这几个例子中,联合汽车工人(United Auto Workers (UAW))人数最少,而工会拥有的财产最多,高达十一亿三千万美元。官员从薪酬上看,算是最廉洁的。但是它雇佣上千人管理其运作,其中超过600人的薪水高于$75,000。而自2000年以来,有高达2602件非法劳工运作的案件发生。中间的管道工联盟,人数不多,官员的薪水却是最高的。总裁的年薪高达42万美金。下面的全国教育协会,就其政治影响力而言,《财富》杂志历来将其高列华盛顿权力颠峰第十五名,也是雇佣近千人管理其运作,其中超过400人的薪水高于$75,000。总裁的年薪接近42万美金。今日美国成长最快的政府雇员工会“美国联邦,州,郡及市政府雇员联盟(The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees)”的总裁杰拉尔德麦肯泰(Gerald Mcentee)的薪金加上福利的年入为最高,达$ 629,291美金。
当然,有人的地方,涉及金钱和利益,就可能有腐败产生。工会也不能例外。上一篇文章中我已经有相当篇幅说到工会腐败的问题。这里,我提供两个具体的实例,以便您有一个比较直观的认识。以教师工会为例。2006年,洛杉矶时报披露,全国教育协会(NEA)在2004年向它所支持的保险公司支付了5000万美金为其会员购买年金,人寿保险和其他金融产品(annuities, life insurance and other financial products)。结果,其会员得到的,是其储蓄的1.75%都交给保险公司做了服务费,是市场价的十倍还不止。其中最昂贵的高达每年4.85%。这笔交易意味着它的会员必须至少要有5%的投资收益才能不亏本。从这笔交易中唯一的受益人,就是从保险公司得到好处的NEA的高管。2007年七月,愤怒的教师把NEA告上法庭。另一个例子,发生于NEA的一家下属工会纽约州教师联合会(New York State United Teachers:NYSUT)。该会在2006年给当时的州长候选人埃利奥特斯皮策(Eliot Spitzer)一笔政治捐款。被斯皮策拒绝,原因是斯皮策作为州检察长,当时正在调查该工会与大保险商ING的一宗“有利可图”的交易。所以这笔政治献金有点行贿的嫌疑。2005年,NYSUT向ING购买了三百万美金的年金保险计划(每位教师会员$6),该计划规定高达3.56%的费用和7%的终止计划惩罚金。一位教师如果存储$10,000美金十年,挣5%的年利息,得支付至少$3,976或者说所挣收益的 63%作为服务费。所以它对于其会员来说,一点也不“有利可图”。NYSUT一边向会员推销该计划,而其300官员,却从另外的的一项分开的401(K)计划中获得好处。另外一个例子发生在田纳西州。当时(1993)的州长拉马尔亚历山大(Lamar Alexander)提出由州政府为所有教师提供责任保险(liability insurance)。由于NEA为会员购买责任保险是许多教师参加NEA的最重要的原因,所以NEA花费由其会员提供的巨额会费,来反对州长的动议,这样虽然惩罚了非会员的教师,也同时惩罚了自己的会员。(资料来源:http://teachersunionexposed.com/conflictsofinterest.cfm)
Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations. A sampling of average annnual salaries in 2008, the most recent data:
Job
Federal
Private
Difference
Airline pilot, copilot, flight engineer
$93,690
$120,012
-$26,322
Broadcast technician
$90,310
$49,265
$41,045
Budget analyst
$73,140
$65,532
$7,608
Chemist
$98,060
$72,120
$25,940
Civil engineer
$85,970
$76,184
$9,786
Clergy
$70,460
$39,247
$31,213
Computer, information systems manager
$122,020
$115,705
$6,315
Computer support specialist
$45,830
$54,875
-$9,045
Cook
$38,400
$23,279
$15,121
Crane, tower operator
$54,900
$44,044
$10,856
Dental assistant
$36,170
$32,069
$4,101
Economist
$101,020
$91,065
$9,955
Editors
$42,210
$54,803
-$12,593
Electrical engineer
$86,400
$84,653
$1,747
Financial analysts
$87,400
$81,232
$6,168
Graphic designer
$70,820
$46,565
$24,255
Highway maintenance worker
$42,720
$31,376
$11,344
Janitor
$30,110
$24,188
$5,922
Landscape architects
$80,830
$58,380
$22,450
Laundry, dry-cleaning worker
$33,100
$19,945
$13,155
Lawyer
$123,660
$126,763
-$3,103
Librarian
$76,110
$63,284
$12,826
Locomotive engineer
$48,440
$63,125
-$14,685
Machinist
$51,530
$44,315
$7,215
Mechanical engineer
$88,690
$77,554
$11,136
Office clerk
$34,260
$29,863
$4,397
Optometrist
$61,530
$106,665
-$45,135
Paralegals
$60,340
$48,890
$11,450
Pest control worker
$48,670
$33,675
$14,995
Physicians, surgeons
$176,050
$177,102
-$1,052
Physician assistant
$77,770
$87,783
-$10,013
Procurement clerk
$40,640
$34,082
$6,558
Public relations manager
$132,410
$88,241
$44,169
Recreation worker
$43,630
$21,671
$21,959
Registered nurse
$74,460
$63,780
$10,680
Respiratory therapist
$46,740
$50,443
-$3,703
Secretary
$44,500
$33,829
$10,671
Sheet metal worker
$49,700
$43,725
$5,975
Statistician
$88,520
$78,065
$10,455
Surveyor
$78,710
$67,336
$11,374
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA TODAY analysis
今日美国的养老保险主要有两种。一种是个人投入的养老保险(defined contribution plans),是完全由个人自己投资的养老保险如401(K)计划(个别雇主会有部分投入(match))。另一种是全部由雇主投入,收入保证的养老保险(defined benefit:a plan guaranteed stream of income for life)。根据劳工部统计资料,在私营企业,后者逐渐为前者所取代。从1992到2005,私营企业提供收入保证的养老保险计划的,从约33%持续下降至2005年的21%左右。见下图: (资料来源是《Trends in retirement plan coverage over the last decade》):
政府雇员的薪水问题,其实不是我这两个系列文章的重点。我的本意还是在探讨美国民主怎样从the government of the people, for the people, by the people变成一种权贵民主和精英民主,和这个精英阶层的构成问题。如果把美国比喻为一家大的公司,没有疑议的是,资本和工会是两个大的股东。资本这个股东当然是最大的玩家而且是不会改变的,工会这个股东改变比较大。它在将来的地位也比较难讲。
您说的工会造成的问题确实很多。历来讨论也不少。如果您参考这个关于教师工会怎样“Watering Down Teacher Evaluations”的<a href="http://teachersunionexposed.com/teacherevaluations.cfm">网页</a>,会找到不少相关资料。比方说:
--30 percent of the principals said the teacher’s tenure would prevent dismissal regardless of the rating; --34 percent said it wasn’t worth enduring the lengthy union grievance proceedings; --51 percent said the union contract makes it difficult to lower the rating of a teacher that has previously received high ratings; and --73 percent said that the performance evaluation doesn’t actually evaluate performance