Strange bedfellows? Not necessarily.
One of the side stories of last Tuesday's election was the rejection by Washington voters of two alternate propositions designed to get the state government out of the business of selling alcoholic beverages. Washington is one of only nine states that, to some degree or other, still participate directly in the sale of beer, wine and/or alcohol at the retail level (the others are Alabama, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah and Virginia). And since those states all operate the retail stores from which some or all of such beverages are sold, the clerks and managers working at those stores are government employees.
Neo-prohibitionists and temperance activists like the idea of state monopolies on the sale of alcohol for a number of reasons. First, if they can't stop such sales altogether, they'd rather have the government managing it, which pretty much guarantees poor and/or surly service, limited selection and higher prices. These folks consider such conditions beneficial, as they supposedly discourage alcohol consumption (as opposed to, say, just forcing consumers to purchase products of lesser quality). Then there's the argument that gevernment employees are somehow better able than private entrepreneurs to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors and intoxicated people. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Finally, limiting or prohibiting the sale of alcohol as a private enterprise lends it a whiff of stigma, in addition to discouraging the kind of broader public participation in the industry that might result in more informed and politically active advocates.
The agenda of the unions, on the other hand, is somewhat more straightforward. State controlled liquor store employees are members of the state employees' association (and, in Washington and Pennsylvania, at least, of the United Food & Commercial Workers' Union), and the unions want to keep it that way. This suits the neo-prohibitionists as well, because those employees can command higher salaries and better benefits than could private liquor store employees, thus raising the cost of a bottle. The unions' most vocal opposition to privatization of state liquor monopolies tends to be based on "loss of jobs." Of course, privatization would likely actually result in more jobs. They just wouldn't be union jobs.
Privatization, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. The original Washington ballot initiative, Prop 1100, was designed to do more. It would, for example, have permitted retailers to offer volume discounts (e.g., to restaurants and warehouse clubs) and to buy directly from producers, thus bypassing the wholesalers and distributors whose pieces of the action so sharply increase the cost of wine, beer and liquor at the retail level (and add no value). Cue up the neo-prohibs again on the cost-cutting, although on these issues the store employees' unions don't much care. But that's where the other set of big guns come in. The middle-men (who were for the alternative ballot initiative, Prop 1105, before they were against it) have powerful lobbies and although they make all their money from the sale of intoxicating beverages, they're not above joining forces with the anti-alcohol crowd to keep it coming.
Even if you don't live in a control state, you're likely to be hearing more from this unholy alliance in the near future. Since 2005, when the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the laws of New York and Michigan restricting direct shipping of wine to consumers (Granholm v. Heald), that area of commerce has expanded, with more states permitting it to one degree or another, and internet sales booming. Direct shipping threatens both the state store employees' unions and the middle-men and it drives the neo-prohibs absolutely nuts.
Not surprising, then, that they've combined to try to legislatively overrule Granholm through a federal bill championing states' rights to place onerous restrictions on interstate commerce when it comes to the sale of alcoholic beverages. The Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act of 2010 currently has 152 sponsors in the House, attracting a spectrum of support from Michele Bachmann to Chaka Fattah. Even before the election, it was looking unlikely that any action would be forthcoming in this Congress, and now at least 40 of those sponsors (including the primary sponsor) will be retiring in January. But they'll likely be replaced and the bill will most certainly be back next year.
The issue will also continue to pop up on state ballots and executive agendas. Conservatives who continue to support state liquor monopolies and bans on direct shipping can try to hang their hats on temperance, states' rights and Section 2 of the 21st amendment. But they face a serious conflict there with the principles of small government and promotion of free enterprise. Not to mention crawling into bed with the powerful public employees' unions. Voters should hold them to account on this.
One of the side stories of last Tuesday's election was the rejection by Washington voters of two alternate propositions designed to get the state government out of the business of selling alcoholic beverages. Washington is one of only nine states that, to some degree or other, still participate directly in the sale of beer, wine and/or alcohol at the retail level (the others are Alabama, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah and Virginia). And since those states all operate the retail stores from which some or all of such beverages are sold, the clerks and managers working at those stores are government employees.
Neo-prohibitionists and temperance activists like the idea of state monopolies on the sale of alcohol for a number of reasons. First, if they can't stop such sales altogether, they'd rather have the government managing it, which pretty much guarantees poor and/or surly service, limited selection and higher prices. These folks consider such conditions beneficial, as they supposedly discourage alcohol consumption (as opposed to, say, just forcing consumers to purchase products of lesser quality). Then there's the argument that gevernment employees are somehow better able than private entrepreneurs to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors and intoxicated people. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Finally, limiting or prohibiting the sale of alcohol as a private enterprise lends it a whiff of stigma, in addition to discouraging the kind of broader public participation in the industry that might result in more informed and politically active advocates.
The agenda of the unions, on the other hand, is somewhat more straightforward. State controlled liquor store employees are members of the state employees' association (and, in Washington and Pennsylvania, at least, of the United Food & Commercial Workers' Union), and the unions want to keep it that way. This suits the neo-prohibitionists as well, because those employees can command higher salaries and better benefits than could private liquor store employees, thus raising the cost of a bottle. The unions' most vocal opposition to privatization of state liquor monopolies tends to be based on "loss of jobs." Of course, privatization would likely actually result in more jobs. They just wouldn't be union jobs.
Privatization, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. The original Washington ballot initiative, Prop 1100, was designed to do more. It would, for example, have permitted retailers to offer volume discounts (e.g., to restaurants and warehouse clubs) and to buy directly from producers, thus bypassing the wholesalers and distributors whose pieces of the action so sharply increase the cost of wine, beer and liquor at the retail level (and add no value). Cue up the neo-prohibs again on the cost-cutting, although on these issues the store employees' unions don't much care. But that's where the other set of big guns come in. The middle-men (who were for the alternative ballot initiative, Prop 1105, before they were against it) have powerful lobbies and although they make all their money from the sale of intoxicating beverages, they're not above joining forces with the anti-alcohol crowd to keep it coming.
Even if you don't live in a control state, you're likely to be hearing more from this unholy alliance in the near future. Since 2005, when the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the laws of New York and Michigan restricting direct shipping of wine to consumers (Granholm v. Heald), that area of commerce has expanded, with more states permitting it to one degree or another, and internet sales booming. Direct shipping threatens both the state store employees' unions and the middle-men and it drives the neo-prohibs absolutely nuts.
Not surprising, then, that they've combined to try to legislatively overrule Granholm through a federal bill championing states' rights to place onerous restrictions on interstate commerce when it comes to the sale of alcoholic beverages. The Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act of 2010 currently has 152 sponsors in the House, attracting a spectrum of support from Michele Bachmann to Chaka Fattah. Even before the election, it was looking unlikely that any action would be forthcoming in this Congress, and now at least 40 of those sponsors (including the primary sponsor) will be retiring in January. But they'll likely be replaced and the bill will most certainly be back next year.
The issue will also continue to pop up on state ballots and executive agendas. Conservatives who continue to support state liquor monopolies and bans on direct shipping can try to hang their hats on temperance, states' rights and Section 2 of the 21st amendment. But they face a serious conflict there with the principles of small government and promotion of free enterprise. Not to mention crawling into bed with the powerful public employees' unions. Voters should hold them to account on this.
