In their bids for governor, Xavier Becerra, Tom Steyer, and Steve Hilton attributed California’s systemic issues to Donald Trump, corporations, and the Democratic party, respectively. That rhetoric might appeal to some voters but not to the facts. Becerra’s claims are undermined by the fact that California has significantly lagged behind other states during the Trump (and, for that matter, Biden) presidencies. Under Gavin Newsom, the state’s unemployment ranking deteriorated to the worst in the nation, school closures lasted longer than anywhere else—causing deep harm to millions of students—and budget deficits surged even as revenues peaked.
Steyer accurately points out that political influence by utility corporations results in excessive power bills, yet this does not account for the state’s budget or educational struggles. Meanwhile, Hilton avoids acknowledging the critical part Republican leadership—including Governors Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson along with GOP legislators—played in initiating the pension crisis currently overwhelming school and government finances.
I may be open to the same criticism of overgeneralization for frequently identifying government employee unions as a primary cause of California’s difficulties, yet I maintain that this conclusion is firmly supported by the evidence. While these organizations are not to blame for high gasoline prices or the lack of affordable housing, they bear central responsibility for the state’s educational shortcomings and budget problems.
The transformation of government employee unions into dominant political entities began in 1968, when Governor Reagan signed legislation establishing collective bargaining rights for local and county staff. The impact was immediate; for example, Los Angeles County saw spending on employee compensation and benefits escalate at an annual rate of 13.5% over the following ten years. This surge triggered a voter rebellion in the form of Proposition 13, which capped the property taxes that schools and local governments relied upon.
However, this shift merely moved the financial strain to the state level. Under Governor Jerry Brown, the state began backfilling local and school budgets while simultaneously extending collective bargaining rights to state and school employees. The consequences of these policies have been enduring: public schools have struggled, prison spending has been prioritized over higher education due to the influence of correctional union contributions, and the enactment of a retroactive pension increase created the largest debt issuance in California’s history.
Operating essentially as businesses funded by tax revenue, government employee unions function much like Chevron, PG&E and other businesses but with more political power. They utilize popular political slogans—such as “Stop Trump!” or “Tax Billionaires!”—to appeal to voters and secure new taxes to generate more revenues for government employees. These funds are directed through government structures managed by politicians under their influence, allowing the unions to consistently secure their interests. A prime example is a recent Service Employees International Union initiative in San Francisco, which was presented as a tax on the wealthy but served primarily as a new revenue stream for its members. Furthermore, these unions act as significant shareholders in other enterprises through public pension funds; due to a destructive 1991 budget decision by Republican Governor Pete Wilson and the subsequent passage of Proposition 162 in 1992, these funds are governed by the unions even though the financial risk rests entirely with taxpayers.
It is important to distinguish these from private sector unions, which do not rely on tax dollars. I categorize private unions alongside corporations and other special interests—like trial lawyers or dental associations—that lobby lawmakers using money earned outside of government revenue. Government employee unions are unique because they occupy a position “inside the temple”. While private unions must bargain with independent management, government unions work to install and dominate the very management responsible for setting their taxpayer-funded compensation.
Should the legislature secure a majority consensus and obtain the governor’s endorsement, California possesses the authority to dismantle collective bargaining for its public workforce. From my perspective, no alternative policy shift holds greater potential to enhance the efficacy of governance within our borders.
