Update: Watch the video from this program on the Alumni Association website.
Are the current efforts by some governors to eliminate or curtail collective bargaining an attack on workers’ rights or fiscal necessity? One of the Institute’s key thinkers and a national expert in this area, Professor Thomas A. Kochan of the MIT Sloan School, will offer his thoughts and take questions from the worldwide MIT alumni community on Monday, March 21, from noon to 12:30 p.m. EDT.
This video chat, the inaugural webcast of Faculty Forum Online, presents a unique opportunity to debate an important issue with an MIT expert. Register for this free event. Once you register, the URL for the webcast will be sent to you for live viewing.
After the event, come back here and continue the conversation in the comments.
Thomas Kochan is the George Maverick Bunker Professor of Management at MIT's Sloan School of Management, professor in MIT's Engineering Systems Division, and codirector of both the MIT Workplace Center and the Institute for Work and Employment Research.
In 1973, he received his Ph.D. in industrial relations from the University of Wisconsin and has since served as a third-party mediator, fact finder, and arbitrator and as a consultant to a variety of government and private-sector organizations and labor-management groups—he helped Boston resolve its standoff with the firefighters' union last year, for example.
He has researched a variety of topics related to industrial relations and human resource management in the public and private sector, and he's written, cowritten, and edited numerous books and journal articles.
His most recent books include Healing Together (ILR Press, 2009), about Kaiser Permanente's complex labor-management partnership, and Restoring the American Dream: A Working Families' Agenda for America (MIT Press, 2005).
Comments
LYNN WHELCHEL
Mon, 03/21/2011 3:08pm
What are the data sources for the statement that public workers are less well off than private workers. My data shows the opposite, e.g., no deduction from pension payouts for retiring early, higher median pay, differing assumptions of rate of return for pensions, etc.. I admit that my data is only for the state of Connecticut. Remember, trust, but verify--I wish to verify the statements. Thanks in advance.
Janet Sethares
Mon, 03/21/2011 12:41pm
Professor Kochan mentioned a white paper on the topic of collective bargaining. How can I access this report?
Cotuit, Mass.
Tom Gearing
Mon, 03/21/2011 12:40pm
The fundamental problem with healthcare still seems to stem from decisions made during World War II, to break the restrictions on wage increases by allowing the employer contribution to health care plans to go tax free. That, along with making it illegal to sell health care plans across state lines, and exempting the health insurers from anti-monopoly laws. If we remove all this government interference and make people buy their own health insurance, just like they buy their own car insurance, the free market would bring the costs down, and tax payers would not be paying anything for government worker's healthcare. Same for pensions - should not be employer run, people should purchase their own retirement plan, without regard to where the work, or do not work. Let's deal with fundamentals first.
Leon Tabak
Tue, 03/22/2011 4:16pm
I appreciated the presentation. I have seen the passions that this issue has generated on the campus (in Iowa) where I teach.
I wish to respond to Professor Kochan's use of the term "ideological."
All sides in this debate are ideological. The belief that there is a right to bargain collectively that may not be compromised is an ideology. The belief that public sector unions have gained power by infringing upon the rights of taxpayers and workers who would prefer not to support a union is also an ideology.
We are all tempted to suppose that those with whom we disagree have only opinions. We have conclusions. They are driven by emotion, prejudice, and narrow self-interest. We have reason, science, irrefutable logic, and a concern for the whole community's well-being. In fact, it is rarely so simple.
I do not require neutrality or perfect balance in a presentation of this kind. I would prefer that we respect our opponents in a debate, acknowledge that they also have their facts while we also have interests, and that we resist more strongly the temptation to dismiss our opponents by calling them ideologues.
George Slusher
Tue, 03/22/2011 3:38pm
Does your data adjust for differences in education? As the white paper says, state and local governments have a higher percentage of college graduates than the private sector. One should compare comparable jobs, not "all public sector jobs" vs "all private sector jobs." For example, compare physicians working for the public health departments with physicians in private practice, attorneys in the DA's office with those in private practice, etc.
I recall a "study" several decades ago that "found" that military officers were higher-paid than comparable civilian jobs, which was news to me, as I was paid a lot less than most of my MIT classmates that I kept in contact with. I dug deeper and found that the data was very biased. They left out top executives in the private sector, who often made 10-100 times what the highest-ranking military officers did, thought the generals could be responsible for more people and money than the corporate executives. Their selection was not adjusted for education, at a time when over 40% of USAF officers had advanced degrees; the proportion in the upper ranks was much higher. (In fact, an officer's chance of getting promoted to major or above dropped dramatically if she/he did NOT have an advanced degree plus service schools taught at the graduate level.)
Amy Marcott
Tue, 03/22/2011 1:01pm
Here is a link to the paper:
Getting it right: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications from Research on Public-Sector Unionism and Collective Bargaining http://www.employmentpolicy.org/topic/402/research/getting-it-right
Peter Birk
Tue, 03/22/2011 7:14am
Here's the facts on the ground:
Americans like you and me are dying every day. I have seen many cases of good hard-working citizens having health insurance premiums paid out of their wages, get sick, get fired, end up homeless and unable to pay for medication.
There is no free market. I defy you to call your three nearest hospitals and get a quote for a chest x-ray or a day in the hospital. The insurance companies inform the hospitals and doctors what they will get paid. If pressed, the quote you get will be 4 - 8 times more than they are paid by Aetna or UHC.
The 'fundamental problem' if you want to talk 'fundamentals' is the same as it is in most of our society. Way before WWII, joint stock companies were chartered by the king to allow speculators to pool money to finance expensive, risky ventures. The potential for profit was limitless, the risk was limited to whatever money was invested in the pool. The rest is history. Corporations (as we call them today) have continued to follow their charter to maximize ROI. This has led them to use their incredible wealth to influence the legislative and judicial processes. Every change I have seen on 30 years, from Medicare part D through Health Care Reform has been either defeated or more often thwarted by corporate medicine to raise their profits beside which any real benefit to our citizens has been nil.
Only two things limit corporate power - tort lawyers and unions. Watch them be weakened as corporate power grows. Too many of us are watching Fox News as news (see comment $6 below).
George Slusher
Tue, 03/22/2011 3:23pm
Re: "Liberal bias"
Everyone is "biased" in some way, including those making the comments about Prof Kochan's bias. I would bet that, if he had come out against public sector unions, many of the commentors above would have praised him to the heavens. That would be just as wrong as their carping comments about a "liberal bias." Many of the comments seem to be filled with conservative propaganda.
Also, using inflammatory buzzwords like "Marxist" doesn't help. (It also demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge and/or misconceptions about Marxism.)
David Marcus, on the other hand, got it. We have a tendancy to only pay attention to people who agree with our preconceptions, our own biases and to "accept" only data that agrees with us--the "confirmation bias." The internet makes this even easier to do, as we can be very selective in what we pay attention to.
Instead, we should actively seek out experts who disagree with our biases and check out their information. (How many of the angry commentors even bothered to get the white paper?) If the information is valid but doesn't support our own opinions, it could be time to change those opinions. To not do so is to invite disaster.
LEON SCHINDEL
Tue, 03/22/2011 12:57pm
Unions have the power (sometimes exercised) to adversely affect our well-being. Their incentives result in rewarding mediocrity. I believe that both of these problems could be solved by removing their exemption from anti-trust laws. If unions were required to compete, they would have incentives to reward better workers and provide better service. At the same time, they would have to provide better contracts for their members. The result, I believe, would be a revitalization and redirection of the labor movement in this country.
David Marcus
Tue, 03/22/2011 12:14pm
It is too bad that people don't wish to listen to those who actually know something about a topic. Having presenters on "both sides" of an issue does not contribute to knowledge. We've seen this in the news media where the media turns every topic into a contest between two sides. The result is a public that doesn't believe in evolution or climate change. The Alumni Association is right to present experts that we can learn from. If the experts disagree with your political beliefs, it would be logical to modify your beliefs, not complain about the experts. One would hope that people had learned this by attending MIT, but it seems you can't force people to learn.
Robert Rifkin
Tue, 03/22/2011 12:57am
We learned during our MIT education, that we start from the raw empirical facts. The empirical facts of the past several years are that collective bargaining, as it has existed in the public sector, and certain private companies, like GM, have led to bankruptcies of the employers. There may be more than one flaw in the current version of collective bargaining, but certainly, the ability to collectively bartain for benefits that accrue far in the future, the cost of which is nearly impossible to assess, stands out as one, and needs to be curtailed. The style with which Wisconsin governor implemented this may be poor, but it is the correct first step. To speak of collective bargaining as a "right" incorrectly elevates to the level of free speech, etc. It is not an inaliable right, but one granted, and granted rights can be modified if they are having adverse effects. Many workers, whether blue or white collar, academic or professional, doctors, lawyers, etc. cannot bargain collectively for anything, so it simply cannot be the case that this is some inaliable right. Rather it is a privelege, and one that has recently gotten totally out of control and threatens the financial integrity of our country. At the same time, it is true that wealthy individuals have garnered too great a share of the economic pie, and this also needs to be addressed. It makes great sense to limit collective bartaining to items whose costs can be accurately determined by management or government as the case may be for public workers, so the concept implemented in Wisconsin is rational, even if not executed in a cordial manner. As to health care costs, they can NEVER be controlled as long as physicians are constantly under the threat of litigation and are forced to constantly practice defensive medicine.
Bob
Tue, 03/22/2011 12:42am
I agree with the comments above that it was very one-sided. If the purpose was education instead of propaganda, they should have at least had a panel discussion of 2 professors, with a conservative professor to balance the liberal one. Surely the Sloan School of Management has at least one economic conservative.
For example, he dismissed the objection to collective bargaining for public-sector workers as a political power grab, whereas even FDR and George Meany (the first president of the AFL-CIO) opposed public-sector collective bargaining.
Dr. Thomas Cuthbert
Mon, 03/21/2011 6:39pm
My 2007 iMac opened the Forum URL using Firefox or Safari browsers without a hitch. I completed Professor Jack’s unbiased Labor Law course at M.I.T. 63 years ago, and also recall an impressive evening debate between the Steelworkers union president and the president of U.S. Steel in the 10-250 auditorium.
I grew up in a New Deal labor family in the 1930s, so I was not sure what bias to expect from Professor Thomas Kochan in 2011. I strongly disagree with the previous comment of elite liberal propaganda. The Professor’s remarks were quite constructive and had none of the vitriol and bias typical of the Koch machine.
Gerry
Mon, 03/21/2011 6:10pm
Didn't we get enough of this cliched Marxist propaganda while undergraduates? Please don't subject us to more of it as alums! The idea of faculty fora for alums is a worthwhile one, but please no more political rants.
Harry Moser
Mon, 03/21/2011 4:56pm
I agree 100% with Mike. Prof. Kochan's bias was embarrasingly transparent for an MIT webinar. My research on the subject of comparative compensation shows that the researchers routinely cost the pensions and healthcare based on the actual contributions by the employer rather than the amounts that should have been contributed to fully fund the benefit. I checked with BLS to confirm this fact re the most commonly used data. Thus $ trillions of compensation is not included.
Similarly, no adjusment is made for almost 100% job security. The private sector unemployed should have their zero compensation averaged in with the comp of the employed workers. The performance of public workers has to be lower since it is almost impossible to fire the worst performers. Etc.
Mike
Mon, 03/21/2011 1:05pm
I just finished watched the webcast and it's full of elite liberal propaganda. Kochan doesn't even try to hide his liberal bias, and looking at OpenRecords he has donated $5000+ to Democrats in 2008 and was part of Obama's economic transition team.
Kochan's solution to WI's budget problem is predictable: raise taxes on the wealth. He also complained about Citizens United, income inequality, lack of universal health care, etc...
It comes as no surprise that his book "Restoring the American Dream" has been endorsed by three of the most pro-union advocates in recent history:
* Senator Edward M. Kennedy
* John Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO
* Andrew L. Stern, President, SEIU
Perhaps "MIT Faculty Forum Online" should be renamed to "Liberal Weekly Address"?
Roy W. Roth
Mon, 03/21/2011 12:17pm
The URL provided gave me the following message;
Oops! This link appears to be broken.
Suggestions:
* Go to mit.edu
*
Search on Google:
Paul Clermont
Mon, 03/21/2011 12:14pm
Faculty webinars a great concept, but execution matters. Just trying to open the indicated link blew up all 3 of my browsers (Safari, Firefox & Opera)and and rebooting was no help. Please try to sort this out before the next one.
Thanks.
Nancy DuVergne Smith
Mon, 03/21/2011 9:24am
Hi, you should receive a URL--this is an online event. So you can watch this from the comfort of your computer.
Harvey Taylor
Sat, 03/19/2011 6:42pm
Would like the address to go to, to participate. I am registered for the event