," New Politics, vol. 6, no. 21, Summer 1996; John Laughland, "France's Rulers Are Rapidly Losing All Authority," Sunday Telegraph, December 17, 1995, 21; John Lichfield, "French Unions Disrupt Trains," The Independent, October 9, 1997, 8; Julian Nundy, "Short Work Week Claims First Victim," The Daily Telegraph, October 15, 1997, 16.  McEntee ally and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney expressed admiration for the strikes that crippled the country in late 1995, saying, "I couldn't help but be impressed with what is going on in France."  Quoted in Kenneth R. Weinstein and August Stofferahn, "From Meany to Sweeney: Labor's Leftward Tilt," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1094, October 4, 1996.

[6] See Harry Bernstein, "Bringing Labor Into the National Political Debate," Los Angeles Times, March 2, 1997, 3; Julie Kosterlitz, "Labor's Pit Bull," The National Journal, Vol. 29, No. 31, August 2, 1997, 1549.

[7] While it is well-documented that McEntee and Sweeney resented Kirkland for the AFL-CIO's decline, Sweeney paid tribute to Kirkland in a eulogy delivered after the labor leader died in August 1999, calling him "one of the master builders of the modern American labor movement."  See Statement by AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney on the Passing of AFL-CIO President Emeritus Lane Kirkland, August 14, 1999.

[8] Steve Early, "Checking the Union Labels," The Nation - Selected Book Review, www.thenation.com/issue/990208/0208/early.shtml.  Letter to U.S. Senators supporting the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, July 13, 1999, http://www.afscme.org/.

[9] Federal Elections Commission, Report of Receipts and Disbursements.

[10] National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Digest, November 8, 1996, www.ncpa.org/pd/weekly/pd118.html.

[11] Bernstein, "Bringing Labor Into the Debate."

[13] Ben White, "Soft Money Donations Soared Despite Ongoing Investigations; National Parties Received at Least $220 Million in 1997-98," The Washington Post, January 11, 1999, A17.

[14] "What Union Execs Make," Government Executive Magazine, April 25, 1997, www.govexec.com/dailyfed/

0497/042597b5.htm.

[15] Kosterlitz, "Labor's Pit Bull."  See also Economic Policy Institute 1998 Annual Report (Washington, DC, 1998), 24.

[16] Letter to U.S. Senators and Representatives Opposing the Conference Agreement on H.R. 2488, The Taxpayers Refund Act of 1999, www.afscme.org.  For examples of EPI's work on the tax cut, see Jeff Faux and Max Sawicky, "Social Investment and the Budget Debate," EPI Issue Brief #134, September 22, 1999; Ruy Teixeira, "Washington's Deaf Ear: Public Opinion and the National Budget Debate," EPI Issue Brief #135, September 22, 1999.

[17] "Amendments and Resolutions," 33^rd International AFSCME Convention, August 24-28, 1998, www.afscme.org/about/resolute/r33-toc.htm.

[18] Bernstein, "Bringing Labor Into the Debate."

[19] The Court ruled in Aboud v. Detroit Board of Education [931 U.S. 209 (1977)] and Communications Workers v. Beck [487 U.S. 735 (1988)] that unions are prohibited from spending the dues of objecting non-members to finance political and ideological activities, and are only entitled to use compulsory dues and agency fees for purposes related to collective bargaining.  Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr., "The Future of Unions in the Next Century," remarks delivered at the 1998 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, www.nrtw.org/RJLFedSoc.htm.

[21] "An Amendment to Require Objectors to Identify Those Partisan Political or Ideological Activities to Which Objection is Made and to Permit the Union to Limit the Rebate to the Expenditures for Such Activities," Amendment No. 11, 33^rd International AFSCME Convention, August 24-28, 1998.

[23] In testimony before Congress, McEntee claimed "the vital role that unions play in redesigning government is probably the most compelling argument in favor of the enactment of comprehensive collective bargaining legislation."  Gerald W. McEntee, "Needs of the Future Workforce," Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, June 24, 1998.

[24] "State Employees Get Collective Bargaining Rights," The Washington Times, April 13, 1999, C6.  See also, Margie Hyslop, "Glendening Bargains for Unions," The Washington Times, February 22, 1999, C5.

[25] Hyslop, "Glendening Bargains for Unions."

[26] "Governor: Pay Big Labor to Work for ‘Free' State," National Right to Work Newsletter, March 1999.  See also Scott Wilson, Margot Williams, and Bridget Roeber, "Interests Pick Sides in Governor's Race," The Washington Post, October 18, 1998, A1.

[27] Federal Elections Commission, Report of Receipts and Disbursements.

[28] "An Amendment to Increase the Minimum Dues Rate and the Rate of International Union Per Capita Tax," Amendment No. 1, 33^rd International AFSCME Convention, August 24-28, 1998.  The dues hikes did not go over well with the entire convention.  The Washington State delegation, angry at "quick gavels" that prevented them from voicing their opposition to the dues hike, walked off the convention floor in protest.  "McEntee Promises Action After August's Hawaii Convention Walkout," Washington State Employee, October 1998.

[29] "Despite Government Surpluses, Privatization the Order of the Day," Press Release, Reason Public Policy Institute, May 14, 1999, http://rppi.org/051499.html.

[30] "McEntee Promises Action," Washington State Employee.

[31] "Fighting Contracting Out," Collective Bargaining Reporter, Fall 1996, www.afscme.org/afscme/wrkplace/

cbr496_2.htm.

[32] ibid.

[33] "Getting it Right," www.afscme.org/pol-leg/alec04.htm.

[34] "Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers by Union Affiliation, Occupation, and Industry," Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[35] G. Pascal Zachary, "More Public Workers Lose Well-Paying Jobs as Outsourcing Grows," Wall Street Journal, August 6, 1996.  Cited in "Communities Reap Big Savings from Outsourcing," National Center for Policy Analysis, www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/pd/state/statea.html.

[36] "Comparing Employee Benefits," afscme.org/pol-leg/alec08.htm.  The AFSCME web site offers a comparison of a range of average salaries for public sector and private sector jobs in cities across the country.  The tables do show that certain public sector workers - such as attorneys - receive lower average pay than their private sector counterparts, but in most of the positions that are heavily unionized, such as general maintenance worker, heavy truck driver, and guard, public sector employees far outpace private sector workers.  See www.afscme.org/pol-leg/alecch08.htm.

[37] Gerald W. McEntee and William Lucy, "Government for Sale," www.afscme.org/afscme/wrkplace/sale01.htm. 

[38] Proposed Anti-Privatization Fund Dues Increase, Resolution No. 93, 33^rd International AFSCME Convention, August 24-28, 1998.  See also Glenn Borkin, "Big Public-Sector Union Backs a Move to Boost Dues to Organize and Lobby," Wall Street Journal, August 26, 1998.

[39] "Fighting Contracting Out."

[40] David Osborne and Peter Plastrik, "Empowerment in the Public Sector," The New Democrat, March/April, 1998, 21.

[41] Anthony Jewell, "Indianapolis Ahead in Privatization Races," The Washington Times, November 7, 1995, cited in "Privatization Issues," National Center for Policy Analysis, www.ncpa.org/pd/private/privb2.html. 

[42] Osborne and Plastrik, "Empowerment in the Public Sector."

[43] Gerald W. McEntee, "Needs of the Future Workforce," Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, June 24, 1998.

[44] Osborne and Plastrik, "Empowerment in the Public Sector."

[45] William D. Eggers, ed., Revitalizing Our Cities: Perspectives from America's New Breed of Mayors, Washington Institute for Policy Studies, February 7, 1996, cited in National Center for Policy Analysis, "Privatization Issues," www.ncpa.org/pd/private/privb3.html.

[46] Douglas Martin, "Management of Central Park is Going Private," The New York Times, February 12, 1998, cited in National Center for Policy Analysis, "Privatization Issues," www.ncpa.org/pd/private/feb98c.html.

[48] James Bovard, "Good Enough for Government Work?" The American Spectator, September 1998.

[49] Richard Wolf, "Public Aid Going Private in Many States," USA Today, August 3, 1998, cited in National Center for Policy Analysis, "Privatization Issues," www.ncpa.org/pd/state/slaugh98a.html.

[50] "McEntee Promises Action," Washington State Employee.

[51] "Fighting Contracting Out."

[52] Osborne and Plastrik, "Empowerment in the Public Sector."

[53] Kevin Duchschere, "Coleman Pushes Ahead on Privatization, City Unions are Stunned to Learn that a Competitive Bidding Program Will Proceed Without Their Input," Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 14, 1999, 3B.

[54] Public employees also do not have to bear the same insurance liability and taxes as private companies.  William D. Eggers, "Competitive Neutrality: Ensuring a Level Playing Field in Managed Competitions," How-To Guide #18, Reason Public Policy Institute, March 1998.

[55] Richard Wolf, "On Line, Not in Line: When Government Hits the Web," USA Today, June 15, 1999, cited in National Center for Policy Analysis, "Privatization Issues," www.ncpa.org/pd/private/pd061599c.html.

[56] Kosterlitz, "Labor's Pit Bull."

[57] Glenn Burkins, "Teamsters Inquiry May Tar Other Union Leaders as Well," The Wall Street Journal, October 8, 1997; Editorial, "Obstruction of Justice Department," The Washington Times, October 15, 1999, A22.

[58] Burkins, "Teamsters Inquiry May Tar Other Union Leaders."

[59] See Steven Greenhouse, "Fraud Trial Starts for Ex-Teamster Official," The New York Times, October 22, 1999, A14; Richard A. Ryan, "Clinton Friend Linked to Teamster Scandal," The Detroit News, October 17, 1999, A13; Steven Greenhouse, "Witness Says Clinton Friend Had Part in Teamster Money Scheme," The New York Times, November 18, 1999, A21.

[60] Tom Robbins, "Probe Finds Ties to Mob; Union Donated Big Bucks to Shady Charity," Daily News, December 6, 1998, 6.

[61] William Murphy, "Union Members Billed $600,000 for Penthouse - Up to $1,600 a Month Went for Maid Service," Newsday, May 1, 1999, A28; National Legal and Policy Center, "Panel's Findings on Corrupt Boss Diop Released," Union Corruption Update, Vol. 2, Issue 10, May 10, 1999.

[62] William Murphy, "AFSCME Wants Audits - Unionwide Probe Spurred in Part by City," Newsday, September 2, 1998, A28.

[63] Bill Vann, "New Revelations of Corruption in New York City Unions," World Socialist Web Site, December 30, 1998, http://socialequality.com/workers/1998/dec1998/dc37-d30.shtml.

[64] "The Historic Rise - and Sad Fall - of District Council 37," Forward, January 29, 1999, 7.

[65] National Legal and Policy Center, "Turnout 10% in Corrupt New York Local," Union Corruption Update, Vol. 2, Issue 14, July 5, 1999.

[66] National Legal and Policy Center, "Union Bosses' Lavish Hawaiian Junket," Union Corruption Update, Vol. 1, Issue 7, September 7, 1998.

[67] Fitch, "Our Labor Leaders Need French Lessons,"; "What Union Execs Make," Government Executive Magazine, April 25, 1997, www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0497/042597b5.htm.

[68] National Journal data cited in Union Corruption Update, National Legal and Policy Center, January 31, 2000.

[69] Karen McPherson, "Congress' Pay Scale not up to CEO Level," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 31, 1999.

[70] Kosterlitz, "Labor's Pit Bull."

[71] Bill Miller, "Two Admit to Embezzlement," The Washington Post, July 24, 1998, D2.

[72] Scott Sandlin, "Fired Union Organizer Wins Suit," Albuquerque Journal, June 18, 1999.

[73] Steven Greenhouse, "Document Details Abuses in a Union of Civil Servants," The New York Times, January 21, 2000, A1.

[74] William Murphy, "Municipal Workers' Union Dues Increase," Newsday, August 29, 1998, A17.

[75] "Carville On Election 2000: Progressives' Issues Need Broader Context," AFSCME Leader, January 2000, www.afscme.org/publications/leader/00010111.htm.

[76] Letter to Representatives Opposing Freedom from Government Competition Act, April 27, 1998, www.afscme.org/action/1980427.htm; AFSCME Legislative Alert, "Responsible Contractor Regulations," July 29, 1999; "Congress' Tax Cut Plan Gives Most to ‘Haves,'" AFSCME Leader, September 1999.

[77] 1999 AFSCME Legislative Agenda, "National Budget Policies," www.afscme.org/action/la9904.htm.

[78] AFSCME Weekly Report, July 23, 1999, www.afscme.org/action/weekly%5Freports/r990723.htm.

[79] AFSCME Legislative Alert, "Working Families Can't Afford a Huge Tax Cut for the Rich," September 9, 1999.

[81] Bruce Bartlett, "Why All Taxpayers Deserve a Tax Cut," National Center for Policy Analysis Brief  #284, February 18, 1999.

[82] 1999 AFSCME Legislative Agenda, "National Budget Policies."

[83] Invest in America, "Now is the Time to Speak Forcefully for Increased Domestic Investment," www.ombwatch.org/ia/talkingpoints.html.

[84] USA Statistics in Brief, U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov:80/statab/www/part4.html.

[85] "Mothers Who Receive Food Stamps," U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Brief, (SB/95-22) August 1995.

[86] Ibid.

[87] USA Statistics in Brief, U.S. Census Bureau.

[88] Tom Herman, "States Enjoy Another Year of Bulging Coffers," The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 1999, A1.

[89] "Resolve: Fighting Corporate Greed," AFSCME Fighting for the Future, www.afscme.org/about/ff03.htm; "State Spending Spree," Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2000, A22.

[90] David Brunori, "Initiatives, Referendums Are Here to Stay," Limits, Public Interest Institute, September 1999.

[91] "When Rules Replace Reason: Why Tax and Spending Limits Aren't Getting Us Good Government," AFSCME Public Policy Department, June 1994, www.afscme.org/pol-leg/rules.htm.

[92] "Taxpayers' Pleas," Editorial, Investor's Business Daily, November 5, 1999.

[93] AFSCME Weekly Report, June 19, 1998.

[94] Mark Schmidt, "Why Taxing Internet Sales is a Bad Idea," The San Diego Union-Tribune, December 15, 1999.

[95] "Resolve: Fighting Corporate Greed," AFSCME Fighting for the Future.

[96] "State Spending Spree," Wall Street Journal.

[97] Ibid.

[98] "About AFSCME," www.afscme.org/about/index.html.

[99] Peter Ferrara and Michael Tanner, Common Cents, Common Dreams, A Layman's Guide to Social Security Privatization (Washington DC: Cato Institute, 1998), 29.

[100] Ibid.

[101] Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, www2.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/19990119-2656.html.

[102] Neil Howe and Richard Jackson, "The Graying of the Welfare State," National Taxpayers Union Foundation Policy Paper No. 117, August 30, 1999.

[103] Eric Schlecht, "Private Savings Accounts: The Cure for What Ails Social Security," National Taxpayers Union Foundation Policy Paper No. 110, April 7, 1999, www.ntu.org/pp110.htm.

[104] AFSCME, "Everything You Wanted to Know About Social Security's Future, But Were Afraid to Ask," www.afscme.org/wrkplace/ssfut09.htm

[105] Schlecht, "Private Savings Accounts."

[106] AFSCME, "Everything You Wanted to Know About Social Security."

[107] Scott Hoge, "Social Security Reform is about Protecting Workers," The Houston Chronicle, May 17, 1999.

[108] Shanon Gutierrez, "The Union Campaign Against Social Security Reform," Labor Watch, September 1999.

[109] "AFSCME legislative Agenda 1999 - Strengthening Social Security," www.afscme.org/action/la9908.htm; See also "AFSCME Opposes Mandatory Social Security," AFSCME Public Employee, July/August 1998.

[110] "Fighting Privatization:  Research," www.afscme.org/wrkplace/privat02.htm

[111] Zogby International Poll, August 2, 1999, www.socialsecurity.org/zogby/priv3.html.

[112] AFSCME, "Everything You Wanted to Know About Social Security."

[113] Ferrara and Tanner, Common Cents, Common Dreams.

[114] Zogby International Poll, August 2, 1999.

[115] "Statement by AFSCME President Gerald McEntee Re . . . Welfare Reform," July 31, 1996, www.afscme. org/press/pr073196.htm.

[116] U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999, (119^th Edition), Washington, DC, 1999.

[117] "Welfare Factsheet," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opa/facts/tanf.htm.

[118] "AFSCME's Blueprint for Welfare Reform," AFSCME Public Employee, January/February 1997.

[119] John D. McKinnon, "Unemployment Declined to 30-Year Low," The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2000, A2.

[120] "Welfare Reform: Implications of Proposals on Legal Immigrants' Benefits," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, www.hhs.gov.

[121] "Elderly Aliens on Welfare," National Center for Policy Analysis, www.ncpa.org/ea/eaja95/eaja95c.html.

[123] Mae M. Cheng, "Tracking Welfare Drop/Use Falls Among Immigrants," Newsday article posted on web site of The Urban Institute, www.urban.org/imig/trends_newsday.html.

[124] "AFSCME's Blueprint for Welfare Reform."

[125] U.S. Census Bureau, "Income and Poverty 1998 - Press Briefing," September 30, 1999.

[126] "AFSCME's Blueprint for Welfare Reform."

[127] Data from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Second Annual Report to Congress, August 6, 1999, www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/director.htm.

[128] "Whose Welfare? Welfare Reform Threatens Workers' Welfare," AFSCME Public Employee, January/February 1997.

[129] "AFSCME Fights for Workfare Justice," www.afscme.org/alep/alepnews/alp98209.htm.

[130] Unemployment Data for U.S. and Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, October 1999, www.one-stop98.org/lmi/laus/us_mn.htm.

[131] " AFSCME Fights for Workfare Justice."

[132] "State Response to Welfare Reform," National Center for Policy Analysis www.ncpa.org/pi/ welfare/pdwel/pdwe183b.html.

[133] Ibid.

[134] Cited in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), 893.

[135] Fitch, "Our Labor Leaders Need French Lessons."

[136] "Union Democracy," www.uniondemocracy.com/about.html.

[137] Early, "Checking the Union Labels."

[138] Kosterlitz, "Labor's Pit Bull."

[139] Steven Greenhouse, "Growth in Union's Membership in 1999 Was the Best in Two Decades," The New York Times, January 20, 2000, A10.

[140] Sebastian Malla, "The New Machine Politics," The Washington Post, November 9, 1999, A25.

[141] "Plain Words from Truthful George," American Heritage, June 1963.

[142] Ronald J. Hansen, "Worker Bonuses Get OK," The Washington Times, November 9, 1999, C1.  32,000 of the city's 258,000-person workforce are employed by the DC government.

[143] Tax Foundation, "Average State/Local Tax Rates by State," www.taxfoundation.org/prstatelocal99table.html.

[144] U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999, (119^th edition), Washington, DC, 1999.

[145] Ronald J. Hansen, "Council OKs Bonus Payouts," The Washington Times, December 15, 1999, C1.

Return to NTU/NTUF Homepage