Who does Scott Walker think he is, anyway?? For starters, he is the Gov of Wisconsin, and he is doing exactly what he campaigned on in the fall---to balance the budget. That's his number one job, and it's not going to get done by "kicking the can down the road", as so many politicians do. So, give this man a little credit for courage, and a little more for integrity and then a dollop extra for plain common sense. He has actually asked the teachers and other union employees to pay a little more towards their pension funds and to kick in a little for their health care, which up to now has been a free benefit for teachers. On top of that, he has requested an end to collective bargaining, a highly controversial issue. What?!! How can he do this? Isn't that tantamount to taking the power away from the people? There are those who say that, and some Democrats are even threatening to bring "blood" to the streets to fight this "outrageous" threat to the unions.Doesn't sound like very civil talk, does it? But civility goes out the window when one's livelihood is challenged, and that is evidently what is happening here, though shrouded in "principle" and "worker's rights".
The problem is that there appears to be no other way to prevent the state of Wisconsin from going broke. Something had to give, because the alternative will be massive lay-offs and/or higher taxes for everybody. The "people" in this case are the citizens of Wisconsin, including many who are not union workers. So, who's rights need protecting, and is it right for the private sector, the non-union members in Wisconsin, to have the weight of the broken budget placed more so on their backs? But doesn't that mean that "Joe", the non-union worker pays twice---once, for his own tax contribution, and then again for his neighbor's union perks via taxes? Is that fair? Not really, but life isn't fair sometimes, and the money has to come from somewhere to support the unions, which supposedly protect "the people"---but wait, in this case, "the people" are the people of Wisconsin, not a big, powerful corporation. The day of reckoning appears to have arrived----there's no money left in the till. The bad news is---Wisconsin is just the tip of the tipping point. Indiana and New Jersey have already managed to cut their budgets by reducing union expenses. California,New York, and many other states will have to soon face the same reality---budgets have to be trimmed, and much of the budget goes to unions.
Don't look for this issue to get resolved without a fight from the unions, their members, or the Democrat party. President Obama , himself,who one would hope would show a little presidential restraint and tend more to his own budget crisis, has weighed in on the Wisconsin battle saying that "it seems like an assault on unions". And to be honest, he and all Democrats have motivation to protect and defend the unions--for they are one of the heaviest contributors to Democrat party election coffers. Which also, in a very convoluted way, means that all of us, both private and public employees, are contributing to the Democrat party, like it or not, by virtue of the taxes paid to help support the unions.
So, keep an eye on Wisconsin and those who are leading the charge for change---it's a huge change, and one which could spread across the country and tip the balance of power---away from the people? Or is it really perhaps power back to the people and away from unions which have become too big not to fail? Paradoxically, unions, which originally were formed as protection against big business greed and employee abuse--have increasingly become their own big business with their own form of greed and employee oppression,not to mention that they have become a huge financial force within the Democrat party. Labor spent 400 million to elect President Obama in 2008. They are still very much needed for balance and fairness, but forcing workers to be union members, funneling union money into one political party's campaign funds which, by the way, bears a striking resemblance to money laundering of public and private taxes, and enforcing strikes against the welare of the public, has become too heavy handed and contrary to American ideals. The polls are showing a decided slant against government union power. When the "gimmees" exceed that which is actually available, then the game may be up for union leaders, who like all the rest of us, must learn the same lesson---moderation in all things, and in cases of busted budgets, serious sacrifices.
The 14 Democrat Senators from Wisconsin who left the state in order to avoid the process of voting on this issue, should be reprimanded and perhaps relieved of their duties---have they not heard that their first obligation is to "the people" of Wisconsin? That would be all of the people, not just the union members. Showing up would be not only admirable, but should be obligitory for keeping one's job---or are they more concerned about 2012, than actually putting in a good day's work? Oh, I get it---it's whatever pleases the party that gets one voted back into office that's really necessary. Yes, that is called survival and sometimes, unfortunately does trump a true work ethic, regardless of the fact that a Senator is a public servant-- and that's what gives politics such a dirty rap.
Will this be the public union's moment of truth----a waterloo that's been a long time coming, and an example of one of the ways this country will finally pull itself away from the cliff of extreme entitlement generosity at the expense of the private sector? Keep watching---before posting this blog, the Wisconsin Republican Assembly passed the Governor Walker's bill---without the presence of the 14 boycotting Senators. Now it goes to the Senate--where there are troubled waters ahead. The fat lady hasn't sung yet on this one---when she finally does, one hopes reason, fairness, and balance will have been restored.
Beware of the media's tendency on this issue---which is to dramatically and incorrectly compare it with what's happening in Egypt and other mid eastern countries. Those are struggles for democracy against unscrupulous dictators and extreme living conditions. What's happening in Wisconsin is a critical budget matter, plain and simple---and it's happening all over the country. Most Americans agree that unions are an important part of our democracy, and to accuse others of trying to dismantle them is wrong and disingenuous. What is right and honest, is that the unions too, must learn to live within their means, that being the state in this case---so that they may continue to guard and protect, not bully and rule, in this very troubling time of financial crisis. Wisconsin today---who and what's next?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The union in Wisconsin has already conceded to the financial demands of Governor Walker. The only issue left is the union's right to collective bargaining. What is a union if it cannot engage in collective bargaining? Many states are in deep financial trouble, and some of them would like to solve their problems on the backs of workers. But their problems are too immense for that tactic, so why aren't they asking the well-off to chip in a little more which actually might make a difference? No, Governor Walker is out to break the union, and other Republican governors are watching this struggle carefully for indications of how their own union busting desires may fair. You admit unions have been important to American history. Yes, unionization in the private sector is down from a high of 35% to 8%. Public sector unionization stands at 16%. What will happen to those hard won workers' rights once the unions are gone altogether? Two pivot points your readers may wish to investigate are the Wagoner Act of 1935 and the Taft-Hartly Act of 1957. The first legitimized labor unions, the second pulled the rug out from under them. Ever since then unions have been on the decline. Wisconsin may be their last gasp, or it may be an opportunity for the public to realize how the unions helped creat the American middle class.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: By a better source, public sector unionization is 36%.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your omment---I was wondering when you would correct your first figure on public sector unionization---but then, I'm not sure membership figures really support your implication that the workers in America will suffer greatly if the unions would no longer exist. I believe the facts show that in most states, the private sector earns more per hour than the public union worker, and the quality of work is better, as their salaries depend on merit, not union rules. However, the big perks--- pensions and insurance--are way more than what most private sector people earn or are offered. That appears to be what is costing the state of Wisc. and in effect, the private citizen too much to bear any longer. What do you suggest as an alternative solution? Higher taxes? That will hurt everyone, including the union workers. Just tax the very rich? I believe studies have shown even that is not a sustainable fix---we're simply too far down the over spending cliff. Simple economics 101 says the result of higher taxes of any kind would be higher consumer costs ,hence fewer buyers, which would then cause an even worse slow down in the already snail like recovery of the economy. Collective bargaining for public unions began ironically in 1959 with many people, including FDR and George Meany, the legendary AFL-CIO president , opposed to it. It was a rather revolutionary idea, as the imbalance of power against the tax payer, who has no seat at the bargaining table was just too stark. We will see what develops next--perhaps another revolutionary move to remove collective bargaining?
ReplyDeleteP.S. Meant to say collective bargaining also started, ironically, in Wisconsin! Bottom line---the times have changed, or more succinctly-"desperate times call for desperate measures".
ReplyDeleteHave you taken Econ. 101 or American History 101? (1)A graduated income tax, which was decimated by the Reagon administration in 1981, had already demonstrated its effect of improving conditions for the working man and woman. (2)Public unions may have begun in 1959, but FDR had been dead since 1945! (3)Removing collective bargaianing is precisely what's at stake, since the union has already conceded the cuts the Wisconsin Governor has proposed. (4)The public is represented in the negotionations since it is their elected officials working for them. (5)It's not so ironic that collective bargaining started in Wisconsin as it is symbolic. The winner in Wisconsin will have a ripple effect across the entire nation. That's why it's so important they get it right and why people are demonstrating throughout the country. (6)Most working people in the public and private sectors have not been union members, but they have been beneficiaries none-the-less, since the unions set the standards of a living wage, vital benefits and decent and safe working conditions. This battle will affect all of us, not just union members and not just public employees, but all of us.
ReplyDeleteAnother correction: Public unions didn't begin in 1959--just the right of public employees to collective bargaining, as you correctly stated.
ReplyDeleteYes, and therein lies the confusion re FDR, who I believe is well known for having warned against public unions in general---while he was alive--- and the conflict of interest between the unions/government and the private sector. Though he obviously was not referring to collective bargaining, at least in name, at the time, looks like he was right to have forseen the negative effects of public unions and the inherent problems we are now seeing manifested, as
ReplyDeleteWisc. and other states simply cannot afford the sometimes extreme and unreasonable demands of the collective bargaining process. Greed and out of control power are not an exclusive trait found only in employers and huge business. But collective bargaining and the power it wields is not a tool that most of the private sector employees enjoy or benefit from.
I think you're right about FDR's opinion about public unions in general. Of course, that was in the '40s. George Washington warned against political parties. And you're right that most private sector employees don't have the benefit of collective bargaining, a sad reality: The erosion of unions during the last 54 years, thwarted by the schemes of big business.
ReplyDelete