Comments on: Report: rescind most mandated programs http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/02/04/report-rescind-most-mandated-programs/ Analysis, opinion and ruminations on California education policy Wed, 30 May 2012 07:31:37 +0200 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Eric Premack http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/02/04/report-rescind-most-mandated-programs/comment-page-1/#comment-5259 Eric Premack Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:13:07 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=1212#comment-5259 The LAO's recommendations are a bit more thoughtful than the governor's across-the-board elimination of most mandates--but only a bit. One LAO recommendation would, for example, maintain the very costly collective bargaining mandate. This is the second costliest mandate of them all and is the ruin of many districts. Instead of recommending elimination of the mandate (as the governor does), the LAO chickens-out and suggests that the state maintain the mandate while stiff-arming districts out of the reimbursement money. LAO's lame excuse for stiffing districts rests on arguing that "collective bargaining laws now largely apply both to public and private organizations." While it's true that federal law imposes collective bargaining laws on most private employers, it doesn't impose it on state and local government employers. California law imposes it and many other states don't. Furthermore, the federal collective bargaining laws that govern the private sector are much more simple than California's nightmarish web of bargaining laws that drive-up the cost of the process--and apply to largely competitive industries where labor unions have an incentive to be more realistic in their demands. Instead of trying to undermine the constitutional provisions calling for mandate reimbursement, LAO should take a deeper look at the underlying justification and cost-benefit ratio of each mandate. If they can't take on a tough issue like collective bargaining, perhaps California would be better off outsourcing the LAO too. The LAO’s recommendations are a bit more thoughtful than the governor’s across-the-board elimination of most mandates–but only a bit.
One LAO recommendation would, for example, maintain the very costly collective bargaining mandate. This is the second costliest mandate of them all and is the ruin of many districts. Instead of recommending elimination of the mandate (as the governor does), the LAO chickens-out and suggests that the state maintain the mandate while stiff-arming districts out of the reimbursement money. LAO’s lame excuse for stiffing districts rests on arguing that “collective bargaining laws now largely apply both to public and private organizations.” While it’s true that federal law imposes collective bargaining laws on most private employers, it doesn’t impose it on state and local government employers. California law imposes it and many other states don’t. Furthermore, the federal collective bargaining laws that govern the private sector are much more simple than California’s nightmarish web of bargaining laws that drive-up the cost of the process–and apply to largely competitive industries where labor unions have an incentive to be more realistic in their demands. Instead of trying to undermine the constitutional provisions calling for mandate reimbursement, LAO should take a deeper look at the underlying justification and cost-benefit ratio of each mandate. If they can’t take on a tough issue like collective bargaining, perhaps California would be better off outsourcing the LAO too.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]>