Local Government Unions Raise Your Taxes

By Chris Braunlich

Subscribers to Netflix will soon see rate increases because of the Screen Actors Guild-AFTRA Hollywood strikes.  Buyers of new and used cars will, as a result of the United Auto Workers strike, see prices go up as supply dwindles and costs rise.

The current spate of labor actions – involving more than 420,000 employees – is a response to higher inflation.  However, it will also drive prices even higher, both through lost productivity and higher costs to pay for higher wages.

But as the old song goes, Virginians ain’t seen nothing yet … at least not if government unions get their way after this year’s elections.  There are more increases coming – to your local property tax bill.

Collective bargaining and the monopoly union contracts they lead to are a new experience in Virginia.  The General Assembly approved such bargaining at the local level in 2020.  So far, union organizing efforts have mostly centered around high population areas of the state.

There’s a reason for that:  union concerns focus less on salaries and working conditions than on maximizing the number of members and therefore the dues they receive from that membership.   Collecting dues money from larger counties provides the resources to impose monopoly contracts on smaller jurisdictions.  It is coming, eventually, to every Virginia county and city … and with a cost.

There is, after all, a reason the General Assembly permitted only local governments to take the plunge but not state employees:  they knew the costs this will impose on government and they did not want to deal with it at the state level.  Consider what is already being discussed in localities.

Fairfax, Loudoun, Alexandria, and Portsmouth together estimated the cost of administering a Collective Bargaining Contract at more than $5.5 million.  That is before the contracts really start running up the costs as they do in other states, driving up employee costs 5-8 percent.

In Prince William County, teachers are demanding a 17 percent pay raise, or about a third of the school system’s current salary budget.  In Richmond City, the new monopoly union contract requires up to a 40 percent salary increase over the next three years.

Few localities in Virginia have gotten to the point of finalizing teacher salaries, but union organizers are no doubt looking to places like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, or even Bergen County, New Jersey for their inspiration.  And while public employee strikes remain prohibited in Virginia, a union that is the sole bargaining agent can order its members to “work to the rule,” conduct a “sick-out,” and exert other forms of public pressure.

In short:  it’s going to get expensive.  What can taxpayers do to prevent the coming tsunami in their tax bills?

For starters:  let their local county supervisors, school board members and council members know that collective bargaining leading to monopoly union contracts will raise local property tax rates, and urge them to resist going down that road.

Localities are not required to authorize collective bargaining.  But should a local government or school board say “No,” unions are permitted to tie up agendas and force a vote every six months, again and again and again.

And while unions claim this is all a “kumbaya moment” – a matter of “having a seat at the table” — for unions it is adversarial and much, much more.

A successful monopoly contract means a steady flow of political dollars into the teachers’ unions, and more money spent on a union agenda.  For example:

Politicians are mostly likely to listen and be held accountable when they are up for re-hiring.  That comes November 7, when county supervisors, State Delegates and State Senators are up for election.

Taxpayers and voters should make it clear to their local officials:  don’t add to taxpayer costs by going down the road to expensive monopoly contracts.

And they should make it equally clear to legislators:  repeal the law that enables those costly contracts.

Chris Braunlich is Senior Advisor and former President of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, which first published this commentary earlier today.  


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

40 responses to “Local Government Unions Raise Your Taxes”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    What’s funny is that many county fire & rescue and sheriff have “unions” as well as companies like UPS and yes.. they all lobby for pay equity compared to other counties but last I heard they never
    talked about strikes. However, they DO come in front of the BOS
    to talk about inflation and competitive pay, etc.

    The anti-tax folks are many respects IMO, folks who wants services
    for free. They just resent paying taxes on a concept basis!

    I hate taxes also…. no question… but I also want decent schools and effective law enforcement and fire and rescue that works.

    No where is there a better connection between taxpayers and their elected, in my view.

    The only way to screw it up is for Va to put a cap on teacher pay and then send rebates back to the county to pay for increases, aka like the car tax the state collects then sends back to the locality and local taxpayers think they are getting rebates to lower their taxes!

  2. Teddy007 Avatar

    OK, what pay raise should the teachers be given? What are the pay raises for other local employees? If there a teacher shortage and what is the annual force force turnover in the public schools in places like Fairfax, Prince William, or Loudoun.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      You’re messing up the basic idea… ANY tax increase is BAD!

      1. Teddy007 Avatar

        Then what is one willing to give up to keep employing public school teachers? parks, health inspections, Medicare?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I was being sarcasitc.

          Yes… people want these services but they don’t want to pay for them or they don’t think if they don’t use them that they should still have to pay for them.

          It’s TJI’s basic credo I think.

          1. Teddy007 Avatar

            I always ask anyone who promotes privitizing K-12 education: What country that does not have public education should the U.S. emulate? They never have an answer.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yep. Or divert taxes to non-public schools?

          3. Teddy007 Avatar

            Having the k-12 schools operate likie healthcare where the government pays the bill but private providers do the work would probably be about as successful at cost cutting or providing quality services as the current U.S. healthcare system. I always ask people why they to move the college application hassles down to the kindergarten level.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            works pretty good for for-profit companies selling to folks with veteran benefits!!! NOT!

          5. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            And yours is, all tax increases are good, because the needs of the government come first!

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Teachers are government? We’re talking about the needs of employees.

            How’s that “trickle down” working for teachers?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            Of course not. But teachers police, fire & rescue deserve reasonable wages and you can’t do that by being opposed to tax increases no matter what. The APA local govt comparisons are a good way to determine “reasonable” IMO https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e58764a6c1134634fb2a1d5c2c4b4b2a3df88a80c71bacc13cb85b1b0346ea33.png https://www.apa.virginia.gov/APA_Reports/Comparative%20Reports.aspx

      2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        The problem has been that local tax increases have generally exceeded the increases in taxpayers’ income over time. This is no more sustainable than freezing local government revenue over time.

        1. Teddy007 Avatar

          If one wants to keep public schools functional while not raising taxes, then one has to provide specific cuts to make else where. One could cut libraries by 100% and not dent the money needed to operate schools. The same with parks.

          Or if school spending is not going up, then what school programs should be cut to allow those remaining teachers a pay increase?

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            You are twisting my words. I did not say that local tax increases should never occur, be they by increased assessments or rate increases. That is not sustainable over time. But neither is increasing local taxes at rates that exceed increases in income.

            Schools need to be funded, and teachers need raises. But there is not a similarly compelling need to raise pay by the same amounts for many administrative positions on the central staff, as there is very little turnover. Similarly, the ratio of non-teaching positions has grown faster than changes in the number of teachers and students. Reduce many of those positions.

            Moreover, with changes in demographics and parent frustration, the number of students in many public school systems is down from pre-pandemic levels. That means fewer teachers and other non-teaching positions are needed. How many systems have made RIFs?

            There are likely duplicate support systems between county/city government and school systems. How much can be saved by consolidation?

            Many support functions, e.g., school buses, custodians, food service, could likely be obtained from third-party vendors, as it done in many other states. How much can be saved?

            There may well be needs for higher taxes to support education but first, there is plenty of room for cost savings. Those should be obtained.

          2. Teddy007 Avatar

            Generic headcount cuts is not very specific. What specific programs need to be cut. What do schools need to stop doing to save money to keep spending under inflation. and where is the cite that shows that schools have lost enough students to justify personnel reductions. And where is the cite that third party food service or custodians is cheaper. That just mean paying those people less but hiding it by making them private sector.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            THe suggested “cuts” are not sustainable either because they are predicated on cost savings not taken which presumes we’re paying for things we don’t need or could be provided cheaper. No actual analysis to show that.. just the belief is apparently sufficient to claim that increase in pay should be balanced with decreases in other areas perceived to be “not needed”.

            I’ll take the schools word over the anti-tax folks any day of the week!

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            That’s the point, they don’t.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Via the provided link, this false claim is propagated in this piece:

    “Prince William County teachers union 17% pay raise would require 73% hike in homeowner tax bills”

    Can TJI at least TRY to not participate in disinformation, please….?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Not seeing that “73%” claim in Chris’s text, just the statement that they want a 17% hike. If he linked to a story to back it up, and that included some other claims, that doesn’t mean he endorses everything in it. Unfair, sir Troll. Had he not provided a link others would say he was making it up.

      Democrats have such an interesting definition of “disinformation.”

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Not seeing that “73% tax hike” claim in Chris’s text, just the statement that they want a 17% pay hike. If he linked to a story to back it up, and that included some other claims he didn’t repeat, that doesn’t mean he endorses everything in it. Unfair, Sir Troll. Had he not provided a link others would say he was making it up.

      Democrats have such an interesting definition of “disinformation.” Convenient, too.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Republicans have such an interesting definition of minimum wage.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        He provided the link and the only thing at the link was the headline I quoted which has previously been cited hereon and shown to be completely false. If he doesn’t agree with the headline, he shouldn’t link to it. I stand behind my characterization.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Yep. playing games… as usual..

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          That’s called “indoctrination”.

  4. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    FDR’s letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, of August 16, 1937.

    My dear Mr. Steward:

    As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

    Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades “has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships.” Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

    The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

    All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

    Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

    I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

    Very sincerely yours,
    [FDR]

    1. Not Today Avatar

      Did you send this to the Republicans on Capitol Hill? Seems they missed the memo. There’s a whole cabal of bullies in the house prepared to hold government workers (read military personnel) hostage to their power-grabbing whims.

    2. Not Today Avatar

      Did you send this to the Republicans on Capitol Hill? Seems they missed the memo. There’s a whole cabal of bullies in the house prepared to hold government workers (read military personnel) hostage to their power-grabbing whims.

    3. Not Today Avatar

      Did you send this to the Republicans on Capitol Hill? Seems they missed the memo. There’s a whole cabal of bullies in the House prepared to hold government workers (read military personnel and their families…collateral damage) hostage to their power-grabbing whims. The contract (work for civility) is broken.

  5. Unions can put a business into bankruptcy. Public unions can require taxes to be raised.

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I have deep reservations about public employee unions. However, this article is too alarmist. The author overlooks one provision of state law dealing with public employee unions: “No ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to subsection A shall include provisions that restrict the governing body’s authority to establish the budget or appropriate funds.” (Sec. 40.1-57.2) Boards of Supervisors and city councils have the last word on what gets funded. In any labor agreement, school boards should include the phrase the General Assembly often include in legislation: “Subject to appropriation….”

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Now that there is funny. Try inserting that in a labor agreement. The actual check on abuse that state law provides is the prohibition on strikes, but again, we’ll see how that works out in practice when this really gets rolling.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        If the unions don’t agree to that phrase, then there should be no agreement.

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      VEA will simply payoff and bankroll the school board.

    3. And they can’t strike.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    1990/1991 salaries…

    https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d96/d96t078.asp

    The job ain’t changed. Content has a bit. Effort?

    2016/2017
    https://emu.edu/education/docs/vdoe-salary-report.pdf

    Use your own inflation calculator, or take this
    https://tools.carboncollective.co/inflation/us/1991/32600/2016/

    32,600 (1991) was $57,500 (2016)
    Not many places over $50,000 in those columns.

    We’ve been cheating them for years… payback’s a bear.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Act — the golden calf.

  9. DJRippert Avatar

    “From 1977 to 2020, in 2020 inflation-adjusted dollars, state and local government spending increased from $1.2 trillion to $3.5 trillion, a 200 percent increase. Real per capita expenditures increased from $5,302 to $10,540, a 99 percent increase, over the same period.”

    So, adjusted for both inflation and population growth, state and local spending in the US has doubled since 1977 (46 years).

    Do you feel like your state and local services are twice as good as they were in 1977? Schools? Law enforcement? Traffic?

    That is why people oppose yet more tax increases.

    https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/state-and-local-expenditures#:~:text=From%201977%20to%202020%2C%20in,increase%2C%20over%20the%20same%20period.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      $1 in 1977 is worth $5.08 today – Inflation Calculator

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Such a deal.

        In 1979, I bought a brand new VW Scirocco. Four banger, AC, AM-FM radio and 3-pt restraint system that came with a sticker price of $8,400. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $37,000 in today’s dollar.

        The car? The 1979 VW Scirocco is comparable to a, oh say, 2024 base model Mazda-3 if you strip out the airbags, the Starlink, the ABS, the Nav System, the carpet, etc., which you could buy for $18,000.

        $37,000 buys a lot of car.

Leave a Reply